Robert Spencer?

[GaryTaylor]

I am sorry to misread you, Gary. What do you mean terrorism, rape, murder and violence is perpetrated and communicated via world news in regards to aspects of Islam? If that is not generalizing, then we are in agreement.

The link is above for example, there are no generalizations by me. Though it does appear we are doing a whole lot of generalizing.

As far as Robert Spencer and Worcester. Mass, I agree with the Church. I disagree with what Robert Spencer had to say about the Church in regards. However, as an American he has that right to speak not only on Islam, but on the Church also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And yet anti-Catholics have, for centuries, accused Catholics such as Blessed John Henry Newman of “cunning equivocation” and other practices that, anti-Catholics argue, lead almost inevitably to the deception of listeners and which are freely allowed within Catholicism despite the commandment not to bear false witness…

Isn’t “anti-Catholics” a generalization which is no different than Radical Islam?

Think about that. Really allow that to sink in. Anti-Catholics accuse us of teaching and believing that it is morally legitimate, under what they claim to be “our” interpretation of the aforementioned commandment, to engage in practices which have the end result of deceiving listeners…

Same generalization

If people assume this about us Catholics, as we know that some do, what can we possibly say that will actually convince them that we are not lying to them? Once our bad faith is assumed by our interlocutors, anything we might say in our own defense, such as “but we are bound by the 8th commandment!,” will be interpreted as still more “cunning equivocation” designed to have the effect of deception. When others assume that we will deceive them, we are placed in a terrible position, because we are thereby prevented from sharing even the truth about ourselves…

If people assume? Wow I’ll leave that one alone.

We know how it feels to be placed in this position. How ought we to engage others?

Tobit 4:15: “And what you hate, do not do to any one.”
Sirach 31:15: “Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind everything you dislike.”
Matthew 7:12: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.”
Luke 6:31: “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”.

We know?

Should we, prior to our encounter with another person, assume bad faith on his part, assume that he will lie to or deliberately deceive us? No. The Church’s teaching prohibits us from making such assumptions about others. To assume the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation, even tacitly, is a sin: rash judgment, which is a form of prejudice (pre-judgment). “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: ‘Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.’” .

Should “we”?

So when I encounter Fatima at a neighborhood picnic, for example, it would be wrong for me to assume “She is a Muslim and therefore she will deliberately deceive me” or even “Ahmed has deceived me, and they are both Muslims, therefore Fatima will do the same.” That would be rash judgment, a form of prejudice, and a sin against Fatima. I must allow Fatima to speak for herself, not assuming a moral fault on Fatima’s part, but giving her own words the most favorable interpretation possible and asking her for clarification as needed to ensure understanding. According to the teaching of the Lord and of his Church, I should give her the same fair and unprejudiced hearing in a conversation that I would want for myself.

You went from we, to I. than transferred your behavior back to the we. Are you speaking for we in general and then assuming the “we” on an individual basis isn’t living according to Christianity and the Catholic Church?

“generalizations”

Sorry your not grasping this exercise/point. I get your point, honestly I do. BUT, either you ignore mine, or disagree. Which is it? Your not speaking for “we” but in “generalization” . Thus the same thing you suggest “we” shouldn’t do with Islam, “you” do with Christianity. Its a double standard.

 

[aspirant]

Isn’t “anti-Catholics” a generalization

Of whom?

If people assume?

Yes. Obviously people need not assume such a thing; most people do not.

We know?

If you were not previously aware of having been accused, you are now.

You went from we, to I.

Of course. It is an example, as I said.

Are you speaking for we in general and then assuming the “we” on an individual basis isn’t living according to Christianity and the Catholic Church?

I cannot understand what you are asking. Perhaps you would be willing to rephrase this?

I get your point, honestly I do.

Based on your previous comments, you obviously do not.

 

[Reuben_J]

The link is above for example, there are no generalizations by me. Though it does appear we are doing a whole lot of generalizing.

As far as Robert Spencer and Worcester. Mass, I agree with the Church. I disagree with what Robert Spencer had to say about the Church in regards. However, as an American he has that right to speak not only on Islam, but on the Church also.

So it is about an American’s right to speak on Islam and on the Church; and we don’t have to agree with him. I think I am losing the plot here as I do not see why all the fuss.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So it is about an American’s right to speak on Islam and on the Church; and we don’t have to agree with him. I think I am losing the plot here as I do not see why all the fuss.

Perhaps because you completely missed the point if indeed you believe your quote is what I am talking about. And there is no fuss, its just a clearly noticed “Double Standard” which is what I am talking about and pointed out.

My personal view on Robert Spencer is just that, and most definitely not a generalized statement if you read it, but again that is what you turned it into.

 

[pietro1]

Denise:

Does Islam teach that all Muslims are bound to tell the truth according to the 8th commandment?

It doesn’t matter what Islam teach.

GaryTaylor:

How can’t you see the Islamic supremacist strategy to suppress free speech about Islam and jihad in the U.S. today? Is that what Mohammad taught?

You are off the topic . We are talking about Spencer here.

