slug.com slug.com

8 2

Say what you want about Islam. I won't even claim the criticisms are untrue. They very well might be... many of them surely are.

But here's the thing about Christianity... Christ said:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).

This passage may not stipulate proper immigration policy, and I surely believe the first role of any government is to protect its citizens and its sovereignty. That's not what this post is about.

But may I suggest that this verse typifies a fundamental western ethos, which lies at the root of who we are... namely, the ideal that says, "I may disagree with your beliefs, but I will die for your right to believe them."

And may I suggest further that engraining this idea, among other rudimentary western ideas, has led to the most civil, cooperative, equal, and free people in the history of the world.

If we follow Christ's admonition- if we treat Muslims with respect, if we admittley defend their rights... maybe we can dispel the propaganda spread throughout the Middle East that the West is oppressive toward Muslims. Maybe western Muslims will "see [our] good works, and glorify [our] father, which is in heaven." Maybe Islam can finally come out of the dark ages.

And if they don't, if they remain our enemies, then, if you are indeed Christian, you are still under commandment to love them and pray for them. And I must say, I fall short of the command. As do many Christians.

I know there are problems with Islam. Anyone with any sense can see that... Still, I don't know about you, but I have not been praying for my Muslim brothers and sisters, and I cannot say I love them the way Christ commanded.

Until I can truly say I love them, I may take issue with some of the ideas of Islam, but I think I'm going to withhold my judgement about Muslims as a people.

jnaatjes 7 Apr 18
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It is logically not possible to consider Islam as good. They revere a man who was a muderer, an enslaver, beheaded 600 plus Jews, read the Hadiths and the life and times of Muhammad, he was an evil rotten to the core man, yet approximately 1.6 billion people revere him. this is akin to revering Hitler.I find it impossible and logically a failed argument to even suggest that Islam has any good, all the critics and studies in the world cannot detract from these facts. The Quran has 110 plus quotes advocating death and violence. Are 1.6 billion people wrong ?? Yes.

1

I agree with most of your post. I don't think it's fair to claim that people who criticize Islam necessarily hate Muslims. I don't believe Muslims are treated poorly in America, despite the wild claims about "Islamophobia", which is a vague term that can apply to anything.

I'm speaking as an Arab Christian immigrant to Canada who has also lived in the US. I've lived half my life in the Middle East. Believe me, Muslims are treated far better as minorities in North America than Christian minorities are treated in Muslim-majority countries. North America is the best place in the world to be a minority. All people's rights are protected by law. If you're violated, you have several institutions and advocacy groups that can help.

True Christians do not support the violation of Muslim rights.

What I disagree with is your assumption that Muslims have the right to feel violated in America and that if we just treat them a little better, then Western Muslims (in general) will love the West. You write:

"If we follow Christ's admonition- if we treat Muslims with respect, if we admittley defend their rights... maybe we can dispel the propaganda spread throughout the Middle East that the West is oppressive toward Muslims. Maybe western Muslims will "see [our] good works, and glorify [our] father, which is in heaven." Maybe Islam can finally come out of the dark ages."

I don't know where to begin. North America has already treated them well by allowing them to come here, settle, and receive citizenship and full rights. These rights are not even provided for them in their own 3rd world countries. Most Muslim Americans are actually successful: they earn a higher-than-average income, and they receive degrees in higher education, and the serve in the army and in politics. These rights are not even given to Christians in Muslim-majority countries.

What we object to is the privileging of Islam and the protection of Islam (from criticism) by playing the "Islamophobia" card.

Thank you for actually arguing against things I actually said haha ?

I agree with you that Muslims have it far better here. I also agree that the root of Islamic extremism is not western oppression. It's a corrupt ideology.

However, it's also true that Muslims become more moderate, generally speaking, when they come to the West. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of that has to do with the way they are treated here, compared to the country they came from.

I could be wrong. I don't know. I just don't want to add fuel to the fire of the propaganda spread by Islamic Leaders in the Middle East. And I think the best way to convert someone is to show them by example.

@jnaatjes Ha! You're most welcome. I know how frustrating it can be for people to assume you're saying things you're not.

