B
bosnian_muslim
Guest
in Thailand buddhists have killed many muslims and hindus,buddhist monks were involved many times…
so, not true
- Status
so, not true
C
Catherine_D
Guest
You’ll need to provide evidence.
D
donsnow
Guest
Neither do I know better than Holy Mother Church.
But, I do know better than Political Correctness.
And, I know that Holy Mother Church and Political Correctness don’t mix. So, if it’s Political Correctness in Holy Mother Church instead of the Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition, then Holy Mother Church has been sidetracked.
D
donsnow
Guest
Yes, we sure did. And, what you describe closely resembles the present Afghanistan which we are still holding. Like I said, you’re anticipating our withdrawal. Wait until we withdraw to prate your leftist propaganda, then…
…and not until…
…you’ll be right.
D
donsnow
Guest
I forget if were in hardcopy magazine on on the internet, but I have seen news articles to that effect. I think it’s not limited to Thailand, where Buddhist monks did acts of violence, too.
L
larkin31
Guest
I would not be surprised.
There are violent persons in all religions. It’s one of our universal human flaws.
Nixon was a Quaker!
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I agree with you that for America to be Islamized (i.e., allowing sharia law in place of or in addition to our existing laws), it would require a major constitutional overhaul. Sharia law is not likely to get instituted in the U.S. in this generation or the next. I would not go so far to say that it has no chance of happening, as there are organizations like CAIR, even our Treasury Dept and financial companies, that are already promoting ‘pieces’ of sharia, and are successful to some extent.
The transformation in Europe, stemming from the vigorous growth of its Muslim population (now an est 50 mil + another 50 mil with the addition of Turkey in the EU), had been building up for the last 25 years. The landscape changed, with mosques built as many if not more than cathedrals in all capitals. Additions or changes have been made to laws in most countries to address socio-political issues, most significant of which involving restrictions to free speech (disallowing any insult to Islam), now operational or effectively introduced in many EU countries. While Islam is not a fully dominant force in Europe, it would be foolish to dismiss the Islamizing trend there. Islamization is strongly manifest in the U.K., for example, the country from which this nation broke the colonial umbilical cord, as sharia courts are functioning parallel to the British judicial system, indicating the current power of the Muslim constituency in that country. If enough Muslims are elected and appointed in US federal and state government, it would not be far-fetched to see towns like Dearborn, Michigan turning into what Birmingham in the UK is today.
Should we worry that the first amendment rights of U.S. citizens are at risk? No, not yet, judging on the appreciation by all that Imam Feisal would be able to build the mosque near GZ despite opposition of many. Just as the pastor in Gainesville would have been able to burn the Qu’ran books as his first amendment right, except, as we know, he yielded to pressure.
But make note: no less than the defense secretary called Pastor Jones to request him to stop the burning. To me, that’s close enough to the President doing it himself. If the President invokes his power as Commander-in-Chief to prevent Quran burnings in America, he will have taken a big step towards the institution of sharia law in this country. He did not go there, but his glaring affection for Islam is not inconsequential. Sharia law includes prohibition of desecration of the holy book of Islam, as well as criticism of or insult to Islam and Muhammad. Any enforcement of sharia blasphemy codes will be seen by adherents to that doctrine as evidence of our submission to Islam – of us being Islamized.
[con’t]
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
[con’t]
We should all take note of this, which many are failing to do: A few years ago, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted resolutions recognizing and promoting the concept known as “defamation of religions.” The proponents of resolutions banning “defamation of religions” seek to ban all criticism of religion regardless of context or setting. See here, The Death of Universal Human Rights.
According to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), proponent of such resolutions, criticism of Islam is in and of itself an incitement to violence and discrimination and therefore must be banned as “Islamophobic.” [Btw, there is non-acceptance among writers, for good reason, about the misuse of the term “Islamophobia” by Islam advocates.] According to the OIC definition, any speech, book, film, or other form of expression that depicts Islam, Mohammed, or Muslims in an unflattering light constitutes “defamation.”
