As a staunch supporter of one's right to pursue one's own happiness, I strongly believe in personal freedom. (I'm a freedom loving Liberal.) But Muslims should NOT have that same right!

See, with freedom comes responsibility.

Personal freedom -- as long as it doesn't harm others, the property of others, or infringe upon the rights of others to same -- is a quintessential value held most dear as a result of secular democracy.

Can you see how a religious belief in suicide bombers that act out such an egregious harm against innocent others AUTOMATICALLY fails the standard?

If I mention no other reason, can you see why Muslims would NOT be a welcome addition to a freedom loving society?

Ca...

As a staunch supporter of one's right to pursue one's own happiness, I strongly believe in personal freedom. (I'm a freedom loving Liberal.) But Muslims should NOT have that same right!

See, with freedom comes responsibility.

Personal freedom -- as long as it doesn't harm others, the property of others, or infringe upon the rights of others to same -- is a quintessential value held most dear as a result of secular democracy.

Can you see how a religious belief in suicide bombers that act out such an egregious harm against innocent others AUTOMATICALLY fails the standard?

If I mention no other reason, can you see why Muslims would NOT be a welcome addition to a freedom loving society?

Can you believe in Allah and the Muslim doctrine of the Koran, while allowing women the same freedoms you (as a man) have, and with equal respect?

Can you allow a Christian to visit and pray at Mecca? Can you allow another person to be happy if they worship no deity at all?

The time for political correctness in discussing religion was over on 9/11. Frankly, ALL religious fundamentalists are enemies of freedom. From Pat Robertson to OBL, a Christian Taliban is as unwelcome as a Muslim one.

You (extremists) should therefore NOT be allowed the very things you abhor in a free society. Namely: personal freedom, and allowing others the pursuit of their own happiness.

Until you can figure that out, you simply do not qualify.

To exclude an entire people from the Western experiment because of the actions of a few is unjust.

It was the second time in my life I have knowingly made (or held) a bigoted view. [I used to be a black militant until I left Detroit, saw the world, and realized I was wrong. Changed immediately.]

But yes, I did paint with a broad brush to knowingly include ALL adherents to Islam, otherwise known as Muslims; followers of the Prophet Mohamed.

I could give you so many compelling reasons why this is so. But for brevity, I'll propose one.

Should Muslims (adherents of Islam), and by this I mean the Muslim state (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc..) be allowe[b]...

To exclude an entire people from the Western experiment because of the actions of a few is unjust.

It was the second time in my life I have knowingly made (or held) a bigoted view. [I used to be a black militant until I left Detroit, saw the world, and realized I was wrong. Changed immediately.]

But yes, I did paint with a broad brush to knowingly include ALL adherents to Islam, otherwise known as Muslims; followers of the Prophet Mohamed.

I could give you so many compelling reasons why this is so. But for brevity, I'll propose one.

Should Muslims (adherents of Islam), and by this I mean the Muslim state (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc..) be allowed to own nukes?

How about intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Would the world be a safer, better place if Muslims (broad stroke intended) have weapons of extreme destruction?

These are all rhetorical questions (to which we already know the answer, political correctness be damned). The REAL question is WHY NOT?

Therein lies the root of the problem, which makes irrelevant the nice, peace loving, experiments you're trying to justly protect. Unless they arise en mass to disable the violent ones and succeed, they are unfortunately a part of the problem.

You see..., we can't tell them apart.

They've spent suicide bomb, after suicide bomb, after suicide bomb, making CERTAIN we became afraid of the Muslim.

What now do they expect, after having become successful?

Islamophobia was created by Islam. Was there any other?

WOW!

I love this: Arch-Conservative Cniq-Cniq defends the rights of Muslims against Freedom Loving Liberal AcesLucky. Does this shatter sterotypes or what? This clip deserves an extra diversity pop, but I've already used mine!

If only there were more publicity for this kind of genuine dialog, perhaps it wouldn't be so surprising. If we could show this on Al Jezera it would change a lot of minds about America.

And Muslims are as diverse as any population when it comes to ideology. In fact, although it may come as a shock to many, the majority of Muslims I know of voted for George Bush over John Kerry.

Cniq-Cniq is exactly right: we should not confuse terrorists with something intrinsic i...

WOW!

I love this: Arch-Conservative Cniq-Cniq defends the rights of Muslims against Freedom Loving Liberal AcesLucky. Does this shatter sterotypes or what? This clip deserves an extra diversity pop, but I've already used mine!

If only there were more publicity for this kind of genuine dialog, perhaps it wouldn't be so surprising. If we could show this on Al Jezera it would change a lot of minds about America.

