Evangelical groups make war on terror look like a Crusade

[Richpo64]

>>I never said that the Church never changes. Nor did I say it "changes so slowly that it means that it never changes." What I said is that the Holy Spirit moved Pope Innocent III to write a specific letter on forced conversions and you claim that time has made it irrelevant. <<

>>Where do you get this stuff?<<

From you of course. You have to go back to 1201 to find anything that even remotely relates to something that is happening in the year 2007. You claim this proves your point. I point out that the Church has changed it's stance on this, and many issues over hundreds of years and you claim that even though it says it's changed, it really hasn't. You're being ridiculous and frankly you look like a fool. You really should reconsider your religious affiliation or at least keep your mouth shut.

[Richpo64]

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

By Bernard Chapin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/14/2007

Robert Spencer is one of the nation?s foremost experts on Islamic affairs. He is the editor of the website, Jihad Watch, and the author of two recent books, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). The former holds the particular distinction of being banned by the government of Pakistan. His latest effort, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, analyses and contrasts the world?s most popular belief systems. Mr. Spencer?s articles can be regularly read on frontpagemag.com.


BC: Congratulations, Mr. Spencer, on your recently released, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Tell us the main theme that you focused in on.

Spencer: Thank you. Religion of Peace? is a comparison and contrast of certain aspects of Islam and Christianity, an attempt to refute the common claim that each is equally likely to incite its adherents to violence, and a means to rally those who enjoy the fruits of Judeo-Christian civilization, whether or not they are Jews and Christians, to an awareness of how seriously that civilization is threatened by the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. I hope that awareness will lead to a stronger defense of that civilization.


BC: Over the course of the past two years you have also published The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). What are you saying in your new book that has not been said previously?


Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is a general overview of the elements of Islam that jihadists are using to recruit and motivate terrorists today. The Truth of Muhammad is a biography of the founder of Islam. Religion of Peace? is neither of those things. It is an evaluation of the Christian theocracy scare (as enunciated by bestselling books such as American Fascists by Chris Hedges) and a comparison of various aspects of Christian and Islamic Scripture and history in order to demonstrate what the real threat is, and to resist the moral equivalence that blankets the popular culture today.


BC: How virulent has been the reaction to your work in Islamic quarters? Have you had a fatwa declared against you? Any good stories to share?


Spencer: Well, I always hope that there will be a reasoned response to the points I raise, and a genuine dialogue between people who disagree, but I?m still waiting. Invariably reactions from Muslims feature denial of the points I make about Islam, despite the fact that I work exclusively from Islamic sources and the words of Islamic spokesmen, plus personal abuse. I haven?t received a formal fatwa, but many death threats, including one from a man who was determined to kill me because Islam is a religion of peace. One of his messages read in part: ?I will be violent against anyone who hurts muslim feelings about Prophet. It is a religion of peace for everyone until some duckhead sprews out his damn saliva on a senstive topic as this. Spencer will be delivered.?


BC: If you had to estimate, across the world, what percentage of the Muslim population is radicalized?


Spencer: In the sense of actively pursuing jihad violence, only a tiny minority. In the sense of supporting those who perpetrate violence, a considerably higher percentage. Note, for example, that on September 11, 2006, Al-Jazeera asked Muslims, ?Do you support Osama bin Laden?? 49.9% of respondents said that yes, they did.


BC: Considering your area of concentration, what positive impact do you think that your scholarship, along with your website Jihadwatch.org, has had upon western readers? Have you had any effect on our policy makers?


Spencer: I would like to think that I have made some people more aware of the nature and magnitude of the global jihad threat than they were previously. I?ve had positive meetings with several congressmen on jihad-related issues.


BC: I saw clips of a debate between yourself and Dinesh D?Souza which was held at the Conservative Political Action Conference. What do you have to say to critics who imply that pointing out the deficiencies of Islam actually serves to harm relations between Muslims and westerners?


Spencer: D?Souza claims that criticism of Islam breeds jihadists. But if peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. In fact, they should welcome them. You can?t reform what you won?t admit needs reforming. If identifying the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify their actions will be enough to drive peaceful Muslims into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? Pretending that the jihadists aren?t using Islamic teachings in this way will do nothing to stop them from doing so.