I do not agree that Muslims become more moderate when they come to the West. Please read "My Son the Fanatic" by Hanif Kureishi. This short story describes perfectly an interesting phenomenon happening in Britain (and elsewhere in the West, btw), whereby first generation Muslims born in Britain to Muslim immigrants, become even more fanatic and more hateful of the West than their parents ever were. These Muslims who are born in Britain can't even speak the language of their parents. They know only English as a first language, yet they grow up with a narrative of victimhood and anti-Western propaganda learned within their own communities, from the mosque pulpits, and online. They are taught that the West hates them, and it is their duty to fight back.

As Muslim populations increase, we find an increase in violent crime, grooming gangs, no-go zones, and leftist politicians (and media) offer a cover by citing "multiculturalism" as a utopian dream.

I know it sounds like I'm Islamophobic. I'm not. I can still love them but point out problems with Muslim communities in the West that self-segregate by religious identity and then blame the rest of the country for their own segregation.

Sorry, I'm rambling.

@CRBG I don't think you're islamaphobic.

I'll have to put that on my reading list. Thanks!

I guess I was getting that idea from polling data on Muslim beliefs in different countries. Far fewer Muslims support Sharia Law is North American than they do throughout the Middle East, for instance.

But I know numbers don't tell the whole story, and I have limited personal experience with Islam, so I'm curious how you'd interpret that.

@jnaatjes The most comprehensive research study of Muslim attitudes regarding Sharia Law came from the PEW Research Forum. But they did not ask the same questions of American Muslims that they did of Muslims in Majority-Muslim countries, so the findings are not a good measure of American Muslim attitudes regarding Sharia.

Also, let's bear in mind that there are already Sharia courts in the US even though Muslims are only 1% of the American population.

A few years ago in Ontario, Canada, a Muslim advocacy group petitioned the provincial government for Sharia Courts, and the government refused. They were less than 1% of the population, and yet they demanded Sharia Courts.

In my own city, we have a university that used to have a multi-faith room for all students. Muslims decided to take it over and convert it into a Muslim prayer room. The chaplain resigned over it. There was not fan fare or push back or anything. (This is just a tiny example, an anecdote, I know, but it hits home.)

So I'm sorry to say that the evidence is clear. Wherever there are Muslims, even when they are in the minority, there are demands for Sharia Law. I won't get into all the other demands/social problems that are caused when the numbers grow (such as 8% in France).

@CRBG ah yes, I remember that study now and remember being annoyed by that.

You make a very compelling case. It's a little disheartening though.

1

Allowing an anti-Christian ideology to take control of our Christian nation is not Love.
If we love our family, our neighbors, our form of government--we must sometimes fight to prevent it's destruction. Protecting our nation and our children is not "Hate" --it is wisdom.

You're setting up a straw man. I never said that we should allow Islam to take control of our country. In fact, I went out of my way to say Christianity does not say what a nation's immigration policies should be.

0

The main dictum in human behavior when it comes to belief systems: I may disagree with what you believe, but I am willing to make you die for your right to believe in them. It is about the choice of association we make every day, me for mine and you for yours.

Did you mean to say "make you die?"

@jnaatjes Yes, it is the logical extension where ideologies or religions are concerned when such beliefs are tightly bound to personal identity. If I am a ferverent believe that children should not be sexually abused and you are a pedophile who ferverently believe that not only do you have such a right but the such a practice shold be the norm for society in general, then why would I want to defend your right to speak for such beliefs? Would I not want to see your die for that particular right? If I view pedophilia as an absolute evil then your death would be seen as a desired end for humanity.

The above may seem a bit extreme but religion and ideology tend towards emotional responses when questioned. Normally society and the individuals within it do not seek the deaths of those who speak for or against whether humans cause climate change (although there are extremist who may), but when the conversation concerns a critical social taboo then emotional responses come into play. Such violations of critical social taboos push for the destruction of a society. Thus we are willing to put restrictions of free speech.

@Marta-Amance so say someone is not a pedophile... say they've never abused a child, or anything like that, but they start advocating for legalizing pedophillia.

Do you believe that person can be put to death for their speech? Or maybe punished in some other way?