So you would like to come here and do the same thing here that muslims are attemping to do to Spencer?

Yes, I am here - like Muslims - to deceive you. -

Quote:
Originally Posted by aspirant View Post
As I explained above, we would be guilty of assuming bad faith, of rash judgment, if we approached Muslims with the assumption that they will deliberately deceive us. That would be a sin against them. (We need not do this, of course.) Please read what I wrote.

And who is doing this? Topic is Robert Spencer.

Robert Spencer is doing this.

A] When terrorism, rape, murder and violence is perpetrated and communicated via world news in regards to aspects of Islam, or anyone else. We would be “ignorant” not to comprehend the reality of the situation!

B] How we respond as Christians indicates we are Christian. This doesn’t change point A.

If terrorism, rape, murder and violence is presented in the media as a cause of Islam. then
the media is inducing a fascist propaganda - like Spencer.
There is no connection at all beetwen A) and B)!!!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Of whom?.

Who you were speaking on in the above paragraph.

Yes. Obviously people need not assume such a thing; most people do not…

But YOU are.

If you were not previously aware of having been accused, you are now…

“If people assume this about us Catholics, as we know that some do, what can we”

is your generalized statement above, about… “if people assume” I have no idea what people assume, do you read minds?

Of course. It is an example, as I said…

And a generalized one, being my point.

I cannot understand what you are asking. Perhaps you would be willing to rephrase this?.

You presented a double standard that is the point. I’m not asking you anything. I’m pointing it out to you which as I stated above you refuse to see.

You don’t want us to generalize about Islam, but that is what in fact you are doing with Christianity. And by your repetitive “we” statements. You are speaking for YOU not WE. You don’t know what we all know, or how we all conduct ourselves.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are off the topic . We are talking about Spencer here.

Your not the moderator.

Yes, I am here - like Muslims - to deceive you…

Did I suggest this? I’ll take you on your own words.

Robert Spencer is doing this.

That’s your opinion, does he have the right to voice his own. YES or NO? Double Standard?

If terrorism, rape, murder and violence is presented in the media as a cause of Islam. then the media is inducing a fascist propaganda - like Spencer.

“IF” makes you statement moot. I posted specifics would you like to respond to the facts? The link on Syria is above. Course this is while you continue your double standard.

 

[pietro1]

GaryTaylor:
I don’t know what are you trying to say?
You mix everything.

Your not the moderator.

No I am not. And so?

Did I suggest this? I’ll take you on your own words.

What did you suggest?

That’s your opinion, does he have the right to voice his own. YES or NO? Double Standard?

???

“IF” makes you statement moot. I posted specifics would you like to respond to the facts? The link on Syria is above. Course this is while you continue your double standard.

Syria has nothing to do with my IF.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know what are you trying to say

Fair enough.

So I ask, is Catholicism/Christianity subject to personal honest examination in the public realm?

 

[pietro1]

GaryTaylor:
" Personal honest examination in the public realm."

I am sorry, but I still don’t understand. What do you mean by that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor:
" Personal honest examination in the public realm."

I am sorry, but I still don’t understand. What do you mean by that?

Your statement below…

the media is inducing a fascist propaganda - like Spencer

That’s your personal honest examination in the public realm. Thus I contend as with the Syria link above I too have this right and so too does Spencer.

By you statement above we would be in agreement, no?

 

[aspirant]

Who you were speaking on in the above paragraph.

Are you claiming that there are people who presume bad faith among Catholics who are not anti-Catholics? If not, what are you claiming?

aspirant:

Yes. Obviously people need not assume such a thing; most people do not.

But YOU are.

I do not assume that Catholics deliberately deceive non-Catholics. Where do you think I said that?

“If people assume this about us Catholics, as we know that some do, what can we”

is your generalized statement above, about… “if people assume” I have no idea what people assume, do you read minds?

Is there a reason you’re ignoring the conditional dimension of the sentence?

At any rate, a person doesn’t have to “read minds” in order to know that some people assume this, because they express it publicly. I’ve already quoted one accusation directly. Here’s another: “The more devout a Roman Catholic is, and the deeper they are into their religion, the more they believe they are justified in making something up as long as they believe ‘they mean well.’” No minds needed reading in order to learn that some people hold this prejudice against Catholics.

And a generalized one, being my point.

You’re not making sense. How is a hypothetical example about one person a generalization about anyone?

You don’t want us to generalize about Islam

I don’t want us to make rash judgments about Muslims.

You don’t know what we all know, or how we all conduct ourselves.

I know some of the things you know. Where did I claim to know how you conduct yourself?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t want us to make rash judgments about Muslims

Me either, I also don’t want “us” to make rash judgment’s about Christians either. Are we in agreement?

“Should we, prior to our encounter with another person, assume bad faith on his part, assume that he will lie to or deliberately deceive us?”

Tell me, should we do this with Robert Spencer?