BC: What of the allegation that you have ignored many of the positive passages in the Koran as a means to present a distorted picture of the Muslim world?


Spencer: This is wholly false, as anyone who read my books will know. In Religion of Peace? I discuss at length the passages of the Qur?an that enjoin tolerance of unbelievers, and explain how mainstream Muslim exegetes understand those passages in light of passages that enjoin violence. Also, I am now Blogging the Qur?an weekly at HotAir.com (archive here), going through the text cover to cover ? no one can say I am ignoring any passage at all in this endeavor.


BC: What do you make of the idea that it is possible for conservatives and Muslims to find common political ground in America? Do you think that D?Souza had some valid points in The Enemy at Home?


Spencer: I?m sorry to say that The Enemy At Home is one of the most poorly reasoned books I have ever read. Nowhere in it does D?Souza identify even one of the Muslims with whom he recommends conservatives ally. When I pressed him on this point, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Yet Ali Gomaa has been identified by the New York Times as a supporter of the terrorist group Hizballah, and has reaffirmed that those who leave Islam should be punished. He has also declared statues un-Islamic ? a point that D?Souza scorns as insignificant. But what if supporters of this view came to power in Europe, which is not a remote possibility, and destroyed the artistic and cultural heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization? I am not convinced that that prospect is something about which we should be sanguine; nor am I convinced that supporters of a terror group will make reliable allies for conservatives. Until D?Souza can come up with any more compelling examples of those with whom he recommends we ally, I suggest we approach his recommendations with extreme reserve.


BC: I?ve heard different estimates, ranging from 30 to 60 percent, of how many European Muslims wish to live in a country ruled by Sharia law, but how popular do you think the idea of Sharia is with Muslims in our country?


Spencer: CAIR?s Ibrahim Hooper has said that he would like to see the U.S. government become Islamic. Other Muslim leaders in the U.S. have expressed similar sentiments. Sharia law is integral to Islam. It would be extremely surprising to find a large population of Muslims that rejected and opposed it ? although on the other hand, it was Muslim women who defeated the recent Sharia initiative in Canada.


BC: I suspect that I am not the only westerner completely dumbfounded by Sharia?s appeal within the Islamic community. What in this practice so appeals to them?


Spencer: It is regarded as the law of Allah, and encompasses every aspect of human behavior. Such a totalitarian comprehensiveness appeals to many, Muslim and non-Muslim.

[_JS]

>>I never said that the Church never changes. Nor did I say it "changes so slowly that it means that it never changes." What I said is that the Holy Spirit moved Pope Innocent III to write a specific letter on forced conversions and you claim that time has made it irrelevant. <<

>>Where do you get this stuff?<<

From you of course. You have to go back to 1201 to find anything that even remotely relates to something that is happening in the year 2007. You claim this proves your point. I point out that the Church has changed it's stance on this, and many issues over hundreds of years and you claim that even though it says it's changed, it really hasn't. You're being ridiculous and frankly you look like a fool. You really should reconsider your religious affiliation or at least keep your mouth shut.

I never claimed, nor implied this: "even though it says it's changed, it really hasn't."

I don't understand why you cannot follow a basic argument.

You really should reconsider your religious affiliation or at least keep your mouth shut.

I love being a Catholic. If you have a problem with me being a practicing Catholic, then there are proper channels to go through to register your complaint. In the meantime I'll continue to serve Christ in His Church according to His will, and not the will of Richpo64, no matter how highly you think of yourself.

[Richpo64]

>>I love being a Catholic. If you have a problem with me being a practicing Catholic, then there are proper channels to go through to register your complaint.<<


Speaking of complaints, are you pro "choice"?

[_JS]

No.

I'm against capital punishment as well.

[Richpo64]

>>I'll continue to serve Christ in His Church according to His will, and not the will of Richpo64, no matter how highly you think of yourself.<<

It's obvious who has a high opinion of themselves JS. It's you. A catholic defending the American left and radical Islam.
Disgusting.

[kimba1]

westerner completely dumbfounded by Sharia?s appeal within the Islamic community. What in this practice so appeals to them?


huh??

uhm
after 9-11 there is a group trying to bring an american version of the taliban
there is serious appeal to have such structure in our lives.

