Thank God for the beauty of kindness, living, working together of peoples no matter what religion.
One problem I have found with 'religion' is that man makes relgions out of the Love and WOrds that God gives.
Man makes religion but God made Love for God Is love. the kind of love that gives, sacrifices that others may have their needs, not slaughter them if they think or believe differently.
True lovers and believers of God know they are accountable for their words and actions and will face God one day and give an account of their life.
I'm a Christian missionary but some of the best people I've known are Muslims and Buddnists, Caholics, and others. Their religion doesn't form what they say and do, but what they say and do is their true religion.

Why does everyone always attack Islam? You know Al-Qaeda wouldn't have taken action on Sep 11 if it wasn't for the imperialistic US government, it was an act of self-defense.
The greatest threat to all peoples are the Zionists and their friends in the USA.The Jews do nothing but steal our money, kill, and destroy. There should be a united global effort by all countries to end the illegal state of Israel by peace or by force and send the Jews where they belong, back to Europe.

Much as I would like to agree with Mr. Patel, the fact is when enough number of people from any group or religion take up violence, it maligns the entire group. To say that we should blame the individual, not the religion, is too simplistic.

The violence spawned by Islam calls for reform. Today, there is a news item about pakistan. Bombs are going off in video stores because Islamic radicals believe videos are corrupting the minds of young people. No matter if some people are killed in the process. They are not worried about corrupting the image of Islam but they are worried that their idea of morality is not adopted by the whole world. Now, can Eboo Patel call a spade a spade and say this needs to stop. Blame the individual not the religion is a stretch. Why does Islam encourage the imposition of some idiots' idea of morality (by violence) on the rest of the world? Mr. Patel needs to wake up as does many of his Muslim brothers I am afraid.

It's not fair but that's the way it is unfortunately. Muslims

It's the zionist Jews we should all be afriad of.

Those who John warned us about,

THey say they are Jews but are actually mongoloid Asiatics.

I just watched the republican debate on CNN. I am worried that most of the republican party is bent on making islam the boogey man.
I was just wondering is it a really good for the political health of the country to force it into a islamophobia.
They talk about turning iraq into this lofty democratic country that they would have no fear of, but the truth is that they are teaching fear of islam to americans of other religion in that they will never trust anyone of islamic faith. There is a considerable percentage of americans that are not in favour of giving iraqis refugee status.
Is it really fair to form your opinions of a entire faith on the actions of individuals who committ crimes againt humanity and in my opinion abandone their religion when they do such acts.
So when the republican candidates keep repeating islam as a threat to the west they create a divide that will not do anything to win the hearts and minds any time soon. That does not absolve the muslim world of their responsibilties. They lack the leadership on these issues and are light years away from doing the right thing.

Saudi officials have arrested a man in Mecca for being a Christian, saying that the city, which Muslims consider to be holy, is off-limits to non-Muslims.
Nirosh Kamanda, a Sri Lankan Christian, was detained by the Saudi Expatriates Monitoring Committee last week after he started to sell goods outside Mecca’s Great Mosque.
After running his fingerprints through a new security system, Saudi police discovered that he was a Christian who had arrived in the country six months earlier to take a job as a truck driver in the city of Dammam. Kamanda had subsequently left his place of work and moved to Mecca.
“The Grand Mosque and the holy city are forbidden to non-Muslims,” Col. Suhail Matrafi, head of the department of Expatriates Affairs in Mecca, told the Saudi daily Arab News. “The new fingerprints system is very helpful and will help us a lot to discover the identity of a lot of criminals,” he said.
Similar restrictions apply to the Saudi city of Medina. In a section entitled, “Traveler’s Information,” the Web site of the Saudi Embassy in Washington states that, “Mecca and Medina hold special religious significance and only persons of the Islamic faith are allowed entry.”
Highway signs at the entrance to Mecca also direct non-Muslims away from the city’s environs.

NOW you consider manu law as valid deb?
how conveeeenient

Soja wrote:

"...and is even stricter than Christianity in that it does not even allow remarriage for a Hindu widow..."

