Why is it considered acceptable to criticize Christianity and practically every other organized religion except the one that condones pedophilia, honor killings and domestic violence?
Franklin Graham is probably trying to puzzle that one out after his invitation to the National Day of Prayer at the Pentagon was revoked because of his “controversial” remarks about Islam.
Those remarks included a statement on CNN last year in which he said, "True Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they've committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in these other countries."
The remark was grossly inaccurate because he left out the fact that, in America, 80-year-old men cannot marry an 11-year-old girl and force her to have intercourse against her will as they can in Muslim Saudi Arabia. Being the backwards, intolerant country that we are, we would also arrest people like the Yemeni man who raped his 13-year-old wife causing her to die from internal injuries sustained during repeated forcible intercourse.
Graham was also criticized for having the unmitigated gall to point out that the terrorists who orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States were Muslim extremists and practiced what he described as a “very evil and wicked religion."
Sure, there are a lot of peaceful, wonderful Muslims, but there are also plenty like the 9/11 terrorists and our own Major Nidal Malik Hasan who want to kill as many “infidel” Americans as they can.
The Pentagon defended their decision saying that any anti-Islamic remarks made by Graham would be widely disseminated and possibly cause problems for United States forces overseas. Seems to me it is a bigger problem to ignore the harsh realities of Islam when there are 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the globe.
Even if you are willing to dismiss concerns over Islamic jihadists as involving only a small segment of the Muslim population, can you ignore the other tenets of Islam which allow men to abuse their wives, marry children and murder dishonored family members?
Graham is not the only one facing criticism for taking a shot at Islam. Comedy Central recently censored a South Park episode in which the creators had the audacity to portray Muhammad in (gasp!) a teddy bear costume (it turned out to be Santa Claus in the costume, but that is beside the point).
Anyway, Islam, for whatever reason, forbids the depiction of Muhammad. You may recall a Danish cartoonist received death threats after drawing a picture of Muhammad wearing a turban that looked like a bomb. He and his wife actually had to go into hiding because of the attempts to kill him.
The creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, were cognizant of the dangers of portraying Muhammad, but, irrationally relying on their perception of what free speech actually is and perhaps counting on a certain amount of protection as American citizens, they dropped the blacked out censor bar which had been previously used when “Muhammad” made a guest appearance on the show.
The day after the episode aired, they received the following message from a member of the group known as Revolution Muslim: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”
Van Gogh was murdered in 2004 by a Muslim extremist after making a documentary which explored the treatment of women in Islam. If that message to the South Park creators does not qualify as a threat, then what does?
How can the brass at the Pentagon, or for that matter the network executives at Comedy Central, be reluctant to shed light on how oppressive and dangerous these Muslim extremists are? Why should Franklin Graham face more criticism and ostracism than the radical elements of the Muslim religion he seeks to expose?
Graham said it was his job as a minister to "speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching." It is a shame that those who speak out against evil are afforded less consideration than those who perpetuate it.
Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. She can be reached at kreed@barrowjournal.com.
If you look at the Christian bible like you are the Koran, you'll find as many harmful things. It's just that the people waving the banner of Christianity whole spouting hate don't explicitly call for violence (usually).
Islamic leaders are starting to call out the extremists (with a great deal of success), so it's only a matter of time before things settle down over there.
- Umm there several more.
If you look at the Christian bible like you are the Koran, you'll find as many harmful things. It's just that the people waving the banner of Christianity whole spouting hate don't explicitly call for violence (usually).
- Your comparasion of the koran and the Bible is totally wrong and mis-guided.
Islamic leaders are starting to call out the extremists (with a great deal of success), so it's only a matter of time before things settle down over there.
- Again your wrong, how many muslim clerics calls for celebrations after a muslim terrorist attack. I for one will never forget the muslims celebrating in the streets of every muslim country after 9/11.
I could demonstrate that--by your variety of reasoning--Christianity is a vile, evil religion. But that would be wrong, and miss a whole lot of important points.
You're wrong, and are missing a whole lot of important points.
It is true that the koran speaks of Jesus as a "prophet", but if muhamed would have acknowleded Jesus as The Messiah then he would have been exposing himself and islam to what he/islam is.... a fraud.