And Muslims are as diverse as any population when it comes to ideology. In fact, although it may come as a shock to many, the majority of Muslims I know of voted for George Bush over John Kerry.

Cniq-Cniq is exactly right: we should not confuse terrorists with something intrinsic in Islamic or Arab culture. It is easy to do, but it is only self delusion. Our enemy is not Islam, but Extremism. As Cniq-Cniq and I were just discussing, extremists and terrorists have no ideology beyond power and violence.

From my research, and I'll admit, I don't have all they facts because they're hard to get, I've become convinced he doesn't. I believe he thrives on the power he derives from chaos and conflict. He seems to be a highly intelligent person who uses his gifts to manipulate people and foment unrest even when it is not to the benefit of his stated causes or interests. He cultivates a milieu where he brings organizations into his fold even when their ideologies have nothing to do with his goals, simply because where there is violence he plays the heroic patron, regardless.

A similar (although much more crude) form of narcissistic egotism can be found in Asahara Shoku, the former leader of the ter...

From my research, and I'll admit, I don't have all they facts because they're hard to get, I've become convinced he doesn't. I believe he thrives on the power he derives from chaos and conflict. He seems to be a highly intelligent person who uses his gifts to manipulate people and foment unrest even when it is not to the benefit of his stated causes or interests. He cultivates a milieu where he brings organizations into his fold even when their ideologies have nothing to do with his goals, simply because where there is violence he plays the heroic patron, regardless.

A similar (although much more crude) form of narcissistic egotism can be found in Asahara Shoku, the former leader of the terrorist cult Aum Shin Rykio. They are both people who use philosophical perversions and sophisticated reasoning to amplify the discontent and agitation in the people around them. In return for reinforcing their delusional anti-social dissatisfaction, these people reward their leadrs (OBL and AS) with cult-like loyalty. This is very similar to the way that Hitler and Pol Pot came to power, although it is markedly different from the routes Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and Tojo took to power.

I love this: Arch-Conservative Cniq-Cniq defends the rights of Muslims
against Freedom Loving Liberal AcesLucky. Does this shatter sterotypes
or what?

One of the most common errors of American politics -- committed by both the right and the left -- is to equate conservative philosophy (Burke-Kirk) with the platform of the Republican party. The former is associated with the latter only on the basis of current political coalitions.

More importantly, I believe that 99% of mankind, in their hearts, loves peace, regardless of religious or political dogma.

While I generally agree with this statement, I would clarify that they also define peace as the [i]tranquility of...

I love this: Arch-Conservative Cniq-Cniq defends the rights of Muslims
against Freedom Loving Liberal AcesLucky. Does this shatter sterotypes
or what?

One of the most common errors of American politics -- committed by both the right and the left -- is to equate conservative philosophy (Burke-Kirk) with the platform of the Republican party. The former is associated with the latter only on the basis of current political coalitions.

More importantly, I believe that 99% of mankind, in their hearts, loves peace, regardless of religious or political dogma.

While I generally agree with this statement, I would clarify that they also define peace as the tranquility of order, not merely as the abscence of conflict.

As to the 99%? Well, I happen to be more torn as to whether man's nature is tilted in favor of the good or the base. So, on a personal level, while the majority of folk do yearn for peace, I would settle on a lower percentage.

Cniq-Cniq is exactly right: we should not confuse terrorists with something intrinsic in Islamic or Arab culture. It is easy to do, but it is only self delusion. Our enemy is not Islam, but Extremism.

Clearly a vast majority of Muslims are decent, peace-loving people.

--

Our enemy is not Islam, but Extremism...

Exactly! But you must understand that the Extremism of which we speak, comes from the fundamentalists of RELIGION! The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims all... have the authority of their religion in full force against all others.

After all, the KKK are peace loving Christians, too...until they act out the tenets of their beliefs. So it's okay...

Cniq-Cniq is exactly right: we should not confuse terrorists with something intrinsic in Islamic or Arab culture. It is easy to do, but it is only self delusion. Our enemy is not Islam, but Extremism.

Clearly a vast majority of Muslims are decent, peace-loving people.

--

Our enemy is not Islam, but Extremism...

Exactly! But you must understand that the Extremism of which we speak, comes from the fundamentalists of RELIGION! The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims all... have the authority of their religion in full force against all others.

After all, the KKK are peace loving Christians, too...until they act out the tenets of their beliefs. So it's okay to say the KKK are generally peaceful? (Yes, it would! Does that mean generally they should be embraced?)

Noooooooo. Until the vast majority (the ones you think desire peace) rise up and kick out the violent fundamentalist (that tiny set of troublemakers), you simply can't tell the difference! And it's THEIR responsibility to do so -- do you disagree?

