| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2007 07:58:37 AM |
| Object: |
Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
14 Jun 2007 01:28:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1181825917.730758.12780@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 11:22:15 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
-- cary
What is your point? My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing. Did you have something to say on THAT
point?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 11:55:34 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com>
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
What is your point?
Oh, probably your selective attention to "the golden rule application".
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 12:42:41 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 11:55 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com>
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
What is your point?
Oh, probably your selective attention to "the golden rule application".
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
-- cary
Actually, it was rather large by both Islamic and Catholic church
records. In fact, the crusades began when a Bishop from the church
there called to the west for help from Muslim invaders. How is it
that you don't know this, unless it is intentional non-research.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 01:19:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1181929361.619282.202860@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 15, 11:55 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com>
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
What is your point?
Oh, probably your selective attention to "the golden rule application".
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
-- cary
Actually, it was rather large by both Islamic and Catholic church
records. In fact, the crusades began when a Bishop from the church
there called to the west for help from Muslim invaders. How is it
that you don't know this, unless it is intentional non-research.
Or unless it is due, as usual, to my knowing more on any
given topic than you?
I get my take on the topic of the religious envirnment
surrounding the Prophet at the time of his (ongoing)
revelations from Karen Armstrong's "A History of God".
You?
Muhammed's environment was initially what I would call
"animist"; later in his career he was in a heavily
Jewish area, and much of the development of his
take on God seems to been influenced by the latter.
And the struggles, when they came, were with
the animists.
And you, you are arguing that it was *Christians* whom
Mohammed was converting?...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 12:00:25 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 1:19 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181929361.619282.202...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 15, 11:55 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com>
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
What is your point?
Oh, probably your selective attention to "the golden rule application".
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
-- cary
Actually, it was rather large by both Islamic and Catholic church
records. In fact, the crusades began when a Bishop from the church
there called to the west for help from Muslim invaders. How is it
that you don't know this, unless it is intentional non-research.
Or unless it is due, as usual, to my knowing more on any
given topic than you?
I get my take on the topic of the religious envirnment
surrounding the Prophet at the time of his (ongoing)
revelations from Karen Armstrong's "A History of God".
You?
Muhammed's environment was initially what I would call
"animist"; later in his career he was in a heavily
Jewish area, and much of the development of his
take on God seems to been influenced by the latter.
And the struggles, when they came, were with
the animists.
And you, you are arguing that it was *Christians* whom
Mohammed was converting?...
-- cary
Actually, I'm not going to let you distract me from the point, which
you thought you were able to accomplish. It doesn't matter whether
there were a multitude of Christian churches in an area where churches
from that period abound in archaeology. It wouldn't matter if there
were two churches or none (not true). The point is that if the
residents of Jerusalem used anti-conversion rules against Islam at the
time (from...in your view...paganism and such), Islam wouldn't exist.
Ken Clifton
Author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
18 Jun 2007 11:36:48 AM |
|
|
In article <1181970025.083144.325230@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 15, 1:19 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181929361.619282.202...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 15, 11:55 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com>
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181825917.730758.12...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Well, geez, it's kind of hard trying to imagine that sort of
thing ever happening in Christianity.
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
What is your point?
Oh, probably your selective attention to "the golden rule application".
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
-- cary
Actually, it was rather large by both Islamic and Catholic church
records. In fact, the crusades began when a Bishop from the church
there called to the west for help from Muslim invaders. How is it
that you don't know this, unless it is intentional non-research.
Or unless it is due, as usual, to my knowing more on any
given topic than you?
I get my take on the topic of the religious envirnment
surrounding the Prophet at the time of his (ongoing)
revelations from Karen Armstrong's "A History of God".
You?
Muhammed's environment was initially what I would call
"animist"; later in his career he was in a heavily
Jewish area, and much of the development of his
take on God seems to been influenced by the latter.
And the struggles, when they came, were with
the animists.
And you, you are arguing that it was *Christians* whom
Mohammed was converting?...