For many years, the U.S. was at the forefront of opposing the OIC’s “defamation of religions” resolutions at the council and at the General Assembly. This is not the case anymore. Not long after Obama took office, he co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt on behalf of OIC on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on “defamation of religions” that the U.S. opposed in the past. The resolution calls on all UN members to prohibit and criminalize all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances, with Islam the only religion named in the resolution.
Not many seem to have taken notice of this huge shift in the U.S. role in the UN. See this Heritage Foundation report. Now the OIC and its supporters are reportedly seizing upon the threatened Qu’ran burning in Gainewsville to press for an international law criminalizing all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances. The group is also pursuing “a parallel strategy – to have an existing global anti-racism measure, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), amended to incorporate religion.”
Don’t forget that we have a President who seems to “reach out to the Muslim world” at every opportunity! His adulation of Islam and closeness to its culture outweighing his weak “Christian” connection (which was simply liberation theology under Rev. Wright’s church), plus his discounting the Christian roots of this nation at least in his speeches, are reasons that 25% or more believe he is a Muslim. I find it strange how he and his supporters take exception with Americans who believe he is Muslim, when it is the picture he is painting of himself!
As for the subject of freedom of expression, we see our President clearly promoting something in the international scene what would run afoul of how we define freedom of expression in the United States.
Fortunately, he has just two more years to go. It’s too long for many who realize what he is doing, not just with health care, immigration, unmatched spending and the economy. And Catholics know too well his position on abortion.
As a Democrat who did not vote for Obama, and has since moved right of center, I really doubt he would or should be re-elected. He aligned himself with the insensitive mosque project, quick to say it is an exercise of a protected freedom, but did not do the same for the Florida pastor’s right in burning the Qu’ran, which is not to say the burning would have been a smart thing to do. We do not have to guess what the President’s vision is for our country’s future.
In the meantime, if there is another publicized Qu’ran burning threat in the U.S. or some other activity or event that would offend this ‘perpetually offended’ group of people, are we sure that our dearly held first amendment right would be intact?
My prayer is that all American citizens get informed as to what’s going on, as much as possible.
We should all take note of this, which many are failing to do: A few years ago, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted resolutions recognizing and promoting the concept known as “defamation of religions.” The proponents of resolutions banning “defamation of religions” seek to ban all criticism of religion regardless of context or setting. See here, The Death of Universal Human Rights.
According to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), proponent of such resolutions, criticism of Islam is in and of itself an incitement to violence and discrimination and therefore must be banned as “Islamophobic.” [Btw, there is non-acceptance among writers, for good reason, about the misuse of the term “Islamophobia” by Islam advocates.] According to the OIC definition, any speech, book, film, or other form of expression that depicts Islam, Mohammed, or Muslims in an unflattering light constitutes “defamation.”
For many years, the U.S. was at the forefront of opposing the OIC’s “defamation of religions” resolutions at the council and at the General Assembly. This is not the case anymore. Not long after Obama took office, he co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt on behalf of OIC on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on “defamation of religions” that the U.S. opposed in the past. The resolution calls on all UN members to prohibit and criminalize all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances, with Islam the only religion named in the resolution.
Not many seem to have taken notice of this huge shift in the U.S. role in the UN. See this Heritage Foundation report. Now the OIC and its supporters are reportedly seizing upon the threatened Qu’ran burning in Gainewsville to press for an international law criminalizing all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances. The group is also pursuing “a parallel strategy – to have an existing global anti-racism measure, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), amended to incorporate religion.”
Don’t forget that we have a President who seems to “reach out to the Muslim world” at every opportunity! His adulation of Islam and closeness to its culture outweighing his weak “Christian” connection (which was simply liberation theology under Rev. Wright’s church), plus his discounting the Christian roots of this nation at least in his speeches, are reasons that 25% or more believe he is a Muslim. I find it strange how he and his supporters take exception with Americans who believe he is Muslim, when it is the picture he is painting of himself!