Should I embrace the KKK because only a few would seek to do me harm? Nooooooo. Their ideology is BASED on doing the other person harm! This is Islam! And the proof is the silence of the peaceful. (MLK jr. was peaceful...but was he silent?)

And Islam in the middle east is a state religion, and persecution of those who are not Muslim is sanctioned by the state. Even the Bahá'í are persecuted, which have it roots in Persia.

Fact is, I see no uprising against the violent. Do you?

Who of them, then, should be embraced?

PS: That's not a rhetorical question.

While your general argument is valid, AcesLucky, I do not understand its application. True, extremism is manifested in the nation states of the region, but how do you convince the peoples of Islam to throw off this totalitarian yoke by insinuating that they no place a Westernized world? True, you need to foster an appreciation of the self-criticism implicit in the fusion of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem in Western thought, but how does exclusion accomplish this?

You stretch the KKK analogy too much. The majority of Christians rejected the hate group just as you urge Muslims to reject similar groups in their midst. There is no reason to either embrace the group or consider them peaceful.

A...

While your general argument is valid, AcesLucky, I do not understand its application. True, extremism is manifested in the nation states of the region, but how do you convince the peoples of Islam to throw off this totalitarian yoke by insinuating that they no place a Westernized world? True, you need to foster an appreciation of the self-criticism implicit in the fusion of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem in Western thought, but how does exclusion accomplish this?

You stretch the KKK analogy too much. The majority of Christians rejected the hate group just as you urge Muslims to reject similar groups in their midst. There is no reason to either embrace the group or consider them peaceful.

A better roadmap would be to encourage a course of action similar to that employed with Voice of America during the Cold War. Dissidents must be touted, and the population made aware of the fallicies of the extremist's propaganda. Ready the people for revolution by arming their minds. Only then will their bodies follow and their hearts be given the courage to persevere the sacrifices required.

"..how do you convince the peoples of Islam to throw off this totalitarian yoke by insinuating that they no place a Westernized world?"

Many in their society are rebelling; many do want freedom but are chastised and even arrested for daring to challenge their theocratic laws. The consequences are great, sometimes torturous and lethal.

That kind of change, though, cannot be affected by Western culture except by example. They must fight for their own freedom, with their own blood. They must rise above their religious doctrines or get further behind, in science, in social evolution.

But we can't give it to them any more than we can fight their civil wars. We can be an...

"..how do you convince the peoples of Islam to throw off this totalitarian yoke by insinuating that they no place a Westernized world?"

Many in their society are rebelling; many do want freedom but are chastised and even arrested for daring to challenge their theocratic laws. The consequences are great, sometimes torturous and lethal.

That kind of change, though, cannot be affected by Western culture except by example. They must fight for their own freedom, with their own blood. They must rise above their religious doctrines or get further behind, in science, in social evolution.

But we can't give it to them any more than we can fight their civil wars. We can be an example of freedom, but we can't legislate or force it on anyone.
--

BTW: Tony Blair's speech to the "Islam and Muslims in the world today" conference in London is hardly an example of peaceful Muslims standing up against the violence. In fact, one of the links pointed to, see [Muslim Melting Pot] states: "...one in four [Muslim] respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing."

Hello? That's one-in-freaking-four ACCEPTS suicide bombing!

IS ANYBODY HOME?

---

And finally, I believe (some of you) Christians may have this sympathy because you still feel the guilt from your own religion having committed centuries of murderous atrocities.

Couple that with the fact that you believe we're essentially immortal (given a belief held at the moment of death), and so life just isn't that precious; not that final. So murder of the innocent just isn't that big of deal.

But I don't forgive your religious sins, nor theirs. Evil committed in the name of religion is still evil. And to think, some of you say you get your morals from a god! Well, so do they. And that's the problem. Get it?

Many in their society are rebelling; many do want freedom but are chastised and even arrested for daring to challenge their theocratic laws....But we can't give it to them....We can be an example of freedom, but we can't legislate or force it on anyone.

Did I misunderstand a previous post? Weren't you arguing that Muslims did not merit personal freedoms because they did not exercise responsibility and were not rebellious?

As a staunch supporter of one's right to pursue one's own happiness, I strongly believe in personal freedom. (I'm a freedom loving Liberal.) But Muslims should NOT have that same right!

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm sincerely asking if I ...

Many in their society are rebelling; many do want freedom but are chastised and even arrested for daring to challenge their theocratic laws....But we can't give it to them....We can be an example of freedom, but we can't legislate or force it on anyone.

Did I misunderstand a previous post? Weren't you arguing that Muslims did not merit personal freedoms because they did not exercise responsibility and were not rebellious?

