Mosque opponents target the evils of Islam

[sedonaman]

…But we have to be fair and consistent about this. …

OK, so their calls to prayer must not be louder, no longer, and no more frequent than church bells are rung; and they cannot be at different hours either [like in the middle of the night].

 

[Hunter24]

The Muslims only understand dialogue with the argument of the sword. If anyone is against, please an example that is not “I have a (one) friend that it is not like that!”.

I ask you to tell me what the foundation for this claim is? While Christians and Muslims have fought many times they have also on many occasions coexisted reletively peacefully.

 

[manualman]

It’s not American policy to allow any and every religion to do whatever they like, wherever they like. The Mormons weren’t allowed to practice polygamy, even though it was ‘revealed’ as a holy practice. Rastafarians aren’t allowed to posses and smoke MJ even though many claim it is integral to their beliefs.

The problem we are going to run into in this country in the very near future is that the principle of “all religions are equal and must be respected equally” is absurd. It’s simple to name religions that NOBODY wants around them: Aztec human sacrifice, anyone? No? Now it’s blantantly obvious that most muslims are decent human beings and would make good neighbors. But is that because of the teachings of Islam or because they are HUMAN? The fact is that there are large chunks of the Islamic tradition that appear to be fundamentally incompatible with western liberties and principles of human rights. It is not bigotry to point those aspects out and worry about what will happen if that ideology forms a coherent subculture in one’s own backyard.

Yes, we need to learn the lessons of foolish intolerance from history such as the “Know Nothings” and their ilk. But we have to learn the RIGHT lesson. The lesson is NOT that all religious differences are irrelevant and benign, but that society needs to use reason and universal principles to discern just religious principles from unjust ones - and only oppose the unjust ones. We did it successfully when the challenge of the Mormons and Rastas came along. Must we simply close our eyes to the serious problems in Islam and pretend it’ll all just be fine? History suggests that it won’t. I’m not sure I know where the answer is, but I’ve done work in a predominantly muslim community near here (one in Bridgeview, IL to be precise) and I’m honestly not sure people like these protestors are just ignorant bigots or if they are right to be concerned with the increasing influence of a such a flawed religious worldview in our society.

I think they’d be better off attempting to force the leaders of a proposed mosque to commit in covenant form to certain bedrock principles of this nation if they expect permission to build their center and enjoy the fruits of our public transportation system, water and sewer, electric, etc. Ask them to sign a convenant requiring any and all imams who preach there to sign a statement of human rights that declares the fundamental dignity and legal standing of women, the right of people to free speech, the right to hold one’s own religious beliefs free of coercion (including the right to convert into or out of Islam without fear)… This obviously needs polishing, but I see no reason that Islam should not be subjected to the same sort of sifting and filtering that Mormonism was before being embraced and publicly tolerated by American law. If Islam does NOT conflict with our core principles then there should be no problem affirming them, right? If it DOES conflict, it becomes a legitimate question to ask: “If you hate what we stand for and reject the principles that made us who we are, why did you come here?”

The LDS had to pass such a test when fundamental incompatibilities were identified (polygamy). The Know Nothings TRIED to find such fundamental incompatibilities in catholicism and simply made fools of themselves in the process. Why not apply this proven system now for this next wave of different people with different beliefs that raises concerns and worries? Unlike catholicism, Islam DOES have significant troubling issues at its heart and there is no harm getting down to business and asking Islamic leaders that want to be a mainstream part of our culture to commit publicly to our common national values. The REAL problem is that it seems we just don’t know what those are anymore.

 

[sedonaman]

I ask you to tell me what the foundation for this claim is?

When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; “My power,” said he, “has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper.”

– John Quincy Adams on Jihad

While Christians and Muslims have fought many times they have also on many occasions coexisted reletively peacefully.

Sorta like blacks did under Jim Crow?

 

[PJH_74]

It’s not American policy to allow any and every religion to do whatever they like, wherever they like. The Mormons weren’t allowed to practice polygamy, even though it was ‘revealed’ as a holy practice.

It was actually American policy at times to send the army to kill them.

The problem we are going to run into in this country in the very near future is that the principle of “all religions are equal and must be respected equally” is absurd.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” It’s not absurd, it’s constitutional.

It is not bigotry to point those aspects out and worry about what will happen if that ideology forms a coherent subculture in one’s own backyard.

