Freedom of Religion (Islam Counts)

Vanity | 11/17/02 | Persuasion

[patriciaruth]

The bible requires killing homosexuals, adulterers and adultresses, murderers and other sinners.

That is the Old Testament, and if you disagree with passages in the Torah, you should talk with the Jews about those laws that governed the Israelites.

Some Christian groups still believe all that still holds, but most Christians believe Christ fulfilled the Law and instituted a new Commandment, "that ye love one another even as I have loved you." He forgave the woman taken in adultery who was about to be stoned and prevented the stoning. (He also commanded her to "sin no more.")

These are the Christian traditions, forgiveness and love, and throwing up old Israelite laws that a minority of Jews and Christians still believe in is the same tactic that you are criticizing the Muslim critics of using, condemning the whole for the views of a minority.

However, I do agree with a lot of people here that the "minority" of Muslims who believe in killing or enslaving Infidels (you, me and our families and friends) is a lot greater than you think, especially if you add in the Muslims who acquiesce in this murder and slavery.

And don't kid yourself about the latter. It is Muslims who still continue to practice slavery.

[alieno nomine]

BUMP

[Cvengr]

By your line of reasoning, since some fallen angels fail to obey Satan, as Christians we should still love fallen angels.

Reductio ad absurdum

The behavior of some such as murderers or homosexuality falls into the domain of criminality and for that reason alone strictly opposed with appropriate force. If deadly force is more appropriate, then so be it.

With respect to attacks upon the nation, these are acts of war by loosely grouped ideologues. Accordingly they may be dealt with both individually and collectively at our discretion. Those who harbor them now become subject to group attack. All the more reason to avoid association with such a group, just as its preferable to avoid all association with anything homosexual to avoid being jointly judged with the guilty.

[Xphantasos]

PING

[Publius6961]

I think many of you who have posted ought to be ashamed and I think it ought to stop.

I suppose you want us to hold hands now and sing kum-ba-ya?
Hate to say this but you have a lot of reading to do to get up to speed on the problem.

There must be a million words written so far with reasonable justification as to why the muslims by action or acquiescense, have shown themselves deserving of any criticism they receive. Historical citations and current wholesale murderous behavior and related celebrations are a bit hard to ignore.

Lastly, who cares what you think?

Those sand maggots are a curse on humanity.

Got a problem with that?

[Persuasion]

Hey, if it makes you cool off a bit, sing away.

Sir, I've done plenty of reading and I still
believe that it is wrong to kill the innocent.

As I've said before, I have no problem with
going to war against our enemies. I have
no problem with killing people who deserve to
be killed. But I've got a huge problem with
killing those who do not.

Yes, many muslims have killed other people.
Yes, the religion itself asks them to do so.
No, that does not justify killing innocent
people. You cannot go about intentionally killing
civilians someone for things their ancestors have
done in the past. You cannot kill them for crimes their
neighbors or relatives have commited. That is not
justice. It is madness.

[RWG]

Yes it is. Just accept the statements and then argue against them if that is your position; don't burn books, just show the errors in them if there are any.

[phasma proeliator]

The problem lies in the definition of "innocent" and "civilian".

At this point in time - I would not consider any Muslim to be either Innocent or Civilian. My reasoning comes from the Koran, and the historical representation/action of this group (some call it a religion).

Actions count - talk does not.

[Persuasion]

Exactly. And if a muslim has taken no action against
you or your country, killing them is not justified.

[phasma proeliator]

So you would proport only a strict "fire if fired upon" stance?

If I am understanding your position and your statement - then no individual enemy should be engaged until they have fired upon (or acted agressively) toward us?

Are you being so individualistic as to think that there were German (or japanese, or chinese, or Korean, or Somalian)soldiers who should not have been killed because they had never fired a shot of agression?

[Persuasion]

I have not burned any books. I have not deleted any posts.

I have not obstructed anything in any way. I've appealed to the posters to stop raving like lunatics. That has not deprived them of any rights. Indeed, it cannot have, for the raving has increased tenfold.

Did you have any more overreacting to do or can we continue on sensibly?

[Destructor]

"Lately I've been seeing a lot of anti-muslim posts on Free Republic. I think many of you who have posted ought to be ashamed and I think it ought to stop."

You don't seem to be too big on Freedom of Speech!

[Persuasion]

Tell me. If someone telephoned your mother day after day and
issued death threats to her, would wishing the threats
would end make you opposed to freedom of speech?

I doubt that any reasonable person would say so.

No. I am not opposed to freedom of speech. I oppose
irrationality. I oppose the murder of innocent civilians.
I oppose hateful and irrational conservatives who give
the sensible sort a bad name. That is what I oppose.

That is the sort that builds the liberal voter base.

[Persuasion]

If there was enought reasonable evidence to support a claim that a muslim had plotted to cause harm to an innocent American or American friend, fine.

But if there is absolutely no evidence. If that muslim
has never in his life been guilty of any such plot,
then there is absolutely no reason to kill him.

The same applies to any other person. If there is
reason enough to suspect him, fine. Put him through
a trial or tribunal. Kill him if it's necessary. But
if it is not and there is nothing to suggest he
has ever been involved in any plot, for goodness sake,
he has the right to life.

[Persuasion]

The right to free speech means nothing when
the right to life is not observed.

[Persuasion]

I am afraid I can't answer that.

I'm not opposed to wars against militant muslims.
Don't misunderstand me. I support Israel. I believe
the Israelis have every right to defend themselves
and to attack the palestinians. I supported the war
against the Taliban. I will support a war against Iraq.

I will not, however, support the murder of innocent
american muslims.

[Persuasion]

Which fallen angels are those?

[Persuasion]

I don't disagree with passages in the Torah.

And Jesus said he came to establish the law, not to do away with it.

Love and forgiveness certainly have their places in Christanity, but so does justice and ultimately, there will be judgement.

I can't say what most christians believe. My church is non-denominational. We still hold the Old Testament sacred.

However, my point was merely that you can find verses
in any religion's texts that its followers, as a general rule, do not follow. That being the case, using
a religious verse as evidence that an individual plans
to murder you doesn't work.

Again, I'm denying that many muslims murder. That is obviously the case. And I support fighting against that sort. But there are many who do not and will not.
And we should treat the peaceful differently than we
treat attackers.

[Cvengr]

Fallen angels simply fell from judgment of their failure to follow God's will. They have volition. Nothing says all fallen angels remain in Satan's will. Accordingly, the argument ad absurdum uses this class of fallen angel for analogy.