As for the subject of freedom of expression, we see our President clearly promoting something in the international scene what would run afoul of how we define freedom of expression in the United States.
Fortunately, he has just two more years to go. It’s too long for many who realize what he is doing, not just with health care, immigration, unmatched spending and the economy. And Catholics know too well his position on abortion.
As a Democrat who did not vote for Obama, and has since moved right of center, I really doubt he would or should be re-elected. He aligned himself with the insensitive mosque project, quick to say it is an exercise of a protected freedom, but did not do the same for the Florida pastor’s right in burning the Qu’ran, which is not to say the burning would have been a smart thing to do. We do not have to guess what the President’s vision is for our country’s future.
In the meantime, if there is another publicized Qu’ran burning threat in the U.S. or some other activity or event that would offend this ‘perpetually offended’ group of people, are we sure that our dearly held first amendment right would be intact?
My prayer is that all American citizens get informed as to what’s going on, as much as possible.
B
bluelake
Guest
Burning the Koran is a bad idea.
However, muslims burn the Holy Bible in their country.
But then, they seem to hate everyone.
bluelake
T
Tenofovir
Guest
I agree. This will just enrage the moderates (majority) and give ammunition to those who suggest Christianity is intolerant and only after control as many atheists, anti-theists, anti-clerics and people of other religions often say. Christians need to win people of other faiths (and those of no faith) over with the message of Christ (peace, love, compassion, respect for human dignity etc) and not belligerence. John Paul II did this in practice.
What would other people think?
Well, here’s the article in the OneIndia online newspaper, one comment (linked below the article) went as follows:
If this is the idea Christians project about themselves, we are doing Christ a disservice.
Then again some comments especially from Hindus welcomed this pastor’s idea to burn the Koran. This probably stems from the conflict over Kashmir between Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims.
The link:
news.oneindia.in/2010/07/31/burn-quran-day-us-florida-church-9-11-attacks.html
Please note that the comments section is not moderated heavily so some comments may contain profane language although not always in English. The link is an actual online news service, very much like the BBC or CNN.
G
GeoCyclist
Guest
so, you dont know better than holy mother church, until you think something like the catechism contains political correctness, in which case, you do know better than holy mother church.
I, on the other hand, simply dont, so what is in the catechism, along with what is taught by the magesterium is always good enough for me.
G
GeoCyclist
Guest
Prate my leftist propaganda
You dont know anything about my political affiliations nor my voting record. It’s kinda silly to fling around fancy sounding words when you dont know the first iota about who youre addressing.
D
donsnow
Guest
Well, I’m sure you’re a better Catholic and Christian than me.so, you dont know better than holy mother church, until you think something like the catechism contains political correctness, in which case, you do know better than holy mother church.
But, I intend to continue throwing out all that contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Magesterium, and Tradition. In the case of political correctness, I do not want it poisoning Mother Church.nor me nor you. GeoCyclist, I’m trying to warn you of danger to your immortal soul.
G
GeoCyclist
Guest
So what you’re saying basically is you’re picking and chosing - so long as what holy mother church says chimes with that you think and agree, then its pims at 3 o’clock, but if holy mother church states something that doesnt chime with you, then it’s out with the bath water!
Here’s what the catechism says:
- Plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator — check
- First place among those above belongs to the muslims — check
- Holy mother church has a bond with all of mankind ---- check
- All nations, all peoples, are brothers, my brothers ------ check
- We are all destined for God ---- check
- God’s not bound by us, and His saving Grace extends to all of his creation ----- check.
How beautiful and succinct! And nothing above places my immortal soul in eternal danger. But not treating my muslim brothers and sisters as God’s children and doing to them as I would have done to me, scandalising them and speaking or thinking ill of them, and giving any of them cause to not see the working of the Holy Spirit in me in my thoughts, in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, almost certainly would!
I’m not interested in anyones personal interpretation of the catechism, or the teachings of the church. The church is doing a fine job of making clear to me what she expects through her catechism, her magesterium, her sacraments and her shepherds. Thanks all the same.