-- cary
Actually, I'm not going to let you distract me from the point, which
you thought you were able to accomplish. It doesn't matter whether
there were a multitude of Christian churches in an area where churches
from that period abound in archaeology. It wouldn't matter if there
were two churches or none (not true). The point is that if the
residents of Jerusalem used anti-conversion rules against Islam at the
time (from...in your view...paganism and such), Islam wouldn't exist.
1) The rise of Islam was not built on Christians who went
apostate and became Muslims, so your argument is baseless.
2) The rise of Islam did not take place in Jerusalem,
but elsewhere on the Arabian Pennisula, so your arguemnt
is baseless.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 12:42:40 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, I'm not going to let you distract me from the point, which
you thought you were able to accomplish. It doesn't matter whether
there were a multitude of Christian churches in an area where churches
from that period abound in archaeology. It wouldn't matter if there
were two churches or none (not true). The point is that if the
residents of Jerusalem used anti-conversion rules against Islam at the
time (from...in your view...paganism and such), Islam wouldn't exist.
You are still wrong. The original Moslems were in Arabia. The
initial growth of Islam was primarily among marginalized people in a
largely nomadic culture. These are the sort of people who ignore
rules put in place by authorities. Long before anyone in Jerusalem
converted to Islam, it was already well-established.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 08:15:07 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 12:42 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, I'm not going to let you distract me from the point, which
you thought you were able to accomplish. It doesn't matter whether
there were a multitude of Christian churches in an area where churches
from that period abound in archaeology. It wouldn't matter if there
were two churches or none (not true). The point is that if the
residents of Jerusalem used anti-conversion rules against Islam at the
time (from...in your view...paganism and such), Islam wouldn't exist.
You are still wrong. The original Moslems were in Arabia. The
initial growth of Islam was primarily among marginalized people in a
largely nomadic culture. These are the sort of people who ignore
rules put in place by authorities. Long before anyone in Jerusalem
converted to Islam, it was already well-established.
lojbab
Still not going to let you distract me from the point. What if THOSE
people had anti-conversion rules from their current beliefs (even if
from atheism)? And, Paganism WAS practiced there at that time.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 09:08:10 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still not going to let you distract me from the point. What if THOSE
people had anti-conversion rules from their current beliefs (even if
from atheism)?
People break rules all the time.
They did, by joining Islam in the first place. Why do you think
Mohammed and his followers had to flee to Medina? Because everyone
was happy that their friends were becoming Moslems.
Your question makes as much sense as asking what Abraham would have
done if the local religion had a rule "Though shalt have no other Gods
before Baal" (or whatever other Gods were locally worshipped).
The answer is that he probably would have done exactly what he
apparently did - he left to a place where they couldn't touch him and
then calmly started his family and raised them in the religious
beliefs he had adopted.
And, Paganism WAS practiced there at that time.
No, it wasn't. Animism was practiced, and various other religions.
But Paganism (the capital letter denoting a specific religion) was not
one of them.
If you had used small-letter paganism, your statement is simply so
trite as to be meaningless. Small-letter "pagan" can mean
"polytheistic", or "practicing a culture of sensual delights" or
simply "not worshipping the God of the Bible".
What it doesn't necessarily mean is "organized religion with political
power and a set of rules which might include a ban on conversion to
some other religion".
In an era where there were no states, and the culture and the religion
and the people were of one piece, to "convert in religion" meant to
leave the culture. They needed no "rules about conversion" in such a
society, since abandoning the religion was a form of self-exile from
society, which in the desert was a pretty sure way to die.
One needs a government with codified laws, an territory which it
governs, and no church-state barrier, in order to have real "laws"
against conversion. That wasn't the sort of society that existed in
the area Mohammed lived. But then he made such a society.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 09:44:14 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 9:08 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still not going to let you distract me from the point. What if THOSE
people had anti-conversion rules from their current beliefs (even if
from atheism)?
People break rules all the time.
So, you are justifying those that break anti-conversion rules in
Muslim lands. Got it.
