According to Muslims Tolerance only goes one way

Tennessee gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey speaks at the Montgomery County Republican party picnic at Beachaven Winery on July 17 in Clarksville, Tenn.

By Michael Cass, The Tennessean

NASHVILLE — Comments by Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey suggesting that Islam might be a cult and that Muslims might not qualify for constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms drew criticism from Islamic groups Tuesday and an eruption of national media attention.

Ramsey, a Republican candidate for governor, said at a mid-July campaign event in Chattanooga that he is "all about freedom of religion," which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.


The rest of the story here

When the islamic states allow free and unhindered worship by Christains, Jews, and other religious groups, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then I agree Ramsey.

How 'bout it Ziggy. I'm all eyes waiting for your excuse making!!!!

It's unfortunate that a religion that encompasses one third of the world is defined by a small minority of individuals. While I agree Islamic leaders should speak out more against the fanatics who currently define their religion, just because they are not doesn't change the fact that Islam has been a recognized religion for over 1,500 years and traces its origins back to the same God that Christianity and Judaism do.

The Constitution that sets the guidelines for our legal system specifically states in the first Amendment that there will be no establishment of religion. The way I see it, if we as a nation start telling world recognized religions that they do not meet a certain criteria in the United States as set forth by government officials, how that is anything but establishing a religion?

Were I resident of TN, I likely would not vote for this gentleman as I believe he is doing nothing more then playing on the fears of misinformed individuals.

Aaron wrote: It's unfortunate that a religion that encompasses one third of the world is defined by a small minority of individuals. While I agree Islamic leaders should speak out more against the fanatics who currently define their religion, just because they are not doesn't change the fact that Islam has been a recognized religion for over 1,500 years and traces its origins back to the same God that Christianity and Judaism do.

While I know not all muslims think like the extremists, I also know that silence speaks volumes. With the exception of some token discent, the Muslim world has been pretty quiet, with regard to the extremism.

[quote="Aaron"]The Constitution that sets the guidelines for our legal system specifically states in the first Amendment that there will be no establishment of religion. The way I see it, if we as a nation start telling world recognized religions that they do not meet a certain criteria in the United States as set forth by government officials, how that is anything but establishing a religion?[/qoute]

I know full well that the US constitution forbids congress from making laws that interference with worship. My point was and remains that the Muslim world looks at tolerance is a one way street. We must be tolerant of them, but they need not be tolerant of anyone else's beliefs. I did find it interesting how the muslim groups got up in arms about this and yet we hear very little when other religions are belittled.

Aaron wrote:Were I resident of TN, I likely would not vote for this gentleman as I believe he is doing nothing more then playing on the fears of misinformed individuals.

I don't disagree here either. While I happen to agree in principle with the man on this issue, I do figure you are correct in your accessment of his motives

Cato, I'm so pleased to know you see this fear monger for what he is and what he is doing.

When the islamic states allow free and unhindered worship by Christains, Jews, and other religious groups, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then I agree Ramsey.

How 'bout it Ziggy. I'm all eyes waiting for your excuse making!!!!

The Constitution of the U.S. does not extend to "Islamic states". Islamic states have their own systems of government and religion. Have we any more moral authority to tell them what their civilian and religous laws ought to be than they have to tell us likewise?

I did find it interesting how the muslim groups got up in arms about this and yet we hear very little when other religions are belittled.

And we hear "very little" from so-called Christian "groups" when Muslims are belittled. Mostly, it just seems to depend on whose ox or whose God is being gored. It's OK to belittle the other guy's religion, but not ours. Same old same old.

Well said, Ziggy.

ziggy wrote:

I did find it interesting how the muslim groups got up in arms about this and yet we hear very little when other religions are belittled.

And we hear "very little" from so-called Christian "groups" when Muslims are belittled. Mostly, it just seems to depend on whose ox or whose God is being gored. It's OK to belittle the other guy's religion, but not ours. Same old same old.

Where was the muslim outcry and condemnation when 3,000 innocent souls were butchered by bin Laden in the name of Allah? I guess like a couple of others posted sometime ago on the old board, you and Stephanie see the terrorist bastards as freedom fighters and those murdered were collateral damage.

One the other side of the coin when the abortion clinic bombers were running around blowing up clinics in the name of God, some of the larest outcry and condemnation came from the churches.

If you and Stehanie are to bias to see the difference, there is little I can do about it. I hope you truely enjoy the coming brave new world under sharia law.

ziggy wrote:

When the islamic states allow free and unhindered worship by Christains, Jews, and other religious groups, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then I agree Ramsey.

How 'bout it Ziggy. I'm all eyes waiting for your excuse making!!!!