Soja, this is where I disagree. Widow re-marriage was always a part of Hindu society (samaj). Manusmriti has ample evidences and strictures regarding when a woman can take another man besides her legally wedded husband, and lists those circumstances. Some of them are: (a) male impotence in giving birth (b) desertion by the husband, (c) if the woman is a widow and childless then remarriage is permitted ...

Societies where polyandry was practiced also found favor with Manu. The Hindu society, was recognized as evolving and dynamic and the rules were meant to accomodative.

"But in my opinion it goes without saying that neither becoming 'sex mad' nor living like tribals is considered a heightened state of spirituality in Hinduism, at least not in mainstream Hinduism."

Sex was recognized as conduit to respond to bodily needs. Just as one eats, sleeps, voids so also sex was considered as a bodily function. Kamasutra describes sex a pleasure primarily/conventionally between man and woman. (The Kamasutra also recognizes homosexuality.) But, the Kamasutra is not at the same rank as Upanishads, Brahmasutras, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, as many non-Hindus have erroneously thought. Thus, sex is not a part of spirituality of "mainstream Hinduism". The Bhagavad Gita (chapter 6, lines 15-17) states that moderation in enjoyment, maintaining regularity in meditation, enjoyment, food, sleep, etc., leads to spiritual emancipation. Someone who may overdo anyone of these shall not meet the golas and objectives.

In summary, mostly you are right except on the aspect of Hindu widow remarriage.

Errata: Hippies of course did not consider incestual sex to be right!

Deb

My understanding is that a rishi is a ‘seer of mantras,’ (hence by definition is not required to be celibate) but a sannyasi is one who has forsaken the world to attain God realisation. I don’t know if you are referring to married ‘rishis’ or married sannyasis. If a sannyasi married or had consensual sex with tribal women, I can’t think of it as being part of sannyasa. I'm sure you will agree that Ramayana, the love story and lifelong monogamous relationship and fidelity of Rama and Sita, is considered the marriage ideal for Indian society (and is even stricter than Christianity in that it does not even allow remarriage for a Hindu widow), NOT what one or the other sannayasi/rishi might or might not have done while living in the forest, out of reach of the rules and regulation of the normal Indian society. The main theme of Ramayana is about marital fidelity. I have found the psychological significance of Lakshman Rekha in Ramayana, that protects a marriage quite fascinating – that no one from outside can break into a marriage by crossing the Lakshman Rekha; the one within the marriage must step out of the protective Lakshman Rekha.

There is nothing, as far as I know, in mainstream Hindu Scripture to suggest taking sannyasa and then indulging in sex was what sannyasa was about. The Bhagavad Gita was after all written as the answer to such a dilemma, in enable the householder to attain God realisation. If the idea was to live in the forest and have a family like everyone else, or follow the morals of the Indian tribals, then the sannyasis might as well have remained in the world and lived a normal life or lived among the tribals like one of them. (Tribals as you are fully aware to this day do NOT belong to the Hindu fold at all and follow the same sexual morals as they always have, namely neither the men nor the women in their communities are any different from the hippies of the 1960s. I find it interesting that there are no double moral standards among the tribals, and the women are as liberated in their sexuality as the men.) But if the rishi/sannyasi married and lived in a monogamous relationship, after he had achieved God realisation, then it is equivalent to the Zen concept of "returning to the market place." But in my opinion it goes without saying that neither becoming 'sex mad' nor living like tribals is considered a heightened state of spirituality in Hinduism, at least not in mainstream Hinduism.

If you are under the notion that tribal sexual morality is a high place to be, I must share with you what I learnt when I visited a tribal village in Madhya Pradesh. When the Catholic nuns went to set up a mission station there, among other things they found the "glorious state" of sexual “liberation”. The tribals, most of them extremely poor, lived in one room huts and the whole family slept together. When some young girls came pregnant to the mission hospital set up by the nuns, it was impossible to know who the father of the child was – it could have been the father, brother, or after her marriage, apart from her husband, the brother/father-in-law, any male that shared the same hut! Since the tribals had no concept of sexual morals, they thought nothing about it. Would you ask the same question, “So what? Is that a crime?” If not, why not?