As a staunch supporter of one's right to pursue one's own happiness, I strongly believe in personal freedom. (I'm a freedom loving Liberal.) But Muslims should NOT have that same right!

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm sincerely asking if I missed something. I'm not arguing against the truth that one's own blood, sweat and tears must be expended if liberty is to cherished.

And finally, I believe (some of you) Christians may have this sympathy because you still feel the guilt from your own religion having committed centuries of murderous atrocities.

Nope. And I don't feel guilty for slavery in the United States a century ago either. These are not my sins as you imply. They are the sins of men who have long since passed.

Did I misunderstand a previous post? Weren't you arguing that Muslims did not merit personal freedoms because they did not exercise responsibility and were not rebellious?

I should have been more clear (my apologies) . They do not merit personal freedoms HERE (in Western civilization). On their own turf they can have whatever theocratic slave state they want.
--

And I don't feel guilty for slavery in the United States a century ago either. These are not my sins as you imply. They are the sins of men who have long since passed.

You are right. They are not your sins. You did not commit them. (This is what I keep telling the Christian who asserts we are al...

Did I misunderstand a previous post? Weren't you arguing that Muslims did not merit personal freedoms because they did not exercise responsibility and were not rebellious?

I should have been more clear (my apologies) . They do not merit personal freedoms HERE (in Western civilization). On their own turf they can have whatever theocratic slave state they want.
--

And I don't feel guilty for slavery in the United States a century ago either. These are not my sins as you imply. They are the sins of men who have long since passed.

You are right. They are not your sins. You did not commit them. (This is what I keep telling the Christian who asserts we are all born of the sin of Adam and Eve, and must therefore be saved.)

Thank you for stating my argument against a major tenant of Christianity so well!

Interesting, how we can separate ourselves from group atrocities to which we belong by claiming individuality. One might ask of an SS, why then were you a Nazi? If we belong to a group that historically committed centuries of heinous atrocities... Why do we belong to that group?

This is what I am asking of the Muslim, except in the 'present' . Why belong to this group right now, when they are committing atrocities right now?

PS: I tend to lean toward ouyangwulong's statements above.

"...are Christians more inclined to defend Islam from being generalized as extremists because the same thing is often done to Christianity?"

I'm thinking...yes. But well deserved!

You are right. They are not your sins. You did not commit them. (This
is what I keep telling the Christian who asserts we are all born of the
sin of Adam and Eve, and must therefore be saved.)

Thank you for stating my argument against a major tenant of Christianity so well!

Actually, my argument is not applicable in the way you suggest. The concept of original sin is more a reflection of man's relationship with God than a specific act in the sense of slavery or the Holacaust. Admittedly, I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but redemption is more about re-establishing a right order in the human soul that was lost in man's choice of his ego as opposed t...

You are right. They are not your sins. You did not commit them. (This
is what I keep telling the Christian who asserts we are all born of the
sin of Adam and Eve, and must therefore be saved.)

Thank you for stating my argument against a major tenant of Christianity so well!

Actually, my argument is not applicable in the way you suggest. The concept of original sin is more a reflection of man's relationship with God than a specific act in the sense of slavery or the Holacaust. Admittedly, I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but redemption is more about re-establishing a right order in the human soul that was lost in man's choice of his ego as opposed to communion with God. Thus, my statement falls short of being a response to the theological concept.

Interesting, how we can separate ourselves from group atrocities to
which we belong by claiming individuality. One might ask of an SS, why
then were you a Nazi? If we belong to a group that historically
committed centuries of heinous atrocities... Why do we belong to that
group?

This is what I am asking of the Muslim, except in the
'present' . Why belong to this group right now, when they are
committing atrocities right now?

Again, it seems your analogy is too broad. First, it would be more apt to compare the Muslim population with the German population, not the SS. The Islamists would better parallel the SS in your comparison, not Islam as a whole.

Additionally, although one might might wish to separate himself from a group action, an Islamist or a member of the SS does not have the honest claim that I would in the previous post. The Islamist and the SS member participated in atrocities or in the very least were complicit by association. That doesn't compare with me being distanced from US slavery by a century.

Actually, my argument is not applicable in the way you suggest.

Hits it right on the head, cniq cniq. You claim you didn't commit the crime, and therefore shouldn't be punished for the crimes of others. I am stating no different with regard to original sin.

The concept of original sin is more a reflection of man's relationship with God than a specific act in the sense of slavery or the Holacaust.

The specific act of Adam & Eve eating from the tree of knowledge was the original sin. After which, according to the story, God cursed Adam & Eve. (I'm afraid the reflection business is something someone made up.)

redemption is more about re-establishing a ri...

read more»

Actually, my argument is not applicable in the way you suggest.

