Catholic Catechism para. 841 on Islam vs. Robert Spencer's view on Islam

[josie_L]

In light of the past several posts, I would like to simply repost the following, which contains actual Catholic teaching:

Notice the language. It is charitable, not in the modern squishy sense that so many seem to assume, but in the sense that it assumes and expects the best of all people, is truthful, finds common ground rather than pointing out grievances and grudges.

No one is saying we shouldn’t find common ground with (or be kind to) individual Muslims, but you seem to think that we should bury our heads in the sand when it comes to radical Islam. It is WAR which has been declared on us, nothing less. What you are advocating is a denial of our present reality, i.e., Islamists do exist, and people like Robert Spencer are making sure that we are not asleep at the wheel when it comes to jihad . . . .etc. Furthermore, it is not up to you or I to decide whether someone like Robert Spencer is a good Catholic and/or following Catholic teaching.

 

[clem456]

No one is saying we shouldn’t find common ground with (or be kind to) individual Muslims, but you seem to think that we should bury our heads in the sand when it comes to radical Islam. It is WAR which has been declared on us, nothing less. What you are advocating is a denial of our present reality, i.e., Islamists do exist, and people like Robert Spencer are making sure that we are not asleep at the wheel when it comes to jihad . . . .etc. Furthermore, it is not up to you or I to decide whether someone like Robert Spencer is a good Catholic and/or following Catholic teaching.

Wow.
Please have the respect to not put words into my mouth. I said what I said. Your interpretation misrepresents what I said. I never denied there are radical Muslims. I said nothing about Spencer’s standing as a Catholic. I and others addressed his material in light of Church teaching], which is the topic at hand.

I’m glad you are concerned about extremism, but please don’t quote me as a punching bag for your post.
Thank you.

 

[josie_L]

Wow.
Please have the respect to not put words into my mouth. I said what I said. Your interpretation misrepresents what I said. I never denied there are radical Muslims. I said nothing about Spencer’s standing as a Catholic. I and others addressed his material in light of Church teaching], which is the topic at hand.

I’m glad you are concerned about extremism, but please don’t quote me as a punching bag for your post.
Thank you.

But the Church has said nothing in regard to the religion of Islam in its catechism (and Lumen Gentium does not explain the present problems within Islam today), so how may I ask is Robert Spencer violating church teaching with regard to his books on radical Islam? I know that the previous pope attempted in his weekly audiences and during some of his visits to the Middle East to bring to light the persecution of Christians in these lands, and I also know that in his attempt to bring to light the dangers of blind faith or faith without reason in his Regensburg address, caused massive riots, killings and destruction by some Muslims throughout the world. Here is part of what he said:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

This is what caused the rioting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I and others addressed his material in light of Church teaching], which is the topic at hand.

No you haven’t addressed any material, you have suggested from posting Spencer, he is reading with a mind other than the Church

And from what I see its a strawman.

Its uncharitable to Spencer, the Church and CAF as I mentioned, and the very reason I entered this dialogue. Since the conclusion reached from the first few posts is RS is wrong and then that deems CAF who follows, and the Church who they represent wrong.

We are on the CCC part and relating to Spencer now. Which you still insinuate the above. Yet the questions above 1-3 remain unanswered.

 

[clem456]

Good luck and God Bless
Unsubscribed

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In addition to the seminars on Islam and jihad that Spencer has led for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, the FBI, branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

Government agencies- I’m sure speaking at/giving a class for a government agency can be used as confirmation that an individual is an expert on the field. I mean it’s not like said agencies have no clue as to what they are talking about and therefore somehow invite someone they consider to be an “expert” to lunch a day after another agency places them on a watch list. Oh wait, foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/radical-muslim-clerics-pentagon-lunch-top-dod-lawyers-executive-director-cair/

And it’s not like the various government agencies routinely make incompetent mistakes when it comes to religion. It’s not like we’ve seen in the last year threads concerning pro-life groups, Christian based groups, and Christianity itself labelled by various governmental organizations as threats or terroristic in nature. Oh wait…

Non-government agencies- Should be rather self-evident as to why you really can’t count these as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam. If it’s not self-evident, let me know and I’ll track down some examples of similar anti-Catholic and/or “The Church is Wrong about X” “experts” as counterpoints.

Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980.
I have a MA in Political Science (which, unlike Mr. Spencer’s MA actually focused on Islam; the politics and political impact of) and have been studying the politics and the history of the Middle East since my undergrad years and throughout my military career. None of that makes me an expert on politics, let alone Islamic political theory and history. I fail to see how Mr. Spencer’s rather broad degree (Religious studies-sorry, but that’s like saying a “Survey of Western history” class makes you an expert on Roman history) whose thesis did not focus on Islam (Catholic history).

As an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation in 2002 and 2003, he wrote a series of monographs on Islam that are still available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur’an;Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context. More recently he has also written monographs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center: What Americans Need to Know About Jihad; The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam (with Phyllis Chesler); Islamic Leaders’ Plan for Genocide; and Muslim Persecution of Christians.

The same people who would view those organizations as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert would also believe the “studies” that “prove” smoking is good for you that just happen to be published by doctors/organizations who just happen to receive all/most of their funding from Big Tobacco. I’m sure it’s just a happy coincidence that Mr. Spencer’s works just happen to confirm/reinforce the political message/aim of the organizations that pay him/promote his works/“review” his works. Yep, same type of happy coincidence that allows me to go out and smoke and know that it’s actually a healthy habit. After all, doctors and official sounding organizations that I have no real interest in questioning their motivations or source of funding on since it allows me to retain my preconceived conclusion about smoking have stated it’s healthy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Apparently since its suggested Spencer is wrong then of course the reasoning follows all mentioned are wrong. Isn’t that the same logic used with Spencer and CAF? What about Vatican Radio or…from a couple weeks ago…

ncregister.com/site/article/the-christian-muslim-gulf/

Apparently his education and understanding isn’t an issue?

 

[josie_L]

In addition to the seminars on Islam and jihad that Spencer has led for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, a Department of Homeland Security task force, the FBI, branches of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community, he has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He has also appeared on the BBC, CNN, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Laura Ingraham Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Sean Hannity Show, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Barbara Simpson Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.

Government agencies- I’m sure speaking at/giving a class for a government agency can be used as confirmation that an individual is an expert on the field. I mean it’s not like said agencies have no clue as to what they are talking about and therefore somehow invite someone they consider to be an “expert” to lunch a day after another agency places them on a watch list. Oh wait, foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/radical-muslim-clerics-pentagon-lunch-top-dod-lawyers-executive-director-cair/

And it’s not like the various government agencies routinely make incompetent mistakes when it comes to religion. It’s not like we’ve seen in the last year threads concerning pro-life groups, Christian based groups, and Christianity itself labelled by various governmental organizations as threats or terroristic in nature. Oh wait…

Non-government agencies- Should be rather self-evident as to why you really can’t count these as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam. If it’s not self-evident, let me know and I’ll track down some examples of similar anti-Catholic and/or “The Church is Wrong about X” “experts” as counterpoints.

Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980.
I have a MA in Political Science (which, unlike Mr. Spencer’s MA actually focused on Islam; the politics and political impact of) and have been studying the politics and the history of the Middle East since my undergrad years and throughout my military career. None of that makes me an expert on politics, let alone Islamic political theory and history. I fail to see how Mr. Spencer’s rather broad degree (Religious studies-sorry, but that’s like saying a “Survey of Western history” class makes you an expert on Roman history) whose thesis did not focus on Islam (Catholic history).

As an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation in 2002 and 2003, he wrote a series of monographs on Islam that are still available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur’an;Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context. More recently he has also written monographs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center: What Americans Need to Know About Jihad; The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam (with Phyllis Chesler); Islamic Leaders’ Plan for Genocide; and Muslim Persecution of Christians.