@jnaatjes Now you are raising the question of legality. Would I defend that individual's right of free speech to my death? No. Would I defend that individual from death from the hands of the community? No, that individual has placed himself by such taboo breaking out of bounds in society. In the old days being proscribed as an outlaw meant that you were beyond the protection of the law. You were excluded, bannished from societies midst from their protection. To be expelled from society into the wilderness where living was a very high risk affair is to be condemed to a death by nature or misadventure.

But back to the threat of Islam, a religion of political usurptation, one that condems unbelievers to the role of slaves to Islam, one that threats such unbelievers as less desirable than the true believer, one that embraces the dictum or embrace allah or die. Should I welcome such speech freely in my community? Should I regard its extreme adherents with politeness and civility? Should I give them power over me and mine because they demand it? The West suffered through religious proceution for many centuries, schesim agains schesism, punishments against non believers or those who spoke heresy against the true religion. Today we like to think that we are far more sophisticated than those, but the reality is that we are not any more advanced than our forefathers, we just think we are.

@Marta-Amance If you want to make sure a bad idea takes hold, ban people from speaking it. That's not the answer. The answer is to use your own free speech to dismantle ridiculous ideas.

What you say honestly scares me a little. Putting someone to death for something they said is barbaric and evil. A society like that, in my mind, is on par with the Islamic State.

@jnaatjes Actually, your complacient attitude scares me a great deal. The mistaken belief that good ideas drive bad ideas from the forum of free speech is all too optimistic and sadly inaccurate. Understand that we have laws that carry criminal and civil penalties for crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We have similar laws against the incitement to violence and the over throw of our government. We have laws against the incitement to violence against individuals or groups. Depending on the outcome of such events the penality of death could be imposed. Islam, in its current state is a religious political state that is barbaric in every sense of the meaning. It is capricious in its application of justice to the rule of law. Unless Islam can be brought into the modern world changed and cleanses of its barbarism, it will always be a threat to our freedoms. Individuals and groups are willing to defend their beliefs to not only their deaths but yours as well if you are perceived as a deadly threat to them. It is human nature and may not seem rational to you and I but it is a fact of human nature. What do you think is going on in the middle east and else where? Is it only political strife? Take another look.

0

Always be wary of those that pleasure themselves in the children of others.

1

I tend to think of the followers of Islam the same way I think about foxes. They do what they do. I try to keep them from doing it. Proper fence. Solid shelters. And, since they are a threat, they are not allowed to live close to the chicken shed.

But foxes can't organize themselves and bomb the shelter. You can't box people in.

I completely disagree with the idea pushed by the left (and by Islam) that Islamic terrorism is the fault of Western oppression... especially considering there is no place in the world where Muslims have more freedom than in the West. The root problem is their ideology. But we feed that ideology if, in any way, we justify Islam's claim that Christians and Jews hate Muslims.

Kill terrorists. Protect borders. But do everything we can to help and love people in need, and protect the rights of those Muslims who are already here. They are still human and are innocent until proven guilty.

@jnaatjes Not allowing them in unless they agree to assimilate and renounce the violence and totalitarianism of Islam by putting their hand on the Koran. The video of this would go on You Tube. Along with the persons name T!he followers already here are innocent until proven guilty - however it would be a good idea to stay alert.

@Farmergramma sounds like it could be a good idea to me.

1

I guess we could apply the values that we in the West have lived by for centuries to Muslims and Islam in general, but it would be to sign our own death warrant. Turning the other cheek is fine providing it’s not still attached to your severed head.

Islam must undergo its own reformation and I believe there are some Muslims working towards this end, but it will be a slow process given Islam’s predeliction for seeking revenge and killing dissenters.

If we forsake our principles, we're already dead.

@jnaatjes, by your argument we shouldn’t exist, or have ever existed at all.

We were primates that once survived by rule of the fittest to arrive at where we are. Where we are now does not define us - we’re the sum of our whole, as ugly as that may have been, and in order to promote our values and successes we have to first exist, and want to exist.

0

A solid position from which to watch the show... If you want to participate, you'll need to pick a side.

