Would it be all right to build a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz?
No, it would also not be okay to build one to bin Laden anywhere in the United States either. Islam is not what did 9/11. It was a terrorist group within Islam, and they are who we should hunt and take out and which we have not totally done, not even gotten their leader. Why did Bush say when he turned away from getting bin Laden at Tora Bora that it wasn't that big a deal to get him, that he was nothing in the big picture? What was the big picture really about for him and those who wanted to go to war in Iraq to protect.. yeah, you got it, Muslims, the one who are all out to get us according to the reasoning of some today in our country.
Doesn't it sound a little schizophrenic for some Americans to claim we are going to war to protect... Muslims... when Muslims are not ever moderates and they all want sharia law in the United States and secretly want to take us over??? [Someone didn't like the word protect here for our goals in these wars. Well, once we took out Saddam, we justified staying to bring them stability (not likely we will), freedom and democracy (which means right to choose their own religion and government). Since most of them choose to be Muslims, what I said still goes.]
Can the Roman Catholic Church build a church in Mecca?
A non-Muslim cannot enter Mecca which obviously means no churches of any other religion. Could someone build a Baptist church on Vatican ground? Not likely.
Do you know what Taqqiya is?
Yes, I do and have answered that question more extensively elsewhere in the earlier blog. To believe Obama has spent his life pretending to be non-Muslim so he could someday be elected president, while he stupidly joined a church that didn't exactly preach love of this country, requires a stretch of the imagination beyond mine. And if the question pertains to the imam who has been writing all the books about the importance of a loving view not one of hate and trying to moderate Islam to make it work for today, well he's not pretending to be a non-Muslim. It also only permits it under perilous conditions, like say capture by an enemy who would kill you if you admitted your true faith.
Before anybody brings up hoodna, which means ceasefire and can be pretending to have one, I don't see it applies either because it's not some uniquely Muslim trick. Don't we all know about those who use dishonest tactics to win wars. Ask the Native Americans about some of that.
Can a follower of Islam leave the religion to become a Christian?
Anybody can leave any church if they live in the United States. If you live in a Muslim controlled country, it's a killing offense to become Christian whether you were Muslim first or not. Recently some doctors were murdered in northern Afghanistan just because the Taliban 'thought' they were preaching Christianity when they were not.
In any community, sometimes we pay a price if we leave a particular religion. I know about that given having left two myself. You lose friends. The churches say you are going to hell. I guess I'll know about that after I die... maybe.
Do you know that it is the DUTY of all Muslims to see that Sharia law is the law of the land everywhere?
Where did you read this, from Breitbart and his ilk? It's in all the right wing sites but the Muslims I have known have no desire to live under the kinds of laws they have in rigid Muslim countries. Read 'Reading Lolita in Tehran' about a moderate Muslim woman in Iran before Khomeni came back and how she lived, what she wanted. She didn't like the Shah and like so many welcomed Khomeni then getting the shock of her life what that meant to her, to education (she was a teacher) and to her country. Not all Muslims want any one thing anymore than all Christians. You know within Christianity there is a wide span of beliefs including some to keep the hair of women covered. It doesn't make it true of all Christians.
Do you know that they are now calling it the Cordoba House for a reason? Research Cordoba Spain to understand why.
I wrote about this in that earlier blog and won't repeat it all again. Cordoba was taken by the Arabs and became a cultural highpoint for a number of years with a great library and a lot more importance on culture and education than many in Europe at that time. It went under bad leadership and eventually was lost to Spain when the territory was reconquered. [If you read much about Goya's history, you learn a lot about what Spain has gone through culturally until very recent times.]
I don't know but guess they wanted to call it that hoping it would be that for their people; and maybe since at that time period Spain was also occupied by Catholics and Jews; so a very diverse place culturally, they thought it could do that again for that neighborhood. It's what their plan laid out... But hey what the heck, since they have 6 floors that nobody knows what they'd be used for, Breitbart has 'proof' it is really about forcing Sharia law onto everybody in the United States. Amazing what that man 'knows'... Even more amazing why people believe him with no proof. It will now be called Park 51, I think, given the flak over daring to name a Muslim building for a high point in Muslim culture.