Bob. I've recently realized that those that are most abusive are the
most in need of (and the most desiring) love and forgiveness, even if
they refuse to see it. So, I'm going to change my tactic on you.
Instead of trying to reason with you (realizing that you are not
subject to objective logic, since you make up your own), I am going
to just love you and forgive you. It will be hard (I can guess what
lies ahead of me), but I will not let you use me to keep yourself from
the kingdom of God.
May you find the love and forgiveness of a Christ that pays for your
sins.
Ken Clifton
Author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 05:27:35 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
People break rules all the time.
So, you are justifying those that break anti-conversion rules in
Muslim lands. Got it.
I don't "justify" anything. People have to choose for themselves what
to believe, and deal with the consequences.
I perfectly approve of them doing so, even if their choices lead to
conflicts with their religious authorities.
May you find the love and forgiveness of a Christ that pays for your
sins.
Already have.
But you, liar, need to heal thyself.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 08:54:13 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 5:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
People break rules all the time.
So, you are justifying those that break anti-conversion rules in
Muslim lands. Got it.
I don't "justify" anything. People have to choose for themselves what
to believe, and deal with the consequences.
I perfectly approve of them doing so, even if their choices lead to
conflicts with their religious authorities.
May you find the love and forgiveness of a Christ that pays for your
sins.
Already have.
But you, liar, need to heal thyself.
lojbab
May the Lord touch your heart and heal your wounds.
Ken Clifton
Author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 03:15:54 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
It would have? How?
What was the extent of the presence of the Church in the Arabian
Pennisula in the seventh century?
Actually, it was rather large by both Islamic and Catholic church
records.
Actually it was almost nonexistent by both.
In fact, the crusades began when a Bishop from the church
there called to the west for help from Muslim invaders.
You've been corrected on this once already.
The Crusades began almost 500 years after Islam was established as the
dominant religion of the entire region. The Moslems were tolerant of
the scattered Christian monasteries and shrines that existed in their
midst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
<Byzantium lost control of Jerusalem and the True Cross in 614 to
< Chosroes II, ruler of Sassanid Empire. The Byzantine emperor
< Heraclius incited a religious zeal in his troops that allowed him to
< defeat Persians and reconquer Jerusalem. He motivated his soldiers
< calling them "Soldiers of the Cross".
614 was BEFORE Islam appeared. The Persians ruled most of the Middle
East at the time Islam appeared.
At that point, the Christian presence in the Middle East, except for
what is now Turkey, was limited to monasteries and pilgrimage sites.
Jerusalem had been under Christian control, but the population was
primarily non-Christian.
<Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab
< conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. This did not interfere much
< with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of
< monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land,
The Crusades started almost 500 years later, with the battle for
MILITARY (not religious) control of Turkey between the invading Turks
and the established Byzantine Empire. The Turks defeated the
Byzantines in Turkey, and the Byzantine Emperor Alexius asked the Pope
for help to reconquer the lands he had lost. The Pope chose to help
because it would make the schismatic Eastern church dependent on Rome,
and thus hopefully end the schism. The attempt to retake Jerusalem
was an afterthought once the Crusaders were already in Turkey (and not
achieving their original goal).
The Crusaders of course then proceeded to murder nearly every
inhabitant of Jerusalem, including the Christians.
How is it that you don't know this, unless it is intentional non-research.
Because it isn't so.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 02:39:04 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Oh...you mean like when Constans and Constantius forbad
pagan practices, on penalty of death, in the waning
days of the Roman empire? Or the killing of
Christian heretics by the Church, from Priscillan of Avilla to Giordu
Bruno?
Naw. I can't imagine that.
-- cary
What is your point?
That in fact for centuries Christians had even *harsher* restrictions
on non-Christians in Christian-controlled lands than Moslems have ever
had. Not only were Christians forbidden to convert to Islam (or any
other religion) which was heresy and got you burned at the stake, the
practice of pagan religions (pagan being defined as non-Christian) was
typically forbidden under penalty of death.