Islam is no different than any other control system. It directs human behaviour and actions have consequences. Some muslims condemn homosexuality but would not "personally" throw someone off a building. Some muslims condemn homosexuality but would not "personally" condone throwing someone off a building. Some muslims condemn homosexuality and would throw someone off a building. Some muslims condemn homosexuality and would stop someone from being thrown off a building.

Let me ask you this: Is there any actions that someone could do that you feel justifies their death? Both the Bible and the Koran espouse countless examples. The Bible tends to promote letting God do the punishing while the Koran tends to imply you are supposed to mete the punishment. I realize this is a very broad generalization but my point is actions have consequences and what makes that OK or not OK is you. Not God, Not Jesus, Not Muhammed but YOU.

I do think there are times when taking life is justified, and I whole heartedly agree that the West has done a much better job at determining when this is justified. Your criticisms of Islam are valid. I'm simply pointing to the profound mandate placed upon Christians. The idea that you are to love your enemies... no matter what.

It's an idea beautifully illustrated by Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov when Christ kisses the inquisitor despite being indicted and rejected. It's even better illustrated in the Bible itself when Christ, dying on the cross, utters, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I am taking a position. It's the position that built the West. My position is to strive to love my enemies, and to defend the liberties of all people, even when it may not seem like a good idea. It's a matter of faith to trust that holding to that principle at all times will lead to a greater good.

I am not advocating for great influxes of unvetted refugees. What I am saying is that I, myself, as well as many I speak with on the right, seem to allow their justified caution to distort into hate.

I know we're all weary of that idea because the left so often conflates everything they disagree with with hate. But that's why we need to keep ourselves in check, because hopefully we actually know the difference.

@jnaatjes I agree fully with your point. My mantra is "Trust no one, Question everything..." You seem to struggle with "Love Everyone - Even Your Enemies" That doesn't have to be cognitive dissonance.
How to you rank the series "God, Family, Race, Community, State, Nation, Me" ?
Mine would be "Family, Me, God, Community, State, Nation, Race" and I've spent a lot of time considering it. Here's an old song that kinda makes my point:

@cRaZyTMG

God, family, me, community, state, nation...

What do you mean by "race?" If you mean white/black, that wouldn't even be on my list. If you mean the human race, I guess that would come after nation... not because I love my nation more than mankind, but because my responsibility is first to what is closest to me.

@jnaatjes So you would die for your God? or You'd fight to the death for God? Not judging - just probing... I struggle with race as well - I don't know why its on the list.

@cRaZyTMG interesting question... because I know I would definitely die for my family, and I would probably be willing to die defending myself. But since God is more abstract, at a gut level, it's hard to have the same feeling about God as you do for your spouse or children... or even your own life. I guess I hold myself to the ideal of valuing my relationship with God above all else, even if I admittedly don't always feel it.

However, I do think I can say I value God above all else because he encompasses all the good things in my life, especially my family. But I don't know... this is stretching my thinking.

So to your question... yes, I would die for, or fight to the death for God. Or at least, I'd like to believe I'd be brave enough to do so. But I think this is why it's so important to define the true character of God. The God I have come to know does not command me to take justice into my own hands, or inflict violence against people who aren't acting violently toward me.

I do believe God is a literal being. But the concept of a God is also the personification of a particular morality accepted by a group of people. So when Americans die fighting terrorism, or Fascism, or Communism, they are dying for their God, whether they realize it or not. Because it is the Judeo-Christian God, or the Judeo-Christian morality, that taught them to hate those things- or that taught them to love liberty.

I don't know that I'm brave enough to join the military to go fight terrorists overseas. Those who do are better than me. But I would die defending my family, and I believe that does count as dying to defend your God.

God is first because he is the source of all truth, and encompasses all which is good.

This is me thinking out loud... I'd love feedback so I can continue developing my thoughts.

@jnaatjes Islamist's believe they are fighting for their God. Their God does instruct them to do that and classifies non-muslim as infidels. As a muslim, you have 3 ways to deal with infidels 1. Ignore them - they are not worthy. 2. Convert them to Islam. 3. Destroy them (slavery or death).

If your God told you to throw homosexuals off a building would you do it? Would you stop someone else from doing it?