I wasn't the tiniest bit ambiguous there. Unless you're suggesting that your faith is the only one that can be right. I certainly haven't seen evidence to support that claim from anyone who makes it.
I've never gotten a good answer from a religious person explaining why they've got the right one. What makes Christianity more right than Islam, or any other religion?
Answer that without an appeal to authority (your god or any supposedly divinely inspired text), or any claim you make is going to be seen as bogus.
Why the threats over Islam humor, not which reglion is right or wrong?
Islam, on a path to moderating. Did that path go throw Times Square in NY, this week?
What you ask is a loaded question, it would be the same as me asking you to provide evidence that there is no God without the benefit of any anti-God literature or your claim would be seen as bogus.
There is no need to recycle the same old liberal arguments, so please feel free to be original at any time.
You have the opportunity to appreciate it further by seeking its structure, but you're content with "god did it."
I'm glad most Christians aren't like you. This country would be an unbearable place if they were.
Are you genuinely unable to understand the conflict here?
Yes, fallible. You first have to demonstrate that it is, in fact, divinely inspired for me to accept what's in it as the irrefutable word of god.
You haven't done this, and you don't seem to have the interest (or ability) to do so. If you can't do that, this conversation can go nowhere.
Your idealogy is proof that it's useless to argue with a retard because you just dont know when your wrong. Besides we all know you get your talking points from MSNBC.
So like I stated before, please feel free to be original.
Whoa, Whoa!!! I feel a victory dance coming on!!!!
And BTW he is a Pakistani born muslim so that kinda proves your wrong yet again about the great religion of peace you call islam...... Oh yeah, I'm doing my victory dance!!!!
FWIW, most Liberals find the truth a bitter pill to swallow. And you young lady the truth has been revealed...... Oh yeah time for the victory dance again!!!!!
Do Christian leaders call out Westboro or any number of Christianity-based hate groups (or individuals) every time they do something hateful? I wouldn't expect them to, because it would be too time consuming.
They've got better things to do, like helping their communities. It's the same with Islamic leaders.
Let me settle this argument for you. There is no empirical evidence of the existence of a Christian God. That is the beauty of Christianity, and most religions, they are based on faith. Faith is roughly something that can’t be proven. Mike, I ask you this, did you truly believe in the holy trinity before you were touched by the hand of God? I will assume your answer to be you did not believe until you were touched and asked Him into your heart. Here’s where Christian have a hard time, me nombre has not been touched and does not have his “proof”. Don’t fault him for that. There’s nothing worse than a hypocritical Christian. Your duty as a Christian is to spread the word and witness, not put people down for not believing in what you believe.
Think about this, I did not fight for this country, putting my life on the line for any single religion. Our Constitution gives us the freedom of religion this also means we have the right of freedom of no religion. As long as your beliefs do not cause harm to others then I’m OK. Historically I understand Christianity is probably responsible for more deaths than Islam but let’s face it how the religion is practiced today is what we are all really concerned about.
Funny we do not see examples of Buddists being terrorists! Hmmm!
Even Jesus' own people, the Jews, deny he is the Messiah.
The Koran does seem to promote some pretty evil stuff like child rape, murdering of one's own relatives and other detestable activity.
Stories in the Old Testament depict God as a jealous God, I have a small problem thinking that the all knowing has reason to be jealous.
Religion can be a scary thing. It promotes the worst in many for some reason. Considering the millions, well, billions rather, that have died in it's name, I would say one would be better off to stay away from it.
Funnier still is the fact that I personally believe there was and is a creator. In addition, I believe that every moment I live on this earth without persecuting another is probably the true essence of what I am suppose to do. Furthermore i think that the creator's spirit is existant in each of us at all times and allows our choices good and bad at all times as well. Imagine that crazy belief huh?
We should all hope that arguments such as these are unnecessary, however we make them up to support some man taught philosophy supposedly subscribed to by holy people who are on some plane higher than the rest of us. Hogwash!
Each of us knows within ourselves what is right and what is wrong! That is the spirit that "talks" to us. It dwells within us all and was instilled there by the creator, call it "God" or any other word. I call it conscious. It is that undeniable voice inside you that speaks through your mind and encourages us to be kind, concerned and fair. We do not always listen but it is always there!