Soja wrote:

"I think the emphasis should rather be that sex is beautiful ...... just as celibacy was willingly chosen only by Hindu sannyasis who left society to live in forests, out of reach of normal society, while the ordinary temple priest always married."

I agree wholeheartedly. That many are turning away from Catholicism (and probably Christianity), is that it considers sex as sinful. If this trend continues, then Jesus Christ - upon his second coming - shall overrule the Vatican and have him plutoed to do menial jobs like driving cab in Baghdad, Iraq. Why ? Because I am sure that Christ would not allow his faith to flourish only within a small numerical minority who have obscurantist views about the flow of life that God gave us.

And BTW, many Hindu "rishis" (sages) also married and sired kids. Hey these rishis lived in forests too ! Some had good rockin' (consensual) relationships with local tribal women. So what ? Is that a crime ?

what are the products produced by evolution?
just curious.

Ralph,

You said: "That's also what makes Evolutionism the world's most dangerous religion. It is a religion that refuses to call itself a religion."

The difference is this. To believe in something without evidence is called faith. To believe in something (such as electricity) for which you have evidence is called science.

The difference between religion and science is EVIDENCE. Science now harnesses evolution in the same way that it harnesses electricity. You can study applied evolution at university and get a job using evolution to create new products.

Evolution is considered a law of nature, not 'just a theory' because it has already been harnessed to create new products. To deny evolution today is like denying the existance of electricity, and calling evolution a religion is like calling electricity a religion. You make yourself look silly with such comments.

To All Muslims,

I want to ask you a question. Please give your answer. Do you believe the following?

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 51:
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.

Qur’an Chapter 3 Verse 28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

The above verses command you to hate Jews and Christians, so the question is: Do you believe these teachings to be true? Do you believe that you should follow these teachings?

Please don't start with the "out of context" argument because we all know that the koran wasn't written down in chronological order. It was written down in verse length.

It's a simple question. The koran commands Muslims to hate Jews & Christians, and not to take them to be their friends and protectors. Do you believe these teachings to be true and do you think Muslims should follow these teachings? Do you believe that these verses should continue being taught to Muslim children at school?

What is your answer?

Fate

Thanks for that suggestion. I am going to pop into a Lutheran church one of these days to check out what you said. Anyway I consider all Christians a part of the same body of Christ you know. There aren't that many Lutheran Churches as Catholic ones, so I couldn't go to any part of the world and attend a similar service - that is one great advantage of being a Catholic over being a Lutheran!

In Germany I was quite amazed to find that the Lutheran Churches looked almost exactly like the Catholic ones (I didn't attend any service though). I suppose it is because the Churches belong to the time of Luther.

Thanks for the info on the ritual of the Lutheran pastor kissing his wife at the end of the service, of which I was not aware (I will check that out too!). I think it is beautiful. It makes perfect sense for priests to marry, at least to be given a choice. It is my guess that the overemphasis on celibacy for the religious is one of the reasons Catholicism is unpopular. I think the emphasis should rather be that sex is beautiful and sacred in a committed lifelong relationship rather than putting the act of fighting legitimate biological needs on a higher pedestal than it deserves. Only strictly contemplative convents and monasteries should have mandatory celibacy, just as celibacy was willingly chosen only by Hindu sannyasis who left society to live in forests, out of reach of normal society, while the ordinary temple priest always married. To be exposed to all the worldly temptations on a day to day basis, have so little time to devote to personal prayer due to work committments, and yet be expected to achieve the almost impossible task of remaining celibate - any wonder that most people have trouble understanding the magnitude of the challenge, and the real merit of taking on such a challenge? Even the Hindu sannyasis who spent all day in deep meditation would agree how unrealistic such an expectation is. I have untold respect for those who genuinely achieve that level of transformation of the sexual energies as a Catholic while being exposed to the temptations of the world on a day to day basis, and yet I don't think of it as the highest ideal. Even as a Catholic I am convinced that to be a truly loving and faithful husband/wife, a caring father/mother to one's children, and to serve Jesus in the world through one's work that one does for a living and otherwise, is really the greatest challenge and the highest ideal. The world sorely needs more Holy Families!

