Draginol: But Christianity doesn't espouse a specific form of government which I think is the key difference.Islamists have a pretty specific goal -- to recreate the Caliphate and get everyone living under Sharia law.

Hope you realize that Islamists are not the main-stream Muslims, Islam doesn't "espouse a specific form of government". All it says to whoever govern is "Consult them (i.e. the people) and ask for God's help".The Caliphate system was a Model of "Fedarlism" and the last one of them was defeated in WWI. The minority who are trying to resurrect it are so stupid in thinking they can do that by force. The stupidity of the idea is very clear to ALL Main-Stream Muslims. But you will always have fanatics who dream crazy ideas.

We should always differentiate between the religion itself and the actions of a minority of its followers who twist it in order to achieve their political agendas. Killing in Islam is one of the Major sins any human can commit. It Clearly says "whoever kills ONE person it is as if he Killed ALL PEOPLE" it didn't say "ONE Muslim" and it didn't say "ALL Muslims" or even "ALL Believers", it said "ONE PERSON" ...... and " ALL PEOPLE". Even in Death penalty, it sholud only be applied if and only if the killer "willingly" admitted the crime. No matter how strong the evidence is "beyond doubt" or not it does not get the killer death penalty in Islamic law. ALL Muslim Countries follow this law (by the way it is one of the few laws that they all agree on".

As for the rules of war, Islam clearly states that it is "forbidden in war to harm (even to harm) unarmed people, POW's, Women, Children, and never to destroy property" and whoever does that must be "Punished according to Law". Islam also says that "Never use force unless you are defending yourself" and even then it says "Be just and never exceed the harm done to you, and if you forgive and leave it to Allah, your reward will be multiplied many times over". Do you know of any thing or any system in this current world that is more peaceful than that?

The actions of even ALL muslims should not be the criteria for judging Islam ITSELF. Looks could be decieving .... especially if the look is from afar and based on misleading media and disinformation.

The actions of even ALL muslims should not be the criteria for judging Islam ITSELF. Looks could be decieving .... especially if the look is from afar and based on misleading media and disinformation.

Replace Muslim with Nazi and Islam with National Socialism. Does it still sound reasonable? And if not, what is the difference?

You really equate Islam with Nazism, Brad? You really think the problems present are inseparable from the religion? How do you validate that with your "universally positive" personal experiences with Muslims?

Have your interactions with Christians here at JU been "universally positive"? Would you consider some of the fundamentalist stuff that passes for "religion" down in that section laudable? Given that we far more often see hatefulness and intolerance in our personal lives from Christians, would you equate Christians with Nazis?

Come on. This is too easy an answer. I would expect it from the usual fearful suspects around here, but not you. Do you think it is just chance that keeps Christians from acting on the mountains of intolerance and violent sentiment in the Bible while SOME Muslims in SOME places do?

Or could it be another factor that is just taking advantage of religion?

Would you consider some of the fundamentalist stuff that passes for "religion" down in that section laudable?

Gotta step in here, Baker. As a fundamentalist, I have to tell you, there's not much push for a "worldwide caliphate" as you portray it. I have my beliefs, and others have theirs, but truly I've never asked for anything except the right to practice my faith without government interference.

Yes, there's a push to ban gay marriage (which I DO consider a bit ridiculous, for several reasons, as you know), but barring federal recognition of gay marriages is hardly equivalent to executing someone for renouncing their faith. Even Fred Phelps, for all his idiocy, has not beheaded anybody, nor has he advised his followers to do so. There's simply a lack of widespread examples of Christians strapping bombs to their chests and walking in shopping malls. Even the abortion clinic bombings, as it turned out, were not performed by radical conservative Christians, but by a self avowed atheist.

To tell the truth, I don't know if the radical Islamists are the "true" practitioners of Islam (although their practices are more in line with those of Mohammed, Mohammed did, in fact, live in different times. This doesn't excuse the fact, but it does say you can't directly parallel the two). I have to agree that my personal experiences with Muslims have also been almost universally positive. But then, I've known several people in various militias with whom my experiences have been positive, so those positive experiences don't necessarily give you the full view of the person.

I'm frankly offended that you consider Pat Robertson the moral equivalent of bin Laden, Baker. There's a huge difference between stating words on what you believe God's opinion to be and taking action by killing people. In the former instance, if you're wrong, it doesn't matter much in the big picture because you'll find out in the end; in the latter, it DOES matter, because innocent people DIED for your error.

}As a fundamentalist, I have to tell you, there's not much push for a "worldwide caliphate" as you portray it. I have my beliefs, and others have theirs, but truly I've never asked for anything except the right to practice my faith without government interference."

Which is basically my point... if anyone is listening. Christians in America don't want that not because of their religious beliefs, though, but because they are too fat and happy to risk their obese happiness more often than not. It's easy to see the benefits of a secular life when there ARE benefits to a secular life...