@cRaZyTMG which is why I believe the Muslim god is a false god. I don't accept the morality espoused by Islam, so I do not accept the Muslim concept of god. My God would not command me to do that because it goes against my most fundamental morality. If I started to feel like God was commanding me to slay the infidels, I'd assume I was misinterpreting what God wants of me... as many Christians have done.

So I think the premise of that question is off. God, in once sense, is the being who created the universe, but in another, he is synonymous with the morality I've chosen to accept. Or, he's synonymous with that which is truly moral, and it is my job to figure out what that is through science, reason, and revelation (all 3 are important, in my opinion).

If my concept of morality told me to throw homosexuals off a building, it would no longer be my morality. It would no longer be my God. So the hypothetical scenario you pose is impossible unless I chose to reject the God of Christianity.

@cRaZyTMG additionally, where Muslim and Christian morality overlaps, we worship the same God. That's why there's such a connection between Judaism and Christianity... the morality is basically the same. Grace is essentially the only concept that makes the Christian god different than the Jewish god.

@jnaatjes So Islamists believe in a false god. So what? You're choosing option 1.
Muslims will be a majority in all parts of the western world with a few generations. What do you think your local laws are going to look like when that happens?

@cRaZyTMG I don't think that's true in the US. Their numbers are growing here, but by 2050 they're still only projected to make up 2.1% of the population.

[pewresearch.org]
And the nice thing about the US is our government is specifically designed to protect against Islamic or any other type of tyranny taking control. Which is why it's so crucial in the face of these problems to remain principled and consistent in our application of the law.

@jnaatjes pew doesn't provide data to back their claims so I can't fact check them, but even if they are correct (their board is a little lefty but I've seen worse), get rid of the electoral college and 2.1% in LA, and NY and you've lost control of your law making institutions.

There are rumblings of muslim no-go zones in some parts of the US but nothing that can be definitively proven from codified policy or legislation and militia based no-go's have been around for a while. And if the 2019 number is only 1.9% why do we have 2 clearly Islamic members just elected to the House (+ a number of sympathetic reps).

Can you elaborate on the features of US government that prevent tyrannical rule? The EC is the only one I know about.

@cRaZyTMG yeah it would be a sad day indeed if the Democrats successfully eliminated the electoral college. That would be a pretty radical reform, so hopefully it doesn't happen.

America's government uses "checks and balances" to decentralize power and lessen the chances of sudden, dramatic changes, with the idea that such changes would only happen if there was a strong consensus that the change was necessary.

So, for example, the president can veto bills passed by congress, but congress can override the veto if they have a 2/3 majority. Bills must pass through both the House of Representatives and the Senate to be passed into law. States have rights which the Federal government cannot infringe upon. But states also cannot pass laws that violate Federal law, though they can add upon them. The Federal government's powers are expressly enumerated in the constitution, and they are not supposed to do anything that is not mentioned there (they don't follow this one very well). If laws are passed or executive actions are taken that are unconstitutional, they can be struck down by the courts. The courts have several circuits to provide a check on any bad rulings. And the constitutionally guarenteed free press hopefully keeps everything transparent.

There's more of course, but you get the idea. Also, the Bill of Rights protects individual liberty.

Obviously this system isn't followed perfectly, but all of these checks, combined with two competing political parties, makes it very hard as an American politician to exact your will upon the country. The US government system is every would-be tyrant's nightmare (which is why Woodrow Wilson hated it so much).

People complain that their government never "gets anything done." I always smile at this and think, "That's by design, and thank God for it."

@jnaatjes Amazing how this stuff get REALLY convoluted when you try to apply theory to practice. You listed a lot of things that "review" the action of other governmental stooges but nothing that could stop a coordinated majority from trampling over "external" rights as codified by the constitution. The check and balances all require non-partisan, rational people (dare I say "smart" people) to intervene and expose what is really going on. I believe that species of politician is extinct - maybe a side effect of climate change.

This is important stuff. I am a located in Canada. A political system that allow the majority to do WHATEVER the fuck they want as long as they maintain the majority, including changing the election rules. Canada is gone (or if you actually dig into it, Canada never was). The US is the ONLY country in the world that grants any degree of sovereignty to the deplorables. Just as you fought to get it, you will have to fight to keep it.

May your best day become your worst day everyday.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31650
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.