…]

Ask them to sign a convenant requiring any and all imams who preach there to sign a statement of human rights that declares the fundamental dignity and legal standing of women, the right of people to free speech, the right to hold one’s own religious beliefs free of coercion (including the right to convert into or out of Islam without fear)…

So it’s not bigoted to ask one group to “prove” themselves based on your assumptions of who they are and what they will do?

If Islam does NOT conflict with our core principles then there should be no problem affirming them, right? If it DOES conflict, it becomes a legitimate question to ask: “If you hate what we stand for and reject the principles that made us who we are, why did you come here?”

It seems to me that religious freedom is one of the things that has made us who we are.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Yes, we need to learn the lessons of foolish intolerance from history such as the “Know Nothings” and their ilk. But we have to learn the RIGHT lesson. The lesson is NOT that all religious differences are irrelevant and benign, but that society needs to use reason and universal principles to discern just religious principles from unjust ones - and only oppose the unjust ones. We did it successfully when the challenge of the Mormons and Rastas came along. Must we simply close our eyes to the serious problems in Islam and pretend it’ll all just be fine? History suggests that it won’t. I’m not sure I know where the answer is, but I’ve done work in a predominantly muslim community near here (one in Bridgeview, IL to be precise) and I’m honestly not sure people like these protestors are just ignorant bigots or if they are right to be concerned with the increasing influence of a such a flawed religious worldview in our society.
…

Perhaps we can open the history books and learn from Reynolds v. The United States:

… The Reynolds Court was not speaking theoretically when it declared that polygamy could “fetter a people in stationary despotism.” Prior to statehood, Utah was a de facto theocracy. For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.

Brigham Young was simultaneously head of the church, governor of the Utah Territory, and a member of the boards of major businesses. Young decided where his followers lived, the crops they grew, where they shopped, the professions they chose–and who they married. There was little government beyond the church’s structure. Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory’s children remained illiterate. Elections were understood not as forums for debate and decision, but as occasions for popular acclamation of God’s choice.

Underlying all this was a deeply communal ethic: Men and women were willing to defer to the church’s leadership for the sake of the broader Mormon society, even in so personal a matter as marriage–within which, of course, wives deferred to husbands. To antipolygamists, this was neither capitalism nor democracy, but a substitution of the rule of men for the rule of laws. Indeed, the ability of church leaders to command personal sacrifice and disobedience to U.S. law fueled resistance to federal enforcement of Reynolds. …

law2.byu.edu/marriage_family/news/5.29.6.htm

So, maybe the question is the same: Will Islam give rise to divergent governing principles?

 

[Publisher]

It seems to me “we” like to tout religious freedom when it effects “us”…but when it effects a religous group we find objectionalbe…curbing their religious freedom is acceptable.

 

[PJH_74]

It seems to me “we” like to tout religious freedom when it effects “us”…but when it effects a religous group we find objectionalbe…curbing their religious freedom is acceptable.

Exactly. I find it especially absurd to find this on a Catholic board given the history of anti-Catholic hatred in this country. It was not long ago Catholics were considered “incompatible” with the precepts of the United States.

 

[manualman]

It seems to me “we” like to tout religious freedom when it effects “us”…but when it effects a religous group we find objectionalbe…curbing their religious freedom is acceptable.

So you’d be fine with, say, a new Aztec religion re-emerging that practiced the kidnap and sacrifice of young people to their sun god? Or ARE there basic and universal principles that we will not allow to be violated in the name of religious freedom?

Either you’re for absolute religious freedom or you aren’t. I argue that religious freedom must always be subordinate to SOME particular human rights. The trick is identifying which ones those are. Do you agree or should we send the Aztecs your way?

 

[PJH_74]

So you’d be fine with, say, a new Aztec religion re-emerging that practiced the kidnap and sacrifice of young people to their sun god? Or ARE there basic and universal principles that we will not allow to be violated in the name of religious freedom?

That’s why we have laws. Murder is indeed illegal in this country, so we’re good there.

 

[manualman]

That’s why we have laws. Murder is indeed illegal in this country, so we’re good there.

Good, you’re thinking. Now WHY does that law supercede the Aztec’s religious liberty? Why isn’t that law struck down by the courts? Religious freedom is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. I don’t see any explicit Constitutional prohibition of murder, do you? So why in your view wouldn’t the courts allow Aztec sacrifice?

