Merkel: Stand up for Christian Values.

[james&olya 1,121]

When you observe the immediacy with which the conservative media whipped up such vitriolic, international furore over the "Ground Zero Mosque", it's patently evident that we ought to be bending over backwards to do the very opposite of what Merkel proposes.

To those championing her stance: are you not embarrased that "Christian values" so ubiquitously prevailed in our culture several months ago as to ensure that blind indignation took the place of reasoned response? That, when questioned, most of Park51's most vehement opponents were not aware that Faisal Rauf and Daisy Khan's objective was to promote inter-faith discussion, that they were Sufis (a tradition that Bin Laden abhors), that the building was an existing place of worship for Muslims, and - most saliently, and most ignored - that it in fact stood fully two blocks apart from Ground Zero?

More than ever this is a time to vocalise the absolute antithesis of "us and them." Merkel seeks to stir the dormant Christian ideology in "her" people for only its innately divisive property, and that she does so under the politically expedient guise of "religion" - that which so effectively safeguards jingoistic bigotry from question - should repulse us.

Edward Said once said that "part of morality is not to feel at home in one's home." At a time when the terrifyingly audible Islamophobic media seek constantly to rally us against the "un-Christian", the "un-American", we would do well to take heed of that sentiment. Indeed, it is a time to be a little less comfortable defining ourselves by our nationalities and our faiths, and a time to vilify only the intolerant - be they strapped with explosives, or espousing their agenda, conceitedly appeasing our entrenched sensibilities, in millions of living rooms, in millions of homes.

Very well said!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

When you observe the immediacy with which the conservative media whipped up such vitriolic, international furore over the "Ground Zero Mosque", it's patently evident that we ought to be bending over backwards to do the very opposite of what Merkel proposes.

To those championing her stance: are you not embarrased that "Christian values" so ubiquitously prevailed in our culture several months ago as to ensure that blind indignation took the place of reasoned response? That, when questioned, most of Park51's most vehement opponents were not aware that Faisal Rauf and Daisy Khan's objective was to promote inter-faith discussion, that they were Sufis (a tradition that Bin Laden abhors), that the building was an existing place of worship for Muslims, and - most saliently, and most ignored - that it in fact stood fully two blocks apart from Ground Zero?

More than ever this is a time to vocalise the absolute antithesis of "us and them." Merkel seeks to stir the dormant Christian ideology in "her" people for only its innately divisive property, and that she does so under the politically expedient guise of "religion" - that which so effectively safeguards jingoistic bigotry from question - should repulse us.

Edward Said once said that "part of morality is not to feel at home in one's home." At a time when the terrifyingly audible Islamophobic media seek constantly to rally us against the "un-Christian", the "un-American", we would do well to take heed of that sentiment. Indeed, it is a time to be a little less comfortable defining ourselves by our nationalities and our faiths, and a time to vilify only the intolerant - be they strapped with explosives, or espousing their agenda, conceitedly appeasing our entrenched sensibilities, in millions of living rooms, in millions of homes.

Very well said, indeed

BTW, imam Faisal has lead another masjid in the vicinity of GZ for 30 years, where he has preached a doctrine of peace and community building. He and his wife have not deserved the character assassination they've received from right wing media. I'm one conservative who is disgusted with how conservatives on the airwaves and cable to denigate good people trying to do good to ram thru a crooked agenda. Shame will be their reward.

[Danno 1,228]

So are you agreeing that it is the minority Fundamentalists amongst the larger Muslim populace who are "the Enemy"?

Would you agree that Fundamentalist Christians (as many homebrew "Militias" and White Power Organizations are) also present a terrorist threat to the greater peaceful population. After all it wasn't a Muslim who bombed the Federal Building in OK City or Muslims who fired on Federal agents in Waco Tx or at Ruby Ridge.

Nice try but you need to work on the facts a bit.

You named two events, the persons involved where either not even Fundamentalist CHristian or part of any terror group.

I know in your heart you want to believe that all these Fundies are just like Muslim terrorists..... but even with the tens of millions of Fundamentalist Christians and hundreds of years of history you have to search to find even few examples.

[james&olya 1,121]

Nice try but you need to work on the facts a bit.

You named two events, the persons involved where either not even Fundamentalist CHristian or part of any terror group.

I know in your heart you want to believe that all these Fundies are just like Muslim terrorists..... but even with the tens of millions of Fundamentalist Christians and hundreds of years of history you have to search to find even few examples.