[_JS]

It's obvious who has a high opinion of themselves JS. It's you. A catholic defending the American left and radical Islam.
Disgusting.

*yawn*

The standard drivel I expect from you.

[Richpo64]

I'm crushed. Really

 

[yellow_crane]

 A catholic defending the American left and radical Islam.
Disgusting.

[/quote]

Interesting and revealing choice of comment. 

Wonder if Richpo thinks a Catholic who defends the "American Left" should be excommunicated?  I only posit this because Richpo often seems to assess and offer an opinion of some variance from his lynch rope mentality by first expressing how much he "HATES" it, and then demanding they be severely punished well beyond the pale.


One encounters this same kind of call for universal rigidity of comformity of right-wing subscription among the fundi/evan crowd, which I have railed against for the last ten years--railing against those who say nothing while the loud and rowdy Protestant Right scream on.

Now we see rudimentary and increasing evidence of the Catholic extremists doing the same.

Mel Gibson, that whacky TV Irish Priest who never blinks his eyes, of course Richpo, etc.

Extremism.

Perhaps there are no other Catholics in here, so no shame is then intended for those who remain silent.

Or maybe they agree with Richpo--that it is disgusting that anti-extremism in the Catholic Church maintains a voice.

[Richpo64]

>>Wonder if Richpo thinks a Catholic who defends the "American Left" should be excommunicated?<<

Well yellow, I suggest you read up on the subject and come to your own conclusions. Better yet, do what you always do, stick to the template.

As for what yellow stain thinks, who cares.

[yellow_crane]

>>Wonder if Richpo thinks a Catholic who defends the "American Left" should be excommunicated?<<

Well yellow, I suggest you read up on the subject and come to your own conclusions. Better yet, do what you always do, stick to the template.

As for what yellow stain thinks, who cares.

Please identify the source of your oft-repeated "template" metaphor.

Where did you hear it?


I do not understand your suggestion, after my expressing what YOUR own conclusion might be, that I read up on the subject.  Your conclusion would rightfully require your doing the reading up.  Or maybe you do not have the standard template for arriving at a conclusion, maybe by now you are just programmed and pointable, requiring no intellectual assembly.

Has Anne Coulter ever said anything you disagree with . . . anything that you considered just too far rhetorical for general, universal good taste?

Maybe your initially normal  ability to discern and sort identities has dissipated in direct correlation to your particiipatory right-wingism being spoonfed to you by Fox, CNN, and all those fascist web sites with stables full of John Birch and fundi roundeye wingers way, way far to the Right?

I do not have to "read up" on ;the Catholic Church in order to discern anything you might say as their opus dei modus operandi.

The Catholic Church is the oldest news, and the  Right Wing in the Catholic Church is commisserate with their greed for money (power), ebbing and flowing, as with the opus dei mel types.

And my post was about other Cahtolics in here listening to your shit and standing silent.   It is to me the most repellent part of church involvement in politics in America--having a button for belly-up where a keyboard of viable resonces should be wired and lit up.

Churches in general in America are that shivering crowd watching a bully beat someone unmercifully, but are too afraid to speak up.  The Churches in America are cowards who refuse to stand up. 

That does not mean, however, that I, from where the Sun now stands, do not declare that I will forever fight the bully religious pretenders  like yourself who exhibit no spriituality, but have instead only a grisly intimidative message to deliver.

There is more to political argument than being a bully with a threat.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Yes, it is open shop.

Do you feel this is GOOD or BAD?

[kimba1]

bullies a bad thing??

remember columbine?
a school shoot out is when a harrased nerd has taken too much and finally break
we worship bullies.
I don`t recall churches ever cowering from bullies
maybe cheer or laugh
but cower hardly
virginia tech was caused by a bully victim.
what we don`t like is people losing it and making trouble
might makes right

[Amianthus]

We all can add 2+2 and get the correct answer, perfectly.

I glossed over this the first time, but I was going back and re-reading some posts, and I decided to correct this.

Your statement assumes a common number base and a common set of integers.

However, your statement - I assume you meant 2+2=4 - is not true in all cases.

I can state 2+2=10 and be perfectly correct.

Or, to be even weirder, 2+2=121 is also perfectly correct.