My point was that current muslim anti-conversion
principles, if used at the start of islam by Christians, would have
kept them from ever existing.
How so?
Do you think that most Muslims were Christians who converted to Islam?
Do you even think that Christians EVER had any power in lands where
people were choosing to become Muslims. If they had, they would have
been killing them for heresy.
Did you have something to say on THAT point?
You have no point. You have an unsupported claim that has nothing to
do with reality, and you are playing "what if" games that falsely
presume that your hypothetical was something significantly different
from reality.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
16 Jun 2007 07:20:16 PM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com>
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
The Hypocrisy
Consider the golden rule application here. What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity? This is clear
hypocrisy.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all bloody imperialist monotheist
Abrahamic religions. Leave them all alone.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
14 Jun 2007 11:07:09 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
No. Converting away from Islam is punishable by death for the
converted. Merely TRYING to convert someone means that you are
suborning a capital crime, and thus is criminalized.
Consider the golden rule application here.
Doesn't apply.
What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
They didn't.
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity?
At the start of Islam, Muslims were quite tolerant of Christianity.
They made no especial effort to convert anyone. Of course non-Muslims
were 2nd class citizens to some extent, and some converted out of
pragmatism (remembering that for most of Christian history, most
Christians were only Christian because their leaders told them they
had to be or die).
This is clear hypocrisy.
It is not "hypocrisy", since the assumption from the start is that the
others are not operating under the same legal and moral system that
you are.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Baun" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 01:32:04 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:3gp2731uaabgrpb5vvtl2br5lpli5b8ul1@4ax.com...
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
In most Muslim countries, today, conversion to another religion is a
crime. Specifically, converting another from Islam is punishable by
death.
No. Converting away from Islam is punishable by death for the
converted. Merely TRYING to convert someone means that you are
suborning a capital crime, and thus is criminalized.
Consider the golden rule application here.
Doesn't apply.
What if at the start of
Islam the Christians in the region had applied the same principle?
They didn't.
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity?
At the start of Islam, Muslims were quite tolerant of Christianity.
They made no especial effort to convert anyone. Of course non-Muslims
were 2nd class citizens to some extent, and some converted out of
pragmatism (remembering that for most of Christian history, most
Christians were only Christian because their leaders told them they
had to be or die).
This is clear hypocrisy.
It is not "hypocrisy", since the assumption from the start is that the
others are not operating under the same legal and moral system that
you are.
lojbab
What is discusting we had a chance to open Somolia Saudi Iraq amd afganistan
and during ww2 most of africa india and china and Japan well most of the
world and our government didnt even look into the matter which proves they
are not Christian in the slightest
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy 2 |
15 Jun 2007 06:34:19 AM |
|
|
"Jack Baun" <bluejay@gwis.com> wrote:
What would the Muslims have said, if the Christians of that time had
made it illegal to convert someone from Christianity?
At the start of Islam, Muslims were quite tolerant of Christianity.
They made no especial effort to convert anyone. Of course non-Muslims
were 2nd class citizens to some extent, and some converted out of
pragmatism (remembering that for most of Christian history, most
Christians were only Christian because their leaders told them they
had to be or die).
This is clear hypocrisy.
It is not "hypocrisy", since the assumption from the start is that the
others are not operating under the same legal and moral system that
you are.
lojbab
What is discusting we had a chance to open Somolia Saudi Iraq amd afganistan
and during ww2 most of africa india and china and Japan well most of the
world and our government didnt even look into the matter which proves they
are not Christian in the slightest
Ah, so the Christian thing to do is to invade other countries and
force them to become Christian, eh? How "crusader" of you?
1. Our government isn't supposed to be "Christian". George
Washington negotiated and John Adams signed a treaty that explicitly
said that the US is not a Christian nation. The Constitution forbids
the US from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Washington in particular tried to steer this country away from
"foreign entanglements". Until around 1900 and Teddy Roosevelt, the
concept that this country should have anything to do with
"opening up" some other country would have been anathema The great
American experiment was to spread democracy by example and not by
meddling or force.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