Hits it right on the head, cniq cniq. You claim you didn't commit the crime, and therefore shouldn't be punished for the crimes of others. I am stating no different with regard to original sin.

The concept of original sin is more a reflection of man's relationship with God than a specific act in the sense of slavery or the Holacaust.

The specific act of Adam & Eve eating from the tree of knowledge was the original sin. After which, according to the story, God cursed Adam & Eve. (I'm afraid the reflection business is something someone made up.)

redemption is more about re-establishing a right order in the human soul that was lost in man's choice of his ego as opposed to communion with God.

"Man's choice of his ego?" My understanding is that we are supposedly born in the sin of A&E's original disobedience to god. And to be forgiven of that, we must give our souls to Jesus or suffer the rest of eternity in hell.

But we're getting off the subject.

I'm just saying that you might think differently about Muslims being in Western society when the mall a few miles from your home is blown to smithereens with hundreds killed and many more injured. (Can you smell the sacrificial flesh?)

And the Muslim a few doors down from you says, "I didn't do it, and I am peaceful; but I agree that suicide bombing is acceptable." Will you embrace his freedom, then?

I would argue that the espousal of such beliefs proves he is not peaceful. Thus, he is not one of those I was defending.

On that issue of peaceful Muslims, arifsali pointed us to an article above that states:

"Muslim Americans," released by the Pew Research Center, contains moments of bad news. For example, one in four respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing."

Now, given a percentage so high, how exactly do you tell them apart, and what do you do with violent ones?

If I may be so politically bold: you find a way to get them out.

--

Obviously nobody believes that we are all being punished for literally apple-eating[/...

read more»

I would argue that the espousal of such beliefs proves he is not peaceful. Thus, he is not one of those I was defending.

On that issue of peaceful Muslims, arifsali pointed us to an article above that states:

"Muslim Americans," released by the Pew Research Center, contains moments of bad news. For example, one in four respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing."

Now, given a percentage so high, how exactly do you tell them apart, and what do you do with violent ones?

If I may be so politically bold: you find a way to get them out.

--

Obviously nobody believes that we are all being punished for literally apple-eating

Exactly, but those who make criticisms like those above have to become the "fundamentalists" they ridicule in order to make their false agrments work.

At the moment of birth, for what then must we be forgiven, if not the original sin of A&E? We haven't done anything that could remotely be considered a crime.

If my argument is false, then please enlighten me on this original sin. Apparently it had nothing to do with A&E, then. So tell me. Did WE commit this original sin?

And why would it be a "false argument" to say that WE shouldn't have to pay for the sins of someone else? It's the very argument YOU made about slavery. But now it's a false argument when it exposes your religion? That's the most blatant hypocracy I've seen in ages.

What does that tell you about your intellectual honesty? Either we're guilty for someone elses' crime, or we're not. Please, no dual standards of justice! It's the bane of religious indoctrination.

If we are not guilty of someone elses crime, we should not be punished for it. Didn't you agree with that earlier?

perhaps you should ask ourself: do I actually live down the street [from] any Muslims?

I do, and none of them support suicide bombings.

I grew up in Detroit, in a predominantly Black neighborhood, with a Muslim next door (Kenny). All his literature talked about how the White man was the Devil.

We thought it was a bit much, and a bit stupid. But he was a law abiding citizen. I'm sure if you ask him, he would not condone violence any more than Christians condone war.

By the way, who were Bush's greatest supporters for the war in Iraq? And yet, I'm sure if you ask them, the vast majority would say they support peace (just like Jesus would).

But isn't Bush a Chris...

perhaps you should ask ourself: do I actually live down the street [from] any Muslims?

I do, and none of them support suicide bombings.

I grew up in Detroit, in a predominantly Black neighborhood, with a Muslim next door (Kenny). All his literature talked about how the White man was the Devil.

We thought it was a bit much, and a bit stupid. But he was a law abiding citizen. I'm sure if you ask him, he would not condone violence any more than Christians condone war.

By the way, who were Bush's greatest supporters for the war in Iraq? And yet, I'm sure if you ask them, the vast majority would say they support peace (just like Jesus would).

But isn't Bush a Christian? And yet...

The point is, what would you do if your Muslim neighbors say they DO support suicide bombing the way Christians support preemptive war? What then?

Do you go to the police? They've committed no crime! (And remember, a quarter of them under 30 openly admit it!)

To me, it's permission based (imaginary god authority) insanity.

Oh, Aces Lucky, that's very interesting. Your neighbor Kenny was part of the Nation of Islam. This is VERY different from the Islam we are discussing. In fact, aside from the name, it has nothing to do with the Islam practiced by Al Qaeda or government of Iran.