The same people who would view those organizations as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert would also believe the “studies” that “prove” smoking is good for you that just happen to be published by doctors/organizations who just happen to receive all/most of their funding from Big Tobacco. I’m sure it’s just a happy coincidence that Mr. Spencer’s works just happen to confirm/reinforce the political message/aim of the organizations that pay him/promote his works/“review” his works. Yep, same type of happy coincidence that allows me to go out and smoke and know that it’s actually a healthy habit. After all, doctors and official sounding organizations that I have no real interest in questioning their motivations or source of funding on since it allows me to retain my preconceived conclusion about smoking have stated it’s healthy.

What do you think Robert Spencer is promoting with his books?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Apparently since its suggested Spencer is wrong then of course the reasoning follows all mentioned are wrong. Isn’t that the same logic used with Spencer and CAF? What about Vatican Radio or…from a couple weeks ago…

ncregister.com/site/article/the-christian-muslim-gulf/

Apparently his education and understanding isn’t an issue?

1. Your cited examples are wrong or not very helpful for your argument not because they have to be wrong because Spencer is wrong, but because of the examples themselves. Governmental agencies that have a clear track record of “getting it wrong” in regards to religion in general and experts on religion, followed with for profit secular focused TV and radio networks and shows. Appearing on Sean Hannity makes you about as much an expert on Islam as appearing on the Daily Show does.
2. Vatican Radio and CAF- Using your logic of “a legit org used them so they must be legit” we end up with the rather odd scenario in which we must view those who clearly are at odds with Church teaching as legit because a Catholic university, organization, or charity has either used them as a speaker, promoted their work, or donated money to them.
3. As for Father’s education and understanding of the issue (Islam)- Given my quick review of his articles, other reviews, etc. I’d say he makes a much better expert than Mr. Spencer, however I still wouldn’t cite him as an expert. I wouldn’t cite him as one for the very same reason I wouldn’t cite an Imam with the Islamic version of Father’s education/career as an expert on Catholicism and for the very same reason I wouldn’t let my kids’ doctor conduct brain surgery on my kids- their qualifications are for something other than the subject matter being discussed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is the premise in which Spencer is wrong? I believe it’s important to focus on the things we have in common, I believe the Catholic message is well covered in regards to Islam by Pope Francis also. The message of Jesus Christ well documented.

None of this means accepting, ignoring or remaining silent about the prevalent behavior presented which as far as I see, is all Spencer talks about in its relation to basic freedoms.

That’s the only premise I see suggested that’s plausible, wrong, but plausible. We should still address the on-going issue’s? Oh I believe so. I don’t see where Spencer has been anything but respectful while being persecuted himself. Predictable I would venture to say.

 

[josie_L]

1. Your cited examples are wrong or not very helpful for your argument not because they have to be wrong because Spencer is wrong, but because of the examples themselves. Governmental agencies that have a clear track record of “getting it wrong” in regards to religion in general and experts on religion, followed with for profit secular focused TV and radio networks and shows. Appearing on Sean Hannity makes you about as much an expert on Islam as appearing on the Daily Show does.
2. Vatican Radio and CAF- Using your logic of “a legit org used them so they must be legit” we end up with the rather odd scenario in which we must view those who clearly are at odds with Church teaching as legit because a Catholic university, organization, or charity has either used them as a speaker, promoted their work, or donated money to them.
3. As for Father’s education and understanding of the issue (Islam)- Given my quick review of his articles, other reviews, etc. I’d say he makes a much better expert than Mr. Spencer, however I still wouldn’t cite him as an expert. ** I wouldn’t cite him as one for the very same reason I wouldn’t cite an Imam with the Islamic version of Father’s education/career as an expert on Catholicism **and for the very same reason I wouldn’t let my kids’ doctor conduct brain surgery on my kids- their qualifications are for something other than the subject matter being discussed.