The Constitution of the U.S. does not extend to "Islamic states". Islamic states have their own systems of government and religion. Have we any more moral authority to tell them what their civilian and religous laws ought to be than they have to tell us likewise?

That's true we don't. However, they can save the lecture on tolerance, when muslims are among the most intolerant of people.

It's not right to discriminate against over a fifth of the world's population for the words and actions of a few.

I will not be ruled by fear and I will not hate all because of the actions of a few.

I will continue to call out people who spread fear and hate based solely upon a person's religion.

Stephanie wrote:It's not right to discriminate against over a fifth of the world's population for the words and actions of a few.

I will not be ruled by fear and I will not hate all because of the actions of a few.

I will continue to call out people who spread fear and hate based solely upon a person's religion.

For your information, we don't live in the age of Aquarious. While it would be nice it simply isn't reality. What you call fear and hate isn't. It is facing the reality of what a group believes. If you want to ignore their beliefs, suit yourself, but eventually it will catch up with you.

One the other side of the coin when the abortion clinic bombers were running around blowing up clinics in the name of God, some of the larest outcry and condemnation came from the churches.

From what churches? From some Unitarian churches and other liberal churches, yes. But most Southern Baptist and other fundamentalist churches, for example, were mostly smugly quiet in their sureness that God's work was being carried out by abortion clinic bombers. Those few religious fundamentalists who did speak out critically seemed more motivated by how such violence would negatively affect public perceptions of the stop abortion movement than about other aspects of anarchial violent acts of vigilante terrorism spawned and perpretated by abortion foes.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:It's not right to discriminate against over a fifth of the world's population for the words and actions of a few.

I will not be ruled by fear and I will not hate all because of the actions of a few.

I will continue to call out people who spread fear and hate based solely upon a person's religion.

For your information, we don't live in the age of Aquarious. While it would be nice it simply isn't reality. What you call fear and hate isn't. It is facing the reality of what a group believes. If you want to ignore their beliefs, suit yourself, but eventually it will catch up with you.

Still not shakin', Cato.

I do believe this man is playing the "radical Mooslim" game and I don't believe it is correct to discriminate against the second largest religion, which encompasses about 1 in 5 humans based on the actions of a few but I must say, there are some things Cato states that I do agree with.

For instance, no matter how tolerant Ziggy or Stephanie are, neither would last very long in a country like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, at least not out in the open population. Stephanie would be forced to cover her face and submit to males and if Ziggy questioned authority as he does here, he would likely be jailed. Both of you are lucky that you were born in a Christian nation.

Regarding the different religions speaking out, Muslims against their radicals versus Christians speaking out against abortion clinic bombers I don't think there is a comparison there either. While I don't know for sure what Christian leaders did or did not condemn the violence even though I've researched the subject, the one thing I do doubt is that you'll find large groups of Christians dancing in the streets as Muslims did not only on 9-11, but also other attacks against Americans. Whether you like it or not, there is some truth to the things Cato is saying.

This nation you call Christian resorted to civil war to abolish slavery. American women were denied the right to vote until the 20th century. In fact, for much of our nation's history women were treated as the property of their husbands'. Not only couldn't they vote, but they couldn't own real estate, and had no parental rights. Women were trapped in marriages to abusive husbands because they lacked those rights. This Christian nation created the Trail of Tears to further opportunities for the Christian settlers at the expense of the native peoples of this land.

Christian men and women did those things. Christianity did not.

Some Muslims are doing some very atrocious things in the name of Islam. Islam itself isn't doing them.

Oh, and for the record, I think we are all lucky to be born in the United States of America.

Stephanie wrote:This nation you call Christian resorted to civil war to abolish slavery. American women were denied the right to vote until the 20th century. In fact, for much of our nation's history women were treated as the property of their husbands'. Not only couldn't they vote, but they couldn't own real estate, and had no parental rights. Women were trapped in marriages to abusive husbands because they lacked those rights. This Christian nation created the Trail of Tears to further opportunities for the Christian settlers at the expense of the native peoples of this land.

Christian men and women did those things. Christianity did not.

Some Muslims are doing some very atrocious things in the name of Islam. Islam itself isn't doing them.

I agree. It doesn't change the fact that what some of Cato states is true. So should we as a nation or a people look the other way because of what Christians in America did 100-200 years ago?

My point is Christianity isn't what has made me, or you, fortunate to live in the USA and Islam is not what has made Afghanistan a place where women are required to cover their faces.

The Islamic state of Pakistan elected a woman Prime Minister in 1988. Islam itself is not the problem. Extremism is.

ziggy wrote:

One the other side of the coin when the abortion clinic bombers were running around blowing up clinics in the name of God, some of the larest outcry and condemnation came from the churches.