The Nation of Islam was actually established in Detroit in the 1930s by a guy named Wallace Fard. He claimed to be a prophet (or incarnation?) of God. (In Islam, this would be like a Christian claiming to be the second Son of God.) He was succeeded by Elijah Mohammad, who you may have heard of in connection with Black Separatists, Malcolm X, and Mohammad Ali. The Nation of Islam is currently led by Louis Farrakhan.

Fard's prophecie...

Oh, Aces Lucky, that's very interesting. Your neighbor Kenny was part of the Nation of Islam. This is VERY different from the Islam we are discussing. In fact, aside from the name, it has nothing to do with the Islam practiced by Al Qaeda or government of Iran.

The Nation of Islam was actually established in Detroit in the 1930s by a guy named Wallace Fard. He claimed to be a prophet (or incarnation?) of God. (In Islam, this would be like a Christian claiming to be the second Son of God.) He was succeeded by Elijah Mohammad, who you may have heard of in connection with Black Separatists, Malcolm X, and Mohammad Ali. The Nation of Islam is currently led by Louis Farrakhan.

Fard's prophecies and the doctrines promoted by Elijah Mohammad center around the identity of the Muslim as "dark." Both Elijah Mohammad and Mohammad Ali refused to serve when drafted on the grounds that as "Muslims" it was against their faith to fight for the white man against their "dark brothers" in Asia. This shows just how little they knew about conventional Islam. Their use of the term "Muslim" largely stems from Orientalist stereotypes of Muslims common in the 19th Century, and not on any real knowledge of Islamic faith or ideas.

It is above all else a 20th Century North American Black identity movement. Although they have attached the name "Muslim" to themselves, their ideology is probably 99% incompatible with traditional Islam, and they are not considered true Muslims by the majority of conventional Muslims.

Now I'm not going to pass judgment on who is and who is not a Muslim, but as a researcher, I have to divide people up into different groups for the purposes of analysis. For all their schisms, Sunni, Shi'i, and Sufi Muslims all share a core set of beliefs and rituals that sets them apart from others. The Nation of Islam does not share these, and thus from a typological standpoint, needs to be considered what is essentially a completely different faith.

Austin, I may agree with what you are saying about NOI, but they're not as condemned among Muslims in general as say Ahmadiyya sect for example.

Ahmadiyya's are strictly known for not accepting Prophet Mohammad as the last and final messenger of Islam. I do not know if Nation of Islam follows the same.

All Muslims accept Mohammad as the last and final messenger from God (including of course accepting all the prophets before him, hence the shared history between the three major religions of this world). The same doesn't apply for divinely guided Imams but both these terminology and ...

Austin, I may agree with what you are saying about NOI, but they're not as condemned among Muslims in general as say Ahmadiyya sect for example.

Ahmadiyya's are strictly known for not accepting Prophet Mohammad as the last and final messenger of Islam. I do not know if Nation of Islam follows the same.

All Muslims accept Mohammad as the last and final messenger from God (including of course accepting all the prophets before him, hence the shared history between the three major religions of this world). The same doesn't apply for divinely guided Imams but both these terminology and status serves completely different purposes.

BTW, the word Imam have two completely different meanings among Muslims. More for some other time.

"..original sin is not a specific act but instead rooted in the ruptured relationship between human nature and God. It is you who ignored this and still do in pushing your argument."

---
[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin ]

"According to Christian theology, original sin (also called ancestral sin, hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin) is the fallen state of humanity.

"Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".

This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally underst...

"..original sin is not a specific act but instead rooted in the ruptured relationship between human nature and God. It is you who ignored this and still do in pushing your argument."

---
[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin ]

"According to Christian theology, original sin (also called ancestral sin, hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin) is the fallen state of humanity.

"Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".

This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity).
---

Notice in the first sentence it is clarified with "ancestral" or "birth" sin. That is to say...we are BORN with it...as the result of A&E's "first sin", the 'cause' of original sin.

In other words, this sin is passed down. I think you are arguing that the EFFECT of this sin is the rupture between man and god. (Am I on the right track?)

If so, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that we are AUTOMATICALLY ruptured with god because of someone else's act.

And the result of that is AUTOMATIC punishment of us in hell! (I don't see the justice there.)

Now, I know the remedy is giving your life to Jesus, etc., etc.. But at the end of the day, we are still being punished for A&E's act, because if we do nothing (like if I don't know about the bible etc. and live a good saintly life), it doesn't matter! I STILL go to hell -- for an act I did not commit.

Am I wrong about this doctrine? Why am I being punished when I committed no crime? Even if I never unrupture myself with god, what am I being sent to hell FOR? I had NO control over how I was born. Yet if I lead a caring and peaceful and saintly life, I still get punished. Does that sound right to you?