N
Nexttogodliness
Guest
exactly. And ppl need to think about how it would make us feel if someone took the bible, called it a false religion and scheduled a day to frickin burnit !!!
L
larkin31
Guest
Thanks for sharing this. I am not a Catholic, am not even a believer, presently. I will likely never be a Catholic. But there is much in the CCC that I find wise and loving and persuasive, and I find the same in many Catholic persons. But self-righteousness I find intolerable among some believers in any faith, particularly when it feeds anger and scorn and arrogance. I also fight it in myself (intellectually), and these teachings you have quoted here remind me of my bonds to all persons, and my moral responsibility to distinguish between those who would do me personal harm and those who share my goals but express them through different metaphors and stories from other languages.
D
donsnow
Guest
GeoCyclist, all I know about you is what you write. And I say again, what you write reads like leftist propaganda. That much I do know. That’s why I told you to check the sources that you quote.Prate my leftist propaganda
D
donsnow
Guest
You’re putting words in my mouth. Please don’t do that. I don’t throw out what the Catechism, nor Tradition nor Scripture says. How many times do I have to repeat that?
G
GeoCyclist
Guest
That’s great. So you wholeheartedly agree with, profess to be true, and teach the following:
•841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
Excellent
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I saw this 9.20.2010 article, Is Koran Burning Protected by Free Speech?, excerpts below:
It so frustrating to hear the president, in the very same appearance, denounce Koran burning for fear of offending Muslims, but insist the First Amendment rights of the Ground Zero Mosque planners trump the “extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11.” In essence, opponents of the GZM project are being punished for not being violent.
The perverseness of this approach is even starker considering there is no genuine First Amendment issue in the Ground Zero context. That provision places constraints on the government; not on the general public’s right to pressure a religious group. By contrast, the Administration’s pressure on the Florida pastor, which included dispatching the FBI to impress upon him that his life would be in danger, carries the distinct flavor of prohibited government interference.
Legal wrangling aside, the Administration has it backwards from a strategic standpoint. Insisting Americans curb their First Amendment rights in deference to Muslims, but not asking Muslims to do the same when Americans are offended creates a privileged status for Islam which is exactly what the extremists want. Their goal is to impose a radical brand of Islamic law on society at large. Censoring speech that insults or critiques Islam is the first step in this process and the US government should not be doing it for them.
Even at the tactical level it doesn’t make sense. The Obama administration argued Koran burnings could function as a “recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.” But anyone who could actually be driven to terrorism by a stunt from a handful of individuals thousands of miles away is no moderate. He was going to be set off eventually anyway. Better to flush him into the open now.
The other parts of the article are just as illuminating.
It so frustrating to hear the president, in the very same appearance, denounce Koran burning for fear of offending Muslims, but insist the First Amendment rights of the Ground Zero Mosque planners trump the “extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11.” In essence, opponents of the GZM project are being punished for not being violent.
The perverseness of this approach is even starker considering there is no genuine First Amendment issue in the Ground Zero context. That provision places constraints on the government; not on the general public’s right to pressure a religious group. By contrast, the Administration’s pressure on the Florida pastor, which included dispatching the FBI to impress upon him that his life would be in danger, carries the distinct flavor of prohibited government interference.
Legal wrangling aside, the Administration has it backwards from a strategic standpoint. Insisting Americans curb their First Amendment rights in deference to Muslims, but not asking Muslims to do the same when Americans are offended creates a privileged status for Islam which is exactly what the extremists want. Their goal is to impose a radical brand of Islamic law on society at large. Censoring speech that insults or critiques Islam is the first step in this process and the US government should not be doing it for them.
Even at the tactical level it doesn’t make sense. The Obama administration argued Koran burnings could function as a “recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.” But anyone who could actually be driven to terrorism by a stunt from a handful of individuals thousands of miles away is no moderate. He was going to be set off eventually anyway. Better to flush him into the open now.
The other parts of the article are just as illuminating.
- Status