From what churches? From some Unitarian churches and other liberal churches, yes. But most Southern Baptist and other fundamentalist churches, for example, were mostly smugly quiet in their sureness that God's work was being carried out by abortion clinic bombers. Those few religious fundamentalists who did speak out critically seemed more motivated by how such violence would negatively affect public perceptions of the stop abortion movement than about other aspects of anarchial violent acts of vigilante terrorism spawned and perpretated by abortion foes.

Pat Robertson Condemned it, I heard him do so in an interview on TV. Jerry Falwell condemned the acts violence I also heard him do it. While I don't necessarily agree with the theology of these men, they do lead an speak for large segments of christains. As Arron stated, you certainly didn't see large crowds of christians daning in the streets celebrating the bombing of abortion clinics, like the muslims did at 9/11.

AsI read over this thread this morning, I see I have got some points across. First, it isn't religion that is is evil, it is a tool. It is how people choose to use it that is evil. Read Nuccilo Machivilli's Art of War and this point becomes obvious.

Secondly, you certainly don't have to hate Muslims and that isn't what I am avocating, but you had better understand the people you are dealing with. Our leaders have failed miseribly in this respect and they continue to do so.

Cato

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

One the other side of the coin when the abortion clinic bombers were running around blowing up clinics in the name of God, some of the larest outcry and condemnation came from the churches.

From what churches? From some Unitarian churches and other liberal churches, yes. But most Southern Baptist and other fundamentalist churches, for example, were mostly smugly quiet in their sureness that God's work was being carried out by abortion clinic bombers. Those few religious fundamentalists who did speak out critically seemed more motivated by how such violence would negatively affect public perceptions of the stop abortion movement than about other aspects of anarchial violent acts of vigilante terrorism spawned and perpretated by abortion foes.

Pat Robertson Condemned it, I heard him do so in an interview on TV. Jerry Falwell condemned the acts violence I also heard him do it.

And John L. Lewis told union miners to return to work, too. But they knew he didn't mean a word of it.

(Cato) While I don't necessarily agree with the theology of these men, they do lead an speak for large segments of christains. As Arron stated, you certainly didn't see large crowds of christians daning in the streets celebrating the bombing of abortion clinics, like the muslims did at 9/11.

No, but I did see Pat Robertson and Jerry Falweel saying on national television that the ACLU, People for the American Way, and pagans, and abortionists, and feminists, and gays and lesbians were to be blamed for 9-11, and that because of these people the U.S.A. deserved 9/11. So, in their own fashion, Falwell and Robertson and the large segment of Christians they lead and speak for were doing their own version of dancing in the street at 9-11.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

One the other side of the coin when the abortion clinic bombers were running around blowing up clinics in the name of God, some of the larest outcry and condemnation came from the churches.

From what churches? From some Unitarian churches and other liberal churches, yes. But most Southern Baptist and other fundamentalist churches, for example, were mostly smugly quiet in their sureness that God's work was being carried out by abortion clinic bombers. Those few religious fundamentalists who did speak out critically seemed more motivated by how such violence would negatively affect public perceptions of the stop abortion movement than about other aspects of anarchial violent acts of vigilante terrorism spawned and perpretated by abortion foes.

Pat Robertson Condemned it, I heard him do so in an interview on TV. Jerry Falwell condemned the acts violence I also heard him do it.

And John L. Lewis told union miners to return to work, too. But they knew he didn't mean a word of it.

(Cato) While I don't necessarily agree with the theology of these men, they do lead an speak for large segments of christains. As Arron stated, you certainly didn't see large crowds of christians daning in the streets celebrating the bombing of abortion clinics, like the muslims did at 9/11.

No, but I did see Pat Robertson and Jerry Falweel saying on national television that the ACLU, People for the American Way, and pagans, and abortionists, and feminists, and gays and lesbians were to be blamed for 9-11, and that because of these people the U.S.A. deserved 9/11. So, in their own fashion, Falwell and Robertson and the large segment of Christians they lead and speak for were doing their own version of dancing in the street at 9-11.

whatever

I'm curious Ziggy, was Ron Paul and his followers dancing in the streets when they said American intervention in the Middle East were the cause for 9-11?

You don't see a difference between what Ron Paul said and the fundie wingnuts saying America DESERVED it?

You're smarter than that, Aaron.

Whether you agree or not and even though the reasoning for Islamist actions was different, Paul blamed Americans and their actions for the attacks on 9/11 just as Falwall and Robertson did. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either’s take on the situation. Ziggy is the one making accusations and I just curious as to how far those accusations go.

Since my curiosity is piqued, I'm wondering, do you agree with Ziggy that Falwell and Robertson and the large segment of Christians they lead and speak for were doing their own version of dancing in the street at 9-11?