Your neighbor Kenny was part of the Nation of Islam. This is VERY different from the Islam we are discussing.

I agree. You brought back some memories, and you are right.

I hope that that doesn't mean that my example doesn't stand. I was trying to point out that when asked, it can't really matter the answer people give when they are (real) Muslims, because even if they give an affirmative "yes, I'm for suicide bombing", there's nothing we can do UNTIL they commit a crime.

Free speech of one's beliefs don't qualify them for incarceration, but how do we deal with the Muslim that believes and feels that way?

And based on the "1-in-4 under 30" that do feel that way and openly...

Your neighbor Kenny was part of the Nation of Islam. This is VERY different from the Islam we are discussing.

I agree. You brought back some memories, and you are right.

I hope that that doesn't mean that my example doesn't stand. I was trying to point out that when asked, it can't really matter the answer people give when they are (real) Muslims, because even if they give an affirmative "yes, I'm for suicide bombing", there's nothing we can do UNTIL they commit a crime.

Free speech of one's beliefs don't qualify them for incarceration, but how do we deal with the Muslim that believes and feels that way?

And based on the "1-in-4 under 30" that do feel that way and openly admit it, what do we do about it?

That kind of disregard for innocent life is condoned by a religion! Doesn't that strike anyone as alarming?

This truly blows my mind.

PS: I do hear tell that just outside Detroit, Dearborn I think, is now host to the largest Muslim population in the nation. I think that's kind of funny. Dearborn used to be off limits to 'colored folk'. But still scary!

Thanks for the correction.

Arifsali: While NOI dogma is a little harder to nail down, and the organization fractured after the liberal reforms instituted by Wraith Mohammad (son of Elijah Mohammad) I think it would be safe to say that they treat Wallace Fard as a Prophet (although sometimes in literature I've seen he's referred to as an embodiment of God Himself!) who came from Mecca to America as God's messenger.

This pretty much is an outright rejection of Mohammad as the seal of the prophets, which means most Muslims would consider them either heretics, or simply a non-Muslim religion.

Anthropologically speaking, although the Ahmadiya also may take other, later prophets, they are still within the overall ritual ...

Arifsali: While NOI dogma is a little harder to nail down, and the organization fractured after the liberal reforms instituted by Wraith Mohammad (son of Elijah Mohammad) I think it would be safe to say that they treat Wallace Fard as a Prophet (although sometimes in literature I've seen he's referred to as an embodiment of God Himself!) who came from Mecca to America as God's messenger.

This pretty much is an outright rejection of Mohammad as the seal of the prophets, which means most Muslims would consider them either heretics, or simply a non-Muslim religion.

Anthropologically speaking, although the Ahmadiya also may take other, later prophets, they are still within the overall ritual culture of Islam. The Nation of Islam in belief, practice, and culture has a very weak connection to traditional Islam. Not the least of which is that its ideological aims are completely different.

If so, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is
that we are AUTOMATICALLY ruptured with god because of someone else's
act.

Am I wrong about this doctrine? Why am I being punished when I
committed no crime? Even if I never unrupture myself with god, what am
I being sent to hell FOR? I had NO control over how I was born. Yet if
I lead a caring and peaceful and saintly life, I still get punished.
Does that sound right to you?

It does sound right because you do not convey an accurate depiction of Christian -- especially Catholic -- doctrine, neither of orinal sin nor Heaven as a reward and hell as a punishment.

I am the first to applaud Wiki an...

If so, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is
that we are AUTOMATICALLY ruptured with god because of someone else's
act.

Am I wrong about this doctrine? Why am I being punished when I
committed no crime? Even if I never unrupture myself with god, what am
I being sent to hell FOR? I had NO control over how I was born. Yet if
I lead a caring and peaceful and saintly life, I still get punished.
Does that sound right to you?

It does sound right because you do not convey an accurate depiction of Christian -- especially Catholic -- doctrine, neither of orinal sin nor Heaven as a reward and hell as a punishment.

I am the first to applaud Wiki and similar projects, but I would suggest that if you are sincere in your attempt to appreciate these concepts, you turn to a more authoratative source. Wikis are a good introduction to topics, but the democratic nature of the collections does not equate to in depth or correct analysis. Turning to Pope Benedict's In the Beginning or like works is a better alternative.

Sin is a rejection of relationality
because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship,
disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to
the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event--sin--touches
the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is
always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages
it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships
is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters
into a world that is marked by relational damage....