I heard twice today people on television claiming that this was a Christian nation and that it should be recognized as such. A Virginia representative suggested that we should hurry and make more immigration restrictions or we'd have more Muslims in our nation. How often have we had discussions here where people pose this as a "Christian" nation.

You may not call that trying to hijack the nation for a religion because it doesn't seek to IMMEDIATELY impose unwanted values. If you look at what fundamentalists often do in LOCAL politics, school boards, etc., you'll find it is a damned slippery slope.

Is that religion? Nope, they are kooks, and many I think are mentally disturbed. If it were the religion fundamentalists like you would want the same thing, right?

You see, you're basically making my point, Gid.

"I'm frankly offended that you consider Pat Robertson the moral equivalent of bin Laden, Baker. "

Again with Dr. Guy's tactics. I never said that Pat Robertson was the moral equivalent to bin Laden. I said that there were people in the US that would happily make it a Christian "caliphate", and if you don't believe Robertson to be that sort of a person you don't know much about him.

And since you are already offended at me, Gid, I'll risk a bit more and pose the idea that you aren't really a fundamentalist in the first place. You hold your cards close to the vest in most religious discussions, but even then you don't strike me as fundamentalist at all in your beliefs. Maybe you are coming from a different definition of fundamentalism.


Wait... wait... this irks me. Please point out, Gid, where I morally equated Pat Robertson with bin Laden. I was gonna give you a pass on that, but damn, I'm tired of being ignorantly tarred when people can't come up with a good counter argument.

Quote me, if you would.

The only place I can find that I have mentioned Pat Robertson recently is this quote from a totally different blog. I was pointing out that it wasn't likely that any Muslim fundamentalist society would rise up in the West:

"That won't happen in the west, period, any more than Pat Robertson will make America the next Imperial Christendom."

Feel free to back up that such is equating Pat Robertson morally with bin Laden. If you took offense at that, it's odd that you didn't include that when you responded to the comment, instead choosing to tar me blindly here the next day.

Please point out, Gid, where I morally equated Pat Robertson with bin Laden.

In response #9, you seem to be indicating the only difference between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists is comfort level. Maybe I read it wrong, but that seems to be your central theme.

It needs to be noted that bin Laden is not poor, he's not destitute, he is an extremely wealthy man, part of that 1% that so many of the wannabe revolutionaries detest. And he didn't build his wealth on terrorism; he inherited it. He has simply EXPANDED that wealth on terrorism.

I feel there is a HUGE difference between Islamic and Christian fundamentalists. Even the terrorists in Northern Ireland, as bad as they were, did not stoop to the level of the nutjobs of Islam.

hold your cards close to the vest in most religious discussions, but even then you don't strike me as fundamentalist at all in your beliefs. Maybe you are coming from a different definition of fundamentalism.

I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, Baker. While I'm not a "young earth" creationist, I am nonetheless a creationist, and not at all in line with the secularly accepted theory of evolution (I don't discard ALL of evolution, but I am firmly convinced against the idea of INTERspecies evolution, and I believe that man is a separate and distinct creation). I may not be what you define as a fundamentalist, but by a technical definition, I would have to say that I pretty much am.

True, there's a hint of social gospel in my core belief system, but I believe caring for the poor and needy (unconditionally) IS a fundamental belief. And I can provide more than ample scripture to support my view, as you are no doubt aware.

"In response #9, you seem to be indicating the only difference between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists is comfort level. Maybe I read it wrong, but that seems to be your central theme."

I didn't mention Robertson at all in #9 or anywhere else in this discussion, so it is a pretty cheap shot claiming that I equated him morally, or in any way to bin Laden. If you think what I said on the other blog was doing so, it's odd you didn't address it when you replied there.

"It needs to be noted that bin Laden is not poor, he's not destitute, he is an extremely wealthy man, part of that 1% that so many of the wannabe revolutionaries detest. And he didn't build his wealth on terrorism; he inherited it. He has simply EXPANDED that wealth on terrorism."

Yep, Dr. Guy already noted that. I'll answer it again.

We look at American nutjobs like him and we see scattered, isolated individuals and pockets. We look at the Middle East and see movements FOLLOWING said nutjobs. In the US bin Laden would be at most leading his group of marginalized hick supremacists or typing his manifesto alone in his cabin sending bombs through the mail.

The difference isn't the religion, it is the willingness of the masses to surrender their will and their lives to extremism. There are enough Muslims in America to make it very, very easy to create a terrorist subculture if they wished it. Why don't they, do you think, if the religion is the issue?

There are enough Muslims in America to make it very, very easy to create a terrorist subculture if they wished it. Why don't they, do you think, if the religion is the issue?