Why do we have to be tolerant of a religion that is anything but tolerant toward every other religion on the face of the earth?
Mainly this is because we have believed in freedom of religion in this country. It is in our Constitution where many other countries have not had any such idea. It was about freedom of worship and that didn't mean between just Baptist or Catholic even back then. We are not Saudi Arabia or a nation that has believed one religion should be in control. It sounds like a certain percentage of Americans would like to change that. I hope if they do, that they remember that Christianity has its own tradition of misusing power historically.
The answers to all of these questions are important to any discussion about the Ground Zero mosque.
Yes, they are mainly because this is about something a lot bigger than where one building is put.
Do the earlier verses of the Qu'ran have the same meaning as the newer versions? Or do the newer ones replace the older ones? Any idea why that's an important question?
Most religions have changes in the texts from their earliest translations. Sometimes that is because culturally the country that reads them has changed and they want the text to slant that direction. A good example in our Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the only text in the Scriptures that refers to abortion. The earliest translations, King James, is very different than the later ones. I would guess (and have seen articles indicating it) that the Qu'ran is the same. I have also heard that it differs in translations from one country to another or probably from Sunni to Shiite. If you want to find violent texts in scriptures, the Bible has plenty to satisfy the needs. I am also guessing your question has some context in a right wing blogger who is saying that today's translations of the Qu-ran are purposely toned down to fool the world. Sounds pretty dishonest and hard to prove but since there are many current translations of any sacred scripture, who knows for sure or can prove it. We believe what we want to believe.
How about the honor killings that have taken place in this country? Including the one where the 'moderate Muslim' killed his wife in, I believe, Philly?
Yeah he stabbed her to death when she left him and wanted to divorce him. Not just religious men do that kind of thing. How about the same thing with the Hindus killing their daughters if they didn't agree to marry who they wanted, buried one alive as punishment, paid for murders over in India from US Hindus as part of saving the family honor? How about the Christians who have used their Christianity to deny their children medical care like say if they are diabetic, leading to the death of the children? Catholic Church covering up the rape of children by their priests? How about the Mormons who took Joseph Smith at his word and decided to murder the wife of one of them because they decided god had ordered it? Or even more so, Mountain Meadows Massacre. If you want to look at abuses of religion, I don't think you will find any exceptions.
Or how about 'moderate Muslim' raped his wife and kept her a virtual prisoner... and an idiotic judge said it was okay because he was living by Sharia law?
First of all for both these questions, how did you hear these guys were moderates? What defines being a moderate in your eyes?
And that judge might find his decision overturned. I have seen some pretty horrendous decisions even from our Supreme Court (like that a corporation is the same as a citizen). I don't defend any judges in this country as they can all do good or bad and it just depends. But Sharia law is NOT the law of our land and if someone breaks our laws, I think, like the parents who denied their child insulin, that they should pay a criminal price. Incidentally, those parents got off with probation for the one parent and not much more time for the other on religious grounds. Horrible decision in my opinion.
If you don't want to answer my questions about Islam, how about answering the first question I asked instead of going off on a tangent about Obama and the Bushes?
It was NOT a tangent. It was directly replying to the question of having permission to pretend to be a Christian. If that was not about Obama, who was it about? And the story about Bush wanting 9/11 to happen is out there and believed by many as part of his plan to get to attack Iraq which he has been said to be planning since the day he took office. When you talk wild conspiracies, they can go left or right.
Would it be all right to build a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz? Or, how about a Japanese 'cultural center' at Pearl Harbor?
You are basically saying that you do believe all Islamic people are responsible for 9/11 or all Japanese anywhere responsible for Pearl Harbor. People who thought like you put the Japanese living on the West Coast at that time into concentration camps, confiscated their property. Is this where you are heading with your rhetoric?
Here is the thing about freedom of religion. It applies to all or eventually to none. Every single religion has things it has had done in its name that are evil. The people, like me, who do not like religion, could easily say, if we gained enough numbers, we want no more tax deductions for donations to churches, no more free taxes on their structures, and we could go beyond it someday and say no churches as they take up valuable ground. You folks can meet in your homes. We could decide that the Christian religion does bad things. They bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors sometimes, let their leaders rape children, don't give their own children medical care. After all, it is all of them if it's a few, right?