Robert Spencer is not making up the stories that we hear today in the media and elsewhere about radical Muslims, I think his endeavors to understand why this is happening is laudable. I also have a hard time understanding your denunciation of his efforts simply because he is not Muslim. If you choose not see him as an expert then perhaps you’d be willing to hear from Ayaan Hirsi Ali (she is an ex-Muslim):

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the Woolwich murder, it was good to hear expressions of horror and sympathy from Islamic spokesmen, but something more is desperately required: genuine recognition of the problem with Islam.

Muslim leaders should ask themselves what exactly their relationship is to a political movement that encourages young men to kill and maim on religious grounds. Think of the Tsarnaev brothers and the way they justified the mayhem they caused in Boston. Ponder carefully the words last week of Michael Adebolajo, his hands splashed with blood: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.”

My friend, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, was murdered in 2004 for having been insufficiently reverent toward Islam. In the courtroom, the killer looked at Theo’s mother and said to her: “I must confess honestly that I do not empathize with you. I do not feel your pain. . . . I cannot empathize with you because you are an unbeliever.”

And yet, after nearly a decade of similar rhetoric from Islamists around the world, last week the Guardian newspaper could still run a headline quoting a Muslim Londoner: “These poor idiots have nothing to do with Islam.” Really? Nothing?

Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong. But acknowledging that there is a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.

On both sides of the Atlantic, politicians, academics and the media have shown incredible patience as the drumbeat of Islamist terror attacks continues. When President Obama gave his first statement about the Boston bombings, he didn’t mention Islam at all. This week, Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have repeated the reassuring statements of the Muslim leaders to the effect that Lee Rigby’s murder has nothing to do with Islam.

But many ordinary people hear such statements and scratch their heads in bewilderment. A murderer kills a young father while yelling “Allahu akbar” and it’s got nothing to do with Islam?

I don’t blame Western leaders. They are doing their best to keep the lid on what could become a meltdown of trust between majority populations and Muslim minority communities.

But I do blame Muslim leaders. It is time they came up with more credible talking points. Their communities have a serious problem. Young people, some of whom are not born into the faith, are being fired up by preachers using basic Islamic scripture and mobilized to wage jihad by radical imams who represent themselves as legitimate Muslim clergymen.

I wonder what would happen if Muslim leaders like Julie Siddiqi started a public and persistent campaign to discredit these Islamist advocates of mayhem and murder. Not just uttering the usual laments after another horrifying attack, but making a constant, high-profile effort to show the world that the preachers of hate are illegitimate. After the next zealot has killed the next victim of political Islam, claims about the “religion of peace” would ring truer.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578503613890263762.html

 

[lerapt78]

Why? You haven’t listed any valid problems with his work. As noted above, Spencer condemns the problems in the teachings of Islam, not the people who claim it. Both LG and the catechism affirm muslims, not Islam. There’s a difference.

I cannot (nor would be able to) list any valid problems with his work because I am not a scholar on Islam. I understand the difference between a religion and a follower of said religion. I wasn’t confused about the Church’s stance on the *religion *of Islam, which wasn’t my question anyway.

I received an e-mail from CAF promoting his book a couple of months ago, and shared one of the OP’s questions (why the book is being promoted on this website?) after I did an internet search on the author. Some of the search results concerned me greatly, to be honest. I refrained from starting a thread on it because I didn’t know whether or not he is personally affiliated with the CAF staff and I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers.

This is the reason I’m asking why he is being endorsed - so that I know if it is appropriate to discuss my concerns, or if I should remain silent.

but If you’re saying he’s far enough across that line that he shouldn’t be promoted or endorsed by catholics, you’d better demonstrate why.

I’ve said nothing of the sort - I simply asked twice why he is being endorsed on this website. I don’t understand what it is I have to demonstrate at this time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I cannot (nor would be able to) list any valid problems with his work because I am not a scholar on Islam. I understand the difference between a religion and a follower of said religion…

Apparently we need only scholars according to what paradigm here? What does ones resume require to speak of basic human rights?

I wasn’t confused about the Church’s stance on the *religion *of Islam, which wasn’t my question anyway.:

What do you think that stance is? And how do you see Spencer deviated from it. Everyone is so sure they are living this message and so sure Spencer isn’t?