Yes, it’s abusrd, but absurdity helps test the validity of principles.

Just as a religion can be censored if it defies the primacy of the human right to life, a religion can be censored if it defines a woman to be fundamentally worth less than a man (especially in legal standing). Does Islam demand that courts consider women’s testimony to be of lesser value than a man’s? If so, then there is a conflict and there SHOULD be a censor. Maybe this is a disputed issue within Islam. Fine, just censor the bad guy side of it. But let’s please stop pretending that it is unjust and bigoted for a society to place ANY reasoned and rational restriction on religion because of the Constitution. What we need to guard against are IRrational restrictions (and there are rather a few to worry about in current events!).

 

[confucius]

What a repellent argument. You clearly don’t understand Muslims. This kind of statement destroys evangelism. You need to understand someone to preach the gospel to them. As John Paul II wrote in Redemptoris missio about evanglizing other cultures, someone reaching out to Muslims must engage in:
“understanding, appreciating, fostering and evangelizing the culture of the environment in which they are working, and therefore of equipping themselves to communicate effectively with it, adopting a manner of living which is a sign of gospel witness and of solidarity with the people.”
We have seen what “argument by force” brings: the abysmal failure upon failure that was the Crusades. Or the loss of Christian population in Iraq since 2003.

I find the best way to understand Islam is to talk with Muslims and read unbiased works about them.

Examples of dialogue:
uscatholic.org/Muslim-Catholic_dialogue

Have you read the statement by Benedict XVI when he quoted a Medieval Prince who said to a Muslim scholar that from Islam nothing good came, only violence ?
You talking about the crusades seem to be a Muslim. Look, all what the Muslim have today was conquered to the Christians, north of Africa, Turkey, Israel, Middle East. I listen to no word of you about those conquests by the sword.
Have you ever tried to dialogue with Muslims or it is just a wishful thinking ?

 

[PJH_74]

Just as a religion can be censored if it defies the primacy of the human right to life, a religion can be censored if it defines a woman to be fundamentally worth less than a man (especially in legal standing).

You do realize there are plenty of churches in which a woman is defined as not equal to a man? Some churches (I know the WELS Lutheran church for sure) does not allow women to have authority over or teach men in church. Many churches will not ordain women. All of these are legally protected. Should we be worried about the influence of Christian churches on this country?

 

[confucius]

I ask you to tell me what the foundation for this claim is? While Christians and Muslims have fought many times they have also on many occasions coexisted reletively peacefully.

I tell you. Muslims attacked Christianity in:

• the north of Africa;
• Turkey;
• Middle East, including what is now israel;
• Balcans;
• Iberia Peninsula;
• France and the Battle of Poitiers;
• The Siege of Wien.

Nowadays you find Muslim wars in:

• chechenya;
• Israel;
• Syuria;
• Iraq;
• Afganistan;
• Pakistan;
• Indonesia;
• Philipines;
• Sri Lanka;
• India;
• Nigeria where they are burning Christina
• Sudan where they ar provoking 2 million, I repeat, 2 million staarving people;
• 9/11;
• the whole North of Africa;
• Balcans;
• unrest, several unrests in Europe;

Enough ?
As for peaceful dialogue, only when Christians are dominating.
When Muslims are dominating like in Saudi Arabia, it is forbidden the Catholic Faith and if a Muslim converts to Christianity he will be killed.
so much for dialogue.
Not for me !!!

 

[Publisher]

So you’d be fine with, say, a new Aztec religion re-emerging that practiced the kidnap and sacrifice of young people to their sun god? Or ARE there basic and universal principles that we will not allow to be violated in the name of religious freedom?

Either you’re for absolute religious freedom or you aren’t. I argue that religious freedom must always be subordinate to SOME particular human rights. The trick is identifying which ones those are. Do you agree or should we send the Aztecs your way?

The Mosque has in no way violated ANYONE’S human rights. Unless those Aztecs were indeed wanting to reintroduce human sacrifice…which by the way there are some pagans practicing a modern version of the Aztec religion…less human sacrifice…but pray to the Old Gods…it is their right to practice their faith as long as no one’s human rights are violated…what human rights have those Muslims in this particular Mosque violated?

 

[PJH_74]

I tell you. Muslims attacked Christianity in…

That’s right, we Christian America, never invade or occupy Muslim countries. Or we the Christian west never exterminate members of other religions.