You are the one with his facts wrong. David Koresh was leader of an off-shoot of the Seventh-day Adventist church. This church is as 'fundamentalist' as they come! They even refuse to consider Sunday their holy day claiming that it was never changed by God and that means it is still required to be Saturday! I can't tell you about Mcveigh's religion but I suspect he identified with something other than a progressive church.

I think that if you were to learn a bit more you would discover that there are also tens of millions of conservative (isn't that how you are defining fundamentalist?) muslims that don't approve of terrorism either. The point you seem to miss is that these are fringe elements. Perhaps if you listened to more diverse and objective media outlets you might find you have been misled into thinking that 'terrorist' has to imply muslim.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let's not forget Jim Jones and the massacre in Guyana.

[Danno 1,228]

Let's not forget Jim Jones and the massacre in Guyana.

Let's not, nor should we confuse him with any brand of Christianity.. actually, you could lay his deeds more at the feet of Communism or Socialism as he was a believer in both.

AS to his faith....

By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being white men’s' justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color and stating that it spoke of a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[12] Jones authored a booklet titled "The Letter Killeth," criticizing the King James Bible.[39] Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Vladimir Lenin, and Father Divine. In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former Temple member Hue Fortson, Jr. quoted Jones as saying, "What you need to believe in is what you can see ... If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father ... If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God."[6]

By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[40] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[36] She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[36] In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"[6]

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Fine, but why doesn't the same standard apply to Muslims who distort Islam into something most Muslims don't recognize or accept? Why are we mocked even we say terrorists and others who abuse our faith don't understand or have left Islam?

I'm told often by non-Muslims here that not only are terrorist acts and edicts valid in Islam, but that it is possible for any interpretation to be valid because Islam lacks a central authority, and, it follows that it also lacks immutable core principles. Why is it that Christians want the authority to define the boundaries of their faith that, when crossed, create an aboration, yet insist that Islam be defined by the lowest common denominators possible? It's inherent in such self-serving restraints the need to conceptualize a dichotomy that perpetually elevates one faith and its adherents as good and the other as bad.

I have no problem with your rejection of Jim Jones and his philosophy as legitimate Christianity. I identify with the viseral reaction you have to the suggestion that he be included as an example of how to practice your religion. I feel the same way when I see new threads here demeaning my faith, and posts mocking anyone who doesn't accept that their contents as further evidence of typical Muslim malfeasance and barbarity. I accept that you love Christianity, want to feel free to explain it, and have others understand it well. I want that, too.

We want the same things, only you and the others who repeatedly post negatism about my.faith don't want us to have it. Is that really the Christian thing to do?

Let's not, nor should we confuse him with any brand of Christianity.. actually, you could lay his deeds more at the feet of Communism or Socialism as he was a believer in both.

AS to his faith....

By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being white men’s' justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color and stating that it spoke of a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[12] Jones authored a booklet titled "The Letter Killeth," criticizing the King James Bible.[39] Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Vladimir Lenin, and Father Divine. In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former Temple member Hue Fortson, Jr. quoted Jones as saying, "What you need to believe in is what you can see ... If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father ... If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God."[6]

By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[40] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[36] She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[36] In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"[6]

Edited December 23, 2010 by Sofiyya

[ready4ONE 5,400]

No Sofyaa you often assume concerns about Radical Islam are voices against Islam itself. They aren't always blanket condemnations of Muslims in general, though some are. You do seem to paint everyone, including fellow Muslims who fail to tow your line, with a broad brush of bigotry.

[Jenn! 918]

No Sofyaa you often assume concerns about Radical Islam are voices against Islam itself. They aren't always blanket condemnations of Muslims in general, though some are. You do seem to paint everyone, including fellow Muslims who fail to tow toe your line, with a broad brush of bigotry.

IFYP

Anyway, how would you classify the common retort that includes some mockery of the "religion of peace" in response to an article that shows particular Muslims behaving badly? Is that a "concern about radical Islam"? This is a favorite one-liner from the crowd that Sofiyya is addressing. I believe you've used it yourself on more than one occasion, though I could be mistaken.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

IFYP

Anyway, how would you classify the common retort that includes some mockery of the "religion of peace" in response to an article that shows particular Muslims behaving badly? Is that a "concern about radical Islam"? This is a favorite one-liner from the crowd that Sofiyya is addressing. I believe you've used it yourself on more than one occasion, though I could be mistaken.

You're not mistaken.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No Sofyaa you often assume concerns about Radical Islam are voices against Islam itself. They aren't always blanket condemnations of Muslims in general, though some are. You do seem to paint everyone, including fellow Muslims who fail to tow your line, with a broad brush of bigotry.