There is a school of thought that states that there are sleeper cells in America working towards that end. That it's a matter of time. I don't know if I wholly subscribe to that school of thought, but I'm not ruling it out entirely as a possibility.

I'd say that 19 people on 9/11/01 certainly proved it's POSSIBLE that there is a terrorist subculture. We can't dismiss the actions of the flying Imams as possible actions of a sleeper cell either.

I'm going to take a leap just to prepare a possible scenario for your consideration. I am by no means presenting it as fact, or even as opinion, but merely as a possibility that you can do with as you wish. It is entirely possible that the subculture DOES exist, but that at the moment Islam is at such a minority status in America that acting would endanger their existence. While I don't approve of our government's tactics, they've proven themselves quite effective in the past at getting rid of such groups in the past when the will strikes them. It is possible these sleeper cells are building up numbers before acting, so they have greater protection.

I wouldn't put that out there even as a serious hypothesis as it is because we already have too much overreaction and hysteria as it is. And we don't need people to act as if an idea grounded wholly in conjecture is in any way fact.

Since a few people are having trouble understanding your point, Baker, allow me to present it in a slightly different way by changing the gist of the above paragraph, after asking the question sans religion.

I got Baker's point, actually. But while it has a grain of truth to it, I don't think it's entirely true. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, for instance, came from Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy country. I'd be willing to bet a few X-Boxes were left behind. And Johnny Walker Lindh didn't come out of the Bronx.

Personal empirical evidence has shown to me that Che Guevara sells better in the suburbs than in the Bronx. In my socialist days, we were hard pressed to get people from the ghettoes in Chicago to attend meetings. We didn't have the same problem in a college with a total enrollment of about 2500.

...and it only took two people to blow up the building in Oklahoma City. We have thousands of militant white supremacists in America, Gid. They claim that they march to the tune of Christianity. Christianity to blame?

It isn't the 15 or the 19 or the 19,000 nutjobs that give extremism power. We have those numbers of Christian wackos here, as I said. Terrorism's power is the army of downtrodden, uneducated, miserable people who are willing to blame their misery on whatever scapegoat is handed to them.

I feel like I've trolled the conversation here enough, and I am resorting to answering the same points (some terrorists are rich!!) over and over. I tossed my own blog about it, and I'll yield the field to those who need yet another spot to bash Islam. It's understandable from some, but from others I think it is uncharacteristically simple.

You don't like to look deeply, though. You like for things to be Democrat vs. Republican, Muslim vs. Christian, Liberal vs. Conservative, Atheist vs. Religion, etc. It makes it easier for you, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Ilk, huh?  Well I have been called worse.  And no, I am not looking for easy answers.  Indeed I find none.  I dont hold all muslims to be terrorists any more than you do.  I hold them accountable for not condeming those among them that are, and even excusing them.  Remember Cat Stevens?  Nice peace loving person he, right?  Yet he supported the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.  So I hold him in equal contempt as Khomeni (sp).

There are a few muslims that have condemned the terrorism, just as there were a few Germans that sought to stop the Holocaust.  And my anger and frustration is not with them, but the other billion that sit silently while the tens of thousands kill and maim in the name of Allah.

And as for my ilk, I did not accuse you of supporting terrorism or even excusing it, just excusing the "silent majority" and blaming us for the sins of our fathers.  That was what I was railing against.  You accuse me of failing to come up with a counterpoint, yet there is none to your argument.  That all religions have had a violent past.  That is not a point, that is a fact.  WOuld you have me take up the counter point that it did not exist?  That is shere stupidity.  However my point is that I am not holding the Jews and Christians of today responsible for the sins of their fathers, and yet your point is since our fathers were bad men, we have no right to condemn the bad men of today.  And that is hardly a strong debating point.

Beware the 3 fingers.

"And as for my ilk, I did not accuse you of supporting terrorism or even excusing it, just excusing the "silent majority" and blaming us for the sins of our fathers."

I don't excuse anyone that is silent, and I have blogged against Islamic apathy as you well know. On the other hand, to say that Islam itself is a "violence-inducing ideology masqerading as a religion" goes beyond condemning apathy or pointing out social problems. All that does is focus on, sorry, knee-jerk bias while the real problems fester.

Can you imagine a billion+ people all "induced to violence"? No, I think it would be a very, very slim minority that is causing problems, and most of them in places none of us will ever go. If any of this fear mongering were accurate you'd be living in a post apocalyptic world.

...and thank God for that, huh? There are more Muslims in the US than we have troops in our armed forces. I think if they wanted they could spoil your day.

On the other hand, to say that Islam itself is a "violence-inducing ideology masqerading as a religion" goes beyond condemning apathy or pointing out social problems. All that does is focus on, sorry, knee-jerk bias while the real problems fester.

Now, THERE you and I both agree, Baker.