 

[Hunter24]

Sorta like blacks did under Jim Crow?

Um not at all like blacks under Jim Crow, and i dont know how the US-Algerian war proves that Muslems only want to conquer the world, i can find many similar quotes by christians.

 

[Hunter24]

I tell you. Muslims attacked Christianity in:

• the north of Africa;
• Turkey;
• Middle East, including what is now israel;
• Balcans;
• Iberia Peninsula;
• France and the Battle of Poitiers;
• The Siege of Wien.

Nowadays you find Muslim wars in:

• chechenya;
• Israel;
• Syuria;
• Iraq;
• Afganistan;
• Pakistan;
• Indonesia;
• Philipines;
• Sri Lanka;
• India;
• Nigeria where they are burning Christina
• Sudan where they ar provoking 2 million, I repeat, 2 million staarving people;
• 9/11;
• the whole North of Africa;
• Balcans;
• unrest, several unrests in Europe;

Enough ?
As for peaceful dialogue, only when Christians are dominating.
When Muslims are dominating like in Saudi Arabia, it is forbidden the Catholic Faith and if a Muslim converts to Christianity he will be killed.
so much for dialogue.
Not for me !!!

Hmm, well Christianity attacked Islam during the Crusades in Turkey, the Holy Land, and North Africa.

Not only that during the wars for control of Spain the Christians were much more violent than Muslems (given they were the ones who had lost their lands). still, the Christians were the ones who were far more motivated by religion, with the moors simply looking to expand their boarders.

In the early 20th century tens of thousands of Turkish Muslems were killed by the Greeks after the First World War, not to mention the Ethnic clensing of Muslems by Slav Orthodox Serbians in former YugoSlavia.

Christianity has caused more wars both internaly and externaly than any other religion.

and lastly, people commonly use Saudi Arabia as an example without realizing how radical they are. that is like having a country run by radical fundimentalist protestants from the 17th century. cerntainly its not a nice place to live but the Saudi monarchy are rather radical.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hmm, well Christianity attacked Islam during the Crusades in Turkey, the Holy Land, and North Africa.

Not only that during the wars for control of Spain the Christians were much more violent than Muslems (given they were the ones who had lost their lands). still, the Christians were the ones who were far more motivated by religion, with the moors simply looking to expand their boarders.

Please cite supporting research.

In the early 20th century tens of thousands of Turkish Muslems were killed by the Greeks after the First World War,

Review your history. Said war had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with nationalism and territorial expansion.

not to mention the Ethnic clensing of Muslems by Slav Orthodox Serbians in former YugoSlavia.

Ethnic, not religion, being the key word here.

Christianity has caused more wars both internaly and externaly than any other religion.

Please cite supporting research. Please ensure supporting research accounts for other factors, such as economics, territorial expansion, nationalism, imperialism, ethnic/social friction, internal politics, external politics, etc. This is just so you can narrow down the number of wars that were actually caused by religion or had religion as a major causing factor. Next you would need to analyze the remaining wars to see which religion has caused more wars. Also, you might want to better define war.

and lastly, people commonly use Saudi Arabia as an example without realizing how radical they are. that is like having a country run by radical fundimentalist protestants from the 17th century. cerntainly its not a nice place to live but the Saudi monarchy are rather radical.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I tell you. Muslims attacked Christianity in:

• the north of Africa;
• Turkey;
• Middle East, including what is now israel;
• Balcans;
• Iberia Peninsula;
• France and the Battle of Poitiers;
• The Siege of Wien.

Nowadays you find Muslim wars in:

• chechenya;
• Israel;
• Syuria;
• Iraq;
• Afganistan;
• Pakistan;
• Indonesia;
• Philipines;
• Sri Lanka;
• India;
• Nigeria where they are burning Christina
• Sudan where they ar provoking 2 million, I repeat, 2 million staarving people;
• 9/11;
• the whole North of Africa;
• Balcans;
• unrest, several unrests in Europe;

Enough ?
As for peaceful dialogue, only when Christians are dominating.
When Muslims are dominating like in Saudi Arabia, it is forbidden the Catholic Faith and if a Muslim converts to Christianity he will be killed.
so much for dialogue.
Not for me !!!

All of which has no bearing on our responsibility to have a peaceful dialogue with them. It’s not “do as they do” it’s “do as I (God) tell you to do.”