Some are suggesting others are not following Church, which I find insulting. Perhaps its those who make this assumption who indeed themselves are lost. What education do they have to qualify them to make this claim? Do they read hearts and minds?

Others would have you believe its uncharitable to discuss the topic . Which btw I thought the assumption was ill founded and uncharitable to begin with. But…here we are.

False accusations designed to silence people just like with Spencer. It doesn’t work. It reinforces determination.

I received an e-mail from CAF promoting his book a couple of months ago, and shared one of the OP’s questions (why the book is being promoted on this website?) after I did an internet search on the author. Some of the search results concerned me greatly, to be honest. I refrained from starting a thread on it because I didn’t know whether or not he is personally affiliated with the CAF staff and I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers.

What concerned you exactly, we are past the ruffled feather point.

This is the reason I’m asking why he is being endorsed - so that I know if it is appropriate to discuss my concerns, or if I should remain silent.

You haven’t presented any reason why his message isn’t valid. When you weighed in to begin with you chose not to remain silent but offer up your opinion, which is based on what?

I’ve said nothing of the sort - I simply asked twice why he is being endorsed on this website. I don’t understand what it is I have to demonstrate at this time.

And again why shouldn’t he be?

 

[wwolverine]

You’re insight serves you well. Have a look at LG, it is more fleshed out there.

Meanwhile, regarding the latter, we are called to be Charitable. I think we must open up our hearts and minds to those who do not acknowledge the Son-ship of Christ (Muslims believe in a Jesus who is merely a prophet).

I will say since Jesus was very clear about Loving one another as he had loved us, we should have not hold on to conditions. Muslim acknowledge the Creator and this is great step in the right direction. We need patience and understanding and the Holy Spirit also to guide us when we try to convey our joy in Christ to others who do not know him.

Peace.

MJ

I like your reply. Amen. Hope the Muslims do realize and Know Jesus much better than what they know.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Robert Spencer is not making up the stories that we hear today in the media and elsewhere about radical Muslims, I think his endeavors to understand why this is happening is laudable. I also have a hard time understanding your denunciation of his efforts simply because he is not Muslim. If you choose not see him as an expert then perhaps you’d be willing to hear from Ayaan Hirsi Ali (she is an ex-Muslim):

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578503613890263762.html

I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that I object to Mr. Spencer being classified as an expert on Islam because he isn’t Muslim. I object to Mr. Spencer being classified as an expert on Islam because he isn’t one, he being or not being Muslim has nothing to do with it. I’d object to someone classifying me as an expert on Catholicism (I’m Catholic), the American political system (MA with a focus on American politics), Middle East politics (secondary focus on Middle East politics), parenting (six kids), marriage (married for 11 years), the military (9 years active service), or the VA disability process (disabled vet). I’d object to being called an expert on any of those items because I lack the proper qualifications, being or having experience with those items plays no real role in determining if I’m an expert or not.

Having to meet basic qualifications in order to be deemed an expert shouldn’t be a new concept for Catholics. We don’t seek out random person who is Catholic for answers to theological questions, we seek out Father “I have at least a MA level degree and years of specialized training and experience dealing the subject” X for answers to theological questions.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What is the premise in which Spencer is wrong? I believe it’s important to focus on the things we have in common, I believe the Catholic message is well covered in regards to Islam by Pope Francis also. The message of Jesus Christ well documented.

None of this means accepting, ignoring or remaining silent about the prevalent behavior presented which as far as I see, is all Spencer talks about in its relation to basic freedoms.

That’s the only premise I see suggested that’s plausible, wrong, but plausible. We should still address the on-going issue’s? Oh I believe so. I don’t see where Spencer has been anything but respectful while being persecuted himself. Predictable I would venture to say.

“Calling someone out” on their lack of qualifications is persecution? Well gee, I guess Jack Chick is one of the most persecuted individuals of all time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Calling someone out” on their lack of qualifications is persecution? Well gee, I guess Jack Chick is one of the most persecuted individuals of all time.