 

[manualman]

And yet anti-Catholics have, for centuries, accused Catholics such as Blessed John Henry Newman of “cunning equivocation” and other practices that, anti-Catholics argue, lead almost inevitably to the deception of listeners and which are freely allowed within Catholicism despite the commandment not to bear false witness.
…

This is a good argument and food for thought, but does miss one rather pressing difference. The Know Nothings of the 19th century simply made up their assertions about diabolical catholic plots to dominate the world even though such things are in explicit conflict with the actual teachings of catholicism. Spencer, on the other hand, points out the example of Muhammed himself in using deception to placate the enemies of Islam and buy time for the faithful to become strong enough to wage jihad on the infidels.

You have to admit that’s a rather glaring difference, no? Muhammed, after all, is THE spotless and pure role model a man upright and sumitted to the will of Allah in Islamic thinking. His militarism and barbarity is THE most basic problem and barrier to the reform of Islam.

 

[Reuben_J]

Spencer, on the other hand, points out the example of Muhammed himself in using deception to placate the enemies of Islam and buy time for the faithful to become strong enough to wage jihad on the infidels.

While this may be true, this is no different than what most military strategists would do in such circumstances. Also, as a group becomes stronger, they would become more assertive and impose their influence over other groups. And when they were still weak and small in number, they usually are meeker but show their true color when they become stronger.

Muslims would tell us that about 80% of Jihad is an internal struggle to overcome personal weaknesses. Only the remainder is for war purpose and that is only when Islam is threatened and under attack.

If Jihad is meant to spread Islam among the infidels then this is Christians’ mission too, to baptize them and bring them to know God except that it is Christianity.

What Spencer is advocating is the abuse of Jihad by Muslim idealists, politicians and freedom fighters as the definition for Jihad. Well, it is not. What Christians should be wary of is to deal with the Muslim extremists that may threaten our own freedom and that probably are Spencer’s main agenda. But of course we hear a few statements by non-Muslim posters here that there are no Muslim moderates, only Muslims and true Muslims are extremists.

You have to admit that’s a rather glaring difference, no? Muhammed, after all, is THE spotless and pure role model a man upright and sumitted to the will of Allah in Islamic thinking. His militarism and barbarity is THE most basic problem and barrier to the reform of Islam.

That’s right. They believe that prophets do not sin but only make mistakes. Mohammad is an example that all Muslims strive to follow. Like I said, it is a given that when a group is in the majority, they would exert their influence over other groups and this should not come as a surprise. Muslims are a good example in this attribute since Mohammad showed them by his own action. Of course that goes without saying that Mohammad is not a true prophet.

Christians should take heed of this but the best defense is when Christians are strong in their own faith. Worldly victory is never a Christian’s priority. So what if we can save our bodies but cannot save our souls? Why would the number of Muslims increased and Christians have become indifferent to their faith?

 

[robwar]

Perhaps you can answer the question:

Does Islam teach that all Muslims are bound to tell the truth according to the 8th commandment?

No they are not bound at all, Deception in reaching out to others is allowed.

 

[JHow]

While this may be true, this is no different than what most military strategists would do in such circumstances. Also, as a group becomes stronger, they would become more assertive and impose their influence over other groups. And when they were still weak and small in number, they usually are meeker but show their true color when they become stronger.

Muslims would tell us that about 80% of Jihad is an internal struggle to overcome personal weaknesses. Only the remainder is for war purpose and that is only when Islam is threatened and under attack.

If Jihad is meant to spread Islam among the infidels then this is Christians’ mission too, to baptize them and bring them to know God except that it is Christianity.

What Spencer is advocating is the abuse of Jihad by Muslim idealists, politicians and freedom fighters as the definition for Jihad. Well, it is not. What Christians should be wary of is to deal with the Muslim extremists that may threaten our own freedom and that probably are Spencer’s main agenda. But of course we hear a few statements by non-Muslim posters here that there are no Muslim moderates, only Muslims and true Muslims are extremists.

That’s right. They believe that prophets do not sin but only make mistakes. Mohammad is an example that all Muslims strive to follow. Like I said, it is a given that when a group is in the majority, they would exert their influence over other groups and this should not come as a surprise. Muslims are a good example in this attribute since Mohammad showed them by his own action. Of course that goes without saying that Mohammad is not a true prophet.

Christians should take heed of this but the best defense is when Christians are strong in their own faith. Worldly victory is never a Christian’s priority. So what if we can save our bodies but cannot save our souls? Why would the number of Muslims increased and Christians have become indifferent to their faith?

Twenty percent of anything (external jihad) is a heck of a number (if I beleived it). One in five. Russian roulette with a six-shooter provides better odds.

 

[aspirant]

I also don’t want “us” to make rash judgment’s about Christians either.

There was no lack of clarity in my post regarding rash judgment.

Tell me, should we do this with Robert Spencer?

Assume bad faith? No. Judge his actual works on their merits or lack thereof? Yes.

 

[Reuben_J]

Twenty percent of anything (external jihad) is a heck of a number (if I beleived it). One in five. Russian roulette with a six-shooter provides better odds.

Yes, it is scary, especially if you translate it into numbers.

Anyway, we did have our own crusaders. Much of that did not turn out quite well.