There's an abundance of evidence that most here who post about Islam have difficulty distinguishing between what is Islam and what is not. The very fact that they refuse to even entertain the thought that Islam is not radical, so the term radical Islam is itself a misnomer is an example of that. Someone like Jim Jones, whom Danno dismissed as out of Christianity by his beliefs and deeds, isn't called a Radical Christian, nor do people like him practice Radical Christianity. So, why is philosophy that twists Islam into a contradiction of Islam still considered to be Islam, but a radical version of it? Why the double standard?

By imposing this double standard, and demanding that Muslims accept violence, brutality and dishonor as merely a radical version of practice within Islam rather than not of Islam, bigots allow themselves to smear all Muslims by association. Jim Jones, Tim McVeigh, even Hitler, came from Christian backgrounds in predominately Christian countries, yet it is understood and accepted that their bad acts are not Christian, not justified by any cult of radical Christisnity.

The use of the term Radical Islam, the insistence thst Islam is unprincipled, therefore easily and legitimately redefined by any malcontent, serves to join all Muslims to violence, misinterpretation and chaos. We are tainted by the simplistic lexicon used to discuss complex issues. Yes, some Muslims fall into this trap, too, and must be corrected, for they are all too eager to set aside our value as a community and our rights as Americans to appease prejudice and fear.

As long as you and others who think as you do continue to emphasize "radical Islam", all you will see is a problem, and you will remain blinded by the solution, and true Islam is a part of that solution. By doing this, and demanding that all accept your paradigms and perspectives, you will remain part of the problem, too, and render yourselves useless to do little more that submit one liners, express contempt, and.ferment division. You can move beyond that, or stay where you are; it's your choice.

[Danno 1,228]

By imposing this double standard, and demanding that Muslims accept violence, brutality and dishonor as merely a radical version of practice within Islam rather than not of Islam, bigots allow themselves to smear all Muslims by association. Jim Jones, Tim McVeigh, even Hitler, came from Christian backgrounds in predominately Christian countries, yet it is understood and accepted that their bad acts are not Christian, not justified by any cult of radical Christisnity.

The use of the term Radical Islam, the insistence thst Islam is unprincipled, therefore easily and legitimately redefined by any malcontent, serves to join all Muslims to violence, misinterpretation and chaos. We are tainted by the simplistic lexicon used to discuss complex issues. Yes, some Muslims fall into this trap, too, and must be corrected, for they are all too eager to set aside our value as a community and our rights as Americans to appease prejudice and fear.

Just being "from a Culture" is not what some people are concerned about.

Take for instance the Killer of Robert F Kennedy, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, he is a Christian Palestinian, but few people seriously connect his crimes to his culture or his religion.... because there was little evidence to do so.

To try to draw parrelles between McVeigh and others you mention is silly, they neither had a credible Christian connection (most cases none at all) nor did they attribute their acts to CHrist or their Christian experience.

It's actually surprising that we can't come up with a number of Christian extremists who have gone into the sort of thing Muslims are dealing with... as you said this is (or was) a Christian culture and with 300 mil. people here it's rather remarkable.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

i'm sure eric knows his way around quite well.

It can't be Eric since this guy can type an articulate sentence.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Just being "from a Culture" is not what some people are concerned about.

Take for instance the Killer of Robert F Kennedy, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, he is a Christian Palestinian, but few people seriously connect his crimes to his culture or his religion.... because there was little evidence to do so.

To try to draw parrelles between McVeigh and others you mention is silly, they neither had a credible Christian connection (most cases none at all) nor did they attribute their acts to CHrist or their Christian experience.

It's actually surprising that we can't come up with a number of Christian extremists who have gone into the sort of thing Muslims are dealing with... as you said this is (or was) a Christian culture and with 300 mil. people here it's rather remarkable.

It's not at all surprising because Christian extremists aren't labeled as Christian due to the double standard you consistently miss. They exist, but their acts are not attributed to Christian teachings since the assumption applied is that Christianity doesn't condone violence.

The opposite is done with Islam, so everything bad that a Muslim does is attributed to Islam. The assumption applied is that Islam condones bad acts. This psychology preserves the perceived supremacy of Christians by excluding bad actors from it's realm. Conversely, it holds responsible all Muslims for the bad acts of a disparate faction of the whole. I realize you don't get it, but that doesn't make it less of a reality.

[^_^ 5,021]

OMFG every time this thread is near death one of you two brings it back to life. WTH