Your opinion on Spencer’s qualifications is just that. And obviously there’s a very long list already posted whom disagree with you.

What minimum qualifications does one need as a non muslim? What needs to be on this resume.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

The Moslem religion is

I. Not the “People of the Book” they don’t believe in the Old or New Testament, only the writings of Mohammed and the Quaran. They might link themselves to Abraham, but since Mohammed did not invent the Religion until the 7th Century how could they link themselves to Abraham, the only thing they could say is “Like the Jews and Christians we believe in One God” they borrowed Jewish teaching and Catholic teaching, where do you think they get there prayers beads from yes us Catholics, they borrowed a lot of our teachings as you can tell when you talk to them, they talk a lot about the " people of the Book" where they got some of there teachings from while at the same time a large proportion want to kills Jews and Christians, look at the way they go on in Moslem Countries, they only behave themselves in Non Moslem Countries because they wont get away with it, do we go around bombing Mosque’s, planting bombs, they are a violent religion its a shame they did not take Jesus teaching’s on board, Love one another, etc they want to dominate the world like they did before the Battle of Lepanto, bury your head in the sand, at your cost and letting evil take a foothold.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It cannot be overlooked Spencer addresses the Ostrich head in sand attitude which is obviously dangerous. And Boston only confirms it. “FACT”

The education attack is nonsense. That’s Islamic reasoning which according to them no one can speak on the Quran. Only they have the wisdom to correctly interpret. Such hogwash. There is more than enough sufficient representation of his education and those who indeed believe it to be sufficient. Its a strawman based on “opinion” “FACT”

Its insinuated Spencer isn’t following the church teaching. All I see are empty accusations with no reasoning behind them. With the accusation comes the insinuation all think alike with the Church message and thus Spencer is wrong. Another strawman no one wants to defend, only suggest they are oh so Catholic and right. “FACT”

Now there are very good reasons why one should be aware of Spencers writing. But those good reasons are not mentioned on this thread. also “FACT”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It cannot be overlooked Spencer addresses the Ostrich head in sand attitude which is obviously dangerous. And Boston only confirms it. “FACT”

The education attack is nonsense. That’s Islamic reasoning which according to them no one can speak on the Quran. Only they have the wisdom to correctly interpret. Such hogwash. There is more than enough sufficient representation of his education and those who indeed believe it to be sufficient. Its a strawman based on “opinion” “FACT”

Its insinuated Spencer isn’t following the church teaching. All I see are empty accusations with no reasoning behind them. With the accusation comes the insinuation all think alike with the Church message and thus Spencer is wrong. Another strawman no one wants to defend, only suggest they are oh so Catholic and right. “FACT”

Now there are very good reasons why one should be aware of Spencers writing. But those good reasons are not mentioned on this thread. also “FACT”

1. I haven’t insinuated anything regarding Mr. Spencer and Church teachings. In fact, I’ve gone out of my way to not talk about Mr. Spencer being right or wrong on specific issues. I’ve done so because you only look at those questions after you’ve determined if the person is qualified to even address the issue.
2. “That’s Islamic reasoning which according to them no one can speak on the Quran.” Yeah, it’s also scientific reasoning, academic reasoning, and plain old common sense. I don’t know too many people who go to their mechanic for heart surgery based on the assumption that “hey, the guy cutting me open and messing around on my insides doesn’t actually need some fancy degree or license to know what he is doing.” The icing on the cake- it’s also gasp Catholic reasoning, or did I miss where the Holy Father declared our priests and religious no longer need to spend X number of years (X+ for Jesuits) in study.
3. Strawman- Well since my argument is just a strawman, I’m sure you’ll have no problem explaining why Mr. Chick, Mr. Brown, Mr. Dawkins, (other posters feel free to tack on anyone you would deem to not be an actual expert on Catholicism) aren’t experts on Catholicism without touching on their obvious lack of professional and educational qualifications.