Posted on 09/23/2011 12:19:04 AM PDT by lbryce
“The Democratic party of John F. Kennedy (before the commies took control) had to deal with this kind of thing in the 60s when some Strom Thurmond Dixiecrat goons stood up and went wacko with a cheer or a boo from time to time. “
And you know this how, exactly?
It’s always interesting to see who people regard as devil-figures from the past. Strom Thurmond incidentally became a Republican in 1964 to support Goldwater. In 1942, although exempt from service due to his age, Thurmond resigned a judgeship to join the Army. On D-Day he landed in a glider operation. He was awarded 18 decorations for his service, including the Purple Heart, Combat Infantry Badge, and a Bronze Star for Valor. But alas he doesn’t measure up to your standards.
Muslim is THEIR term used to prevent them from saying their “beloved prophet’s” name. All other religions use their creator’s name - CHRISTianity, HINDUism, CONFUSISism, JUDEAism, etc. The correct term is then MOHAMMEDism and its adherents, MOHAMMEDans.
BTW, why are Mohammedans so adverse to mentioning the name of their “beloved prophet” when so many of them have the name Mohammed? But consistency and common sense are not traits normally found among them.
Muslims avoid the term Mohammedan not because they attempt to avoid saying the name of their prophet. They avoid doing that because it might lead some to believe that they worship Mohammed as a god. In their own teachings he is no god. He's merely the last in a long line of prophets and Muslim simply means one who submits before the will of god.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. I am just not sure what we are supposed to gain by calling them Mohammadans rather then Muslims. .
I accept your criticisms, as I was TECHNICALLY incorrect in equating religions with a person.
>>I’m not trying to be difficult here. I am just not sure what we are supposed to gain by calling them Mohammadans rather then Muslims.<<
You may or may not be a Mohammedan; however, you state that “Muslim means one who submits nefore the will of god”. My point exactly; it is the Mohammedans term for themselves. And it is factually incorrect. No diety could possibly approve of mutilation, bombing, forced conversions and wholesale slaughter. If that is your chosen faith, so be it. Don’t impose it on me.
Muslim is also a PC term and I am opposed to any and all PC terminology.
I’m not a Muslim. I just don’t understand what we gain or what idea is advanced by not calling them Muslims or by calling it a PC word. You must think there is some advantage to using one over the other or you wouldn’t make that choice...
The word Muslim predates modern concepts of political correctness being as it’s almost 1,500 years old. Popes, Saints, Protestant reformers, and Western law courts have used it since not long after they encountered the religion.
I know that wikipedia is not the best source. That said, I offer this article in support of my position. According to the article, Muslim has beeen in use only since the 1960s.
There IS an advantage in that I REFUSE to speak in THEIR terms. Mohammedans and Mohammedism is the correct term.
BTW, you did not respond to what kind of diety approves of the bombings, torture, etc. I leave it there and we can agree to disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.