Sin is a rejection of relationality
because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship,
disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to
the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event--sin--touches
the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is
always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages
it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships
is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters
into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment
that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is
confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation
in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is,
from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage
in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or
she capitulates to it.

p.73

Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god.

To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world.

--
Wow. Sin sure has evolved from doing evil. Nevertheless, I'll bite...

When I think of Born-Again Christians that preach the pious life, why don't I see the person you describe born into this relational network of sin become free of it after coming to god?

Ted Hag...

Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god.

To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world.

--
Wow. Sin sure has evolved from doing evil. Nevertheless, I'll bite...

When I think of Born-Again Christians that preach the pious life, why don't I see the person you describe born into this relational network of sin become free of it after coming to god?

Ted Haggard, Mafia, Bush, Robertson, and so forth; why aren't these people peaceful and good? Where's the changed relationship, from sin-world to god-world?

I can't tell them apart from historical tyrants and liars! Even the Pope hides pedophiles, presides over Inquisitions, but runs straight to the doctor (science) when he gets sick.

I don't follow the "action", the result, that frees one from the "damaged relations" you are describing as sin, by a believer or 'born again' Christian. Action and words don't match.

In other words, based on your definition (description) I can't tell the difference between a sinner and a saint.

As it stands, the person who is genuinely kind seems a better candidate for heaven. But I'm old fashion. When I was growing up, being sinful was simply doing evil.

Based on that (old fashion) definition, it's easy to see who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Wouldn't you agree?

I tried to engage in an open discussion, but I'm coming to the impression that you are more interested in simply winning debate points. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, it is just that such a game does not appeal to me and I'd rather catch the finale of The Sopranos. See you around.

Yeah, you're right. Typically when something doesn't make sense to me and I state why it doesn't, the other person may think I'm trying to "win" something.

In actuality, I'm trying to get at the truthfulness of something. I'm not gullible on purpose, so I test it for truthfulness. All else is irrelevant. And sometimes that means exposing another's ideas as false or contrived.

T...

I tried to engage in an open discussion, but I'm coming to the impression that you are more interested in simply winning debate points. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, it is just that such a game does not appeal to me and I'd rather catch the finale of The Sopranos. See you around.

Yeah, you're right. Typically when something doesn't make sense to me and I state why it doesn't, the other person may think I'm trying to "win" something.

In actuality, I'm trying to get at the truthfulness of something. I'm not gullible on purpose, so I test it for truthfulness. All else is irrelevant. And sometimes that means exposing another's ideas as false or contrived.

That has a tendency to make people feel somehow defeated, emotionally. That's not my intent. My intent is to test their ideas (my own too) against reality or reason. In this way, we can both discover if the ideas are valid or worthy of keeping. Those that are confident in their ideas welcome this. I do! And being wrong allows me to learn. I am not afraid of this. I have little ego to defend.

But I won't keep an idea if it doesn't make sense or doesn't ring true. Your concept of Sin is foreign to me. So I tested it against reality. I gave examples where it didn't ring true.

If I presented you an idea that didn't ring true with you, how would you respond? (Clearly the idea wasn't yours, so I couldn't ask you how you came up with it.)

You used a discussion of original sin as an opportunity to cast aspersions on the rights of individual persons to call themselves Christian.

Hold it there pardner...a person doing evil is no Christian in my book. If the sum of the new testament is to love thy neighbor as thyself, pleeeeeez don't defend evil by saying "but they're still Christians." It's the hypocracy, you know.

Too much evil, too much killing, too much bombing in the name of somebody's god.

"How to End Islamophobia?" STOP the killing! START being KIND to one another. You'd think a religion would have this down pat.

I will not defend the evil and the lies just because it's in the name of a religion, Chris...

You used a discussion of original sin as an opportunity to cast aspersions on the rights of individual persons to call themselves Christian.

Hold it there pardner...a person doing evil is no Christian in my book. If the sum of the new testament is to love thy neighbor as thyself, pleeeeeez don't defend evil by saying "but they're still Christians." It's the hypocracy, you know.

Too much evil, too much killing, too much bombing in the name of somebody's god.

"How to End Islamophobia?" STOP the killing! START being KIND to one another. You'd think a religion would have this down pat.

I will not defend the evil and the lies just because it's in the name of a religion, Christian Muslim whatever. I will stand for the good and the truthful; imaginary gods be damned for NOT doing so.

BTW: If these gods are so good, why don't they show up when we bomb 100,000 innocent civilians, or when the lash across a slave's back cries out to god for mercy?

But let somebody win a football game and...thank god for making it happen!

(The real interesting thing cniq cniq is that deep down below your indoctrination, you know I'm right. You're simply afraid to face it, the finality of death, the importance of truth. What would happen if you faced it squarely?)