While these may not be words written in the Bible or the Koran or other theological books of entertainment, these thoughts as well, do not produce any hatred of another, inspire us to condemn any other's belief system or set any rules, laws or likewise. The basic belief is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and are not peaked each Sunday at around 11;30 am. The philosophy does not require holding snakes, killing one's own son to impress a supposed All-Mighty on a mountain top or require us to police others. It is simply "live and let live" and if it was practiced, would lead to a far better life for everyone than any "religious" philosophy I have seen.
Happy arguing!
Given the way you reject any discussion of your religious views while denouncing the views of others, this would fit quite well.
However, I prefer to define touchy words like this for the context rather than treating dictionaries as prescriptive.
By my definition, speaking out against someone for something beyond their control is within the scope of bigotry. How do you define it?
The dictionary defines bigotry very vaguely, by that definition everyone would be a bigot. Unless you condone EVERYTHING that anyone would want to do, such as pedophilia, murder or rape. I am only assuming that you would be INTOLERANT to the actions of a pedophile, axe murderer or rapist to whom their actions would seem normal.
You definition is spot on. One can not help their race, gender, height, etc, etc.. However if you are trying to imply that one has no control over their sexual orientation then your wrong. Remember, it is a lifestyle "choice" they make and one that Jesus calls an evil abomination.
My question to you still remains the same. Why do those who call for tolerance are not tolerant of our Christian values?
And we also have to draw a line where individual acts cease to impact others. Homosexuality does no harm to you, so even if your religion does not condone it, a society where people are allowed great freedom won't tend tolerate such views.
You're as free to condemn homosexuals as others are to condemn you for your condemnations of homosexuals. Unless you can demonstrate that your view is a universally accepted principle of Christianity, it's not anything against Christianity for me to call you a bigot for that view.
There are Christians in this very thread and other public forums in Barrow who would disagree with your assertion that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
As for this:
"You definition is spot on. One can not help their race, gender, height, etc, etc.. However if you are trying to imply that one has no control over their sexual orientation then your wrong. Remember, it is a lifestyle "choice" they make and one that Jesus calls an evil abomination."
When did you choose to be heterosexual? If it's a choice, one must also be able to choose the other side, or another possibility within the spectrum.
I did not chose to be hetrosexual. You could say it was just natural. God made me hetrosexual just like he made everyone else hetrosexual. God told Adam and eve to go and procreate, meaning go and have babies. So if God meant for people to be gay then why would God want us to procreate? Remember God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Allison and Eve.
It would seem as if I hit upon something here. Due to your reaction, I wish to inquire weather you are gay or not? If so it would explain part of your liberalism.
You also missed the point by quite a distance.
And no, I'm not gay. You're also assuming I'm liberal. I choose the best approach for the job. Sometimes that's liberal, sometimes it's conservative, and sometimes it's somewhere in-between.
". However it is damaging and confussing to my children."
How?
Leviticus 11:9-12
"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
How do you feel about people who eat shellfish? Do you treat them in the same way you do homosexuals? Do you feel compelled to shield your children from people buying seafood at the grocery store?
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
There are societies where openly condemning gays is socially acceptable, but they might not stop at words when they learned your religious leanings. This is a place where a prominent Christianity-based hate group can have an incendiary domain name on our era's defining technology (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to), and they can face no legal repercussion.
You don't have to hide your religious views, but you do have to accept the social consequences of the society that legally protects your life and freedom if you choose to express them.
I think following a book that tells you homosexuality is wrong with nothing more than "it's unclean" as justification is foolish, but we're free to think these things.
Isn't religious freedom great? :)
I agree.
Although this has been fun, it can not go on forever. So this will be my last post on this thread, But I will leave you with this, Disapproval of something one considers immoral does not equal hate.
Phelps even has "hate" right there in his domain name.
Emmet, very well written!! Your beliefs qualify you as a morally just person. And this is how I define religion. You make a very good point regarding the Zen Buddhist. Some theologians believe Jesus went into Buddhist territory and brought back some of their teachings. This, I believe, was when he went away on a “walk about” for a while and returned to continue his teachings. I remember hearing when he returned some of his teachings had Zen like undertones. I can’t be specific but I’m sure the Christian scholars who are reading may have an idea of what I referring to.