Oklahoma lawmaker shows prejudice against Islam

[MichaelC]

Well, what you're talking about with the Muslim clerics is closer to Falwell (may he rest in pieces) preaching against whatever, or Robertson    saying we should kill Chavez, or pretty much any political opinion he has.

You didn't hear Christians apologizing for Jonestown, and most of Christianity was silent as the legal system worked over Catholic Church.  The Church itself resisted, as hard as it could.  If you have anything close to an apologist group for Christianity, it would be something like the Interfaith Alliance, or very few other groups.  There's not many.

And technically, this "guilt by association" crap only flies when we're talking about Islam.  No one expects Christianity to do an about face and actually take responsibility for other segments of Christianity.  But, somehow we're required to expect that out of every American Muslim.

[kakie]

I heard on the radio this morning that ex-Muslim, now Christian Preacher, Reza Safa and some Muslims or a Muslim group are suppose to debate in January.  Reza said he all Tulsans should come to it.  

He said that during his church service on 9/11 that several Muslims came and interupted his sermon called him a liar and that is how the debate idea got started.

[MichaelC]

That's all you're interested in isn't it?  Anything you can use to justify discrimination towards Islam?

Seeing as how we've seen preachers molesting children, being caught in sex acts with women or men, using dope, bilking their congregations;  how hard would it be to believe that this guy is a liar?

[Wingnut]

quote: TextAnd technically, this "guilt by association" crap only flies when we're talking about Islam. No one expects Christianity to do an about face and actually take responsibility for other segments of Christianity. But, somehow we're required to expect that out of every American Muslim.

I don't believe that any Christian group approves or condones ministers that really screw up. In most cases, that are kicked out of the church and the church distances itsself from him.
On the Islamic side, when confronted with Islamic violence, few if any groups will condone it, apparently in the name of jihad. CAIR (a claimed moderate org) has been totally silent and, in fact, refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.

[kakie]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

That's all you're interested in isn't it?  Anything you can use to justify discrimination towards Islam?

Your reply is pathetic but very typical. Reza Safa reported during a sermon on 9/11 some Muslims came into his church and interrupted it and called him a liar.  I'm sure he had a number of people attending the service that witnessed this event.  Safa handled to situation by challenging the Muslims to a debate as a result of their interruption.  I think he handled the situation well.  BTW, the date he first suggested for the debate was rejected by the Muslims.  

And you call this an attempt to justify discrimnation against Islam?  Safa wants to dabate them.

You don't make any sense.

[MichaelC]

Kakie, I'll have to pass on you.  You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists.  You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.

Response removed, and placed below.

[kakie]

Kakie, I'll have to pass on you. You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists. You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.

You mean you are going to give up a discussion on the aspects of Islam that troubles millions?  That dominates our national news and drains our resources?  I get very specific and you can't answer one aspect of what I bring up with getting defensive.  Reza Safa has challenged Muslims to a debate and you bristle.

[kakie]

quote:Originally posted by kakie

Kakie, I'll have to pass on you. You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists. You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.

You mean you are going to give up a discussion on the aspects of Islam that troubles millions?  That dominates our national news and drains our resources?  I get very specific and you can't answer one aspect of what I bring up without getting defensive.  Reza Safa has challenged Muslims to a debate and you bristle.

[MichaelC]

Bristle?  No, I just don't care what any televangelist has to say.  None of them.  I looked him up, and saw exactly where you're getting your info.  And your statements make perfect sense now, I know exactly where they're coming from and why.

I already explained parts of your questions about Islam, and more specifically history through PM, and you've yet to respond.

Please continue to say whatever you want, barring some move towards reality, I see no further reason to respond to you at this point.

[kakie]

I already explained parts of your questions about Islam, and more specifically history through PM, and you've yet to respond.

There is no e-mail from you in my inbox other than the first one.  Resend it, please.

Come on, Michael, let's discuss this issue without calling me someone who wants to put Islam down.  I get specific and you handle it by saying there is no need to reply to me.  Interesting.

[MichaelC]

Ok, but I don't have a second one yet.  I'm looking for a response on the first PM.  Primarily, the History part, that's always a good place to start.

And it needs to be more of an exchange, rather than a question and answer session.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.

You mean condemn right?  Refused to "condemn" violence in the name of Islam?

Why should they?  Is every Christian group required to condemn the actions of every other Christian group?  How many Christian leaders stood up and shook a fist or two at Eric Rudolph?  How many remained silent, how many were secretly giddy that Rudolph was bombing Abortion Clinics?  How many denied it had anything to do with Christianity?

How many Christian groups would denounce the Klan, while at the same time denying the Klan's Christian roots?

And since we're talking about American citizens condemning global actions, how many Christians "owned" Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia?

The truth is there is denial in Christianity about what events mean and how much responsibility Christianity should take.  And there are pitfalls to ownership.  The Catholic church still hasn't fully owned the fact that many of it's priests are molesters, the pitfall to owning that problem is that it might just show there is something intrinsically Evil within Catholicism.  

By requiring any Islamic group to condemn the actions of any other Islamic group, you're requiring something that would never be expected of Christianity.  Why should every American Muslim subject themselves to that, and why only Muslims?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

There is an eerie similarity between the purveyors of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and the purveyors of anti-Muslim sentiment in America's Bible-belt.

This issue is all about perspective.  When I was in junior high, I had a friend(who happened to be Muslim) that attended a local Christian church's halloween spook house.  Of course, being an event put on by the church, he expected some degree of religious reference.  What he, and I, did not expect, was adult church leaders cornering us in uncomfortable one-on-one questioning sessions in which they insulted both of our religions(mine being simply another sect of Christianity).  That day, as 14-year old, I, a Christian, refused someone's Bible.  That was offensive, that was aggressive.

Duncan refused the Quran because he is culturally ignorant of non-white, non-Protestant people.  He is afraid of what he does not know or understand, and his pride will likely prevent him from making the effort to know or understand.

Please.  These comments don't even pass the laugh test.  Use your common sense and analyze the empirical evidence before you make statements like these.

Lastly...generalize much?

[guido911]

Michael C wrote:  How many Christian groups would denounce the Klan, while at the same time denying the Klan's Christian roots?

What is your source for this fact? It has been mentioned a few times in this thread. Incidentally, what "roots" are you referring? Is it the post civil war/reconstruction KKK, the "Birth of a Nation" KKK, the 1940s KKK, the civil rights era KKK?

[MichaelC]

Doesn't really matter does it?  Are you Christian?  And if so, is the Klan Christian?  Today, yesterday, doesn't matter.

Many will argue that the Klan isn't Christian, strictly denying rhetoric or actions (current or past) as "Christian."  It's more than typical for Christians to deny each other's Christianity outright, much less responsibility for their actions.

It's a matter of taking responsibility, people complain that Islam is not publicly denouncing Islam, when has Christianity publicly denounced Christianity?  I'd argue that it's not necessarily the responsibility of either.  Christianity isn't required to somehow come out in force against words or actions of other Christians.  Neither is Islam, or any other religion.