Soja,

You may want to attend a Lutheran church. The liturgy is the same as Catholic liturgy. The only differences I've found is that there is no transsubstantiation (its just bread and wine being eaten in rememberance as Jesus asked) and after the service the pastor goes to his wife and kisses her, something that any catholic would take a second look at since they wear the same robes. Oh yea, and you don't go to hell for missing a service. As I have heard it said, Lutherans are just Catholics without the guilt. :-)

who are you referring to soja?
only FATE has expressed some bad experiences with catholics- and was commenting on anecdotal experiences about people, from what i saw-

the rest of us havent made any negative comments at all-

i think if you look at it again, you wont feel sad at all-

i know some absolutely stellar catholics in my life.

I feel really sad that those who have shared on this thread have had no good experience with Catholics. However I wish to assure you all that there are over one billion Catholics in the world. It is a pity that you haven't been fortunate enough to meet some of the loving, and most intellectual and radical ones who represent Catholicism too.

I have been very fortunate to meet some really fantastic (Jesuit and others) priests, Benedicitine monks and great nuns. One gets an idea of what the word Catholicism means only when one gets to meet some of the best Catholics. One would be shocked at the sort of ideas that are considered perfectly acceptable by the Catholic church. So a narrow minded view of Catholicism comes only from not having met some of the best Catholic minds.

If you had known Dom Bede Griffiths, for instance, you would have difficulty believing that he was Catholic - his vision was so universal. There are many Catholics with a great vision and intellectual and spiritual depth, that one would think many times before stamping the Catholic church with the labels that those who have shared their experiences on this thread has.

I can only repeat that I feel sad that those who have shared on this thread have had bad experiences. But that is not the end of the Catholic Church, considering there are over one billion members of the church worldwide. I consider myself a Catholic who represents the Catholic church too. I don't feel hemmed in and restricted and bound up with all sorts of rules and regulations. I think it is wonderful that I could walk into any Catholic Church in the world and feel at home because the liturgy is the same. It is a comfort to know that I have many things in common with one billion believers in the world, although I may not practise or believe every little thing as taught by the Church. I still feel sufficiently Catholic all the same.

May all who have shared on this thread meet some good Catholics in your life. That is my heartfelt wish.

that is a strange world view indeed- im form pittsburgh (which is on the appalachians) and mydad is retired and a rock hound- i guess by the reaoning of the priest, eventually the whole world will eventually be all mountains- i may be sitting on a baby mountain right now and not even know it- it LOOKS like a level street, but who knows what baby mountain nature lies inherent in it?

i can understand impausible explanations from mother church- and kids have l0ong memories, look how it impacted you.

im a muslim and certainly dont know everything about islam- but its congruous ith science at least-

possibly everything is alive in some esoteric as yet undiscovered electo-magnetic sense- but that is a stretch by any menas-
im looking at my geode right now, and feeling a smug superoirity to it- (i guess i really have to reach far down the chain of consciousness to find something to be smugly superior to- he he)

Victoria,

I remember in 5th grade a priest came into my catholic school class to answer any question we had. This was very unusual and I now understand that this was some sort of outreach the priests were ordered to do. Anyway I was interested in geology then. I used to buy those rock kits shown on TV. So I asked the priest where the Appalachian mountains came from. I knew the Rockies were due to the volcanos (a few years later they discovered plate techtonics). But there was no explanation I had heard of about how the appalachians formed. His answer startled me. He said "rocks grow". "EH?" I responded. Yes he insisted rocks grew, they just grow slow. You see, everything is "alive". I decided not to start a debate (you never won a debate with a priest or nun :). But it was a turning point for me. It showed me that these people, who demanded respect and claimed complete knowledge and morality were, in this case, not just uneducated, but he did not know just how uneducated he was. For the first time a priest appeared human to me. Once I saw that I started seeing it in everyone else. Nuns, other priests. My questioning began then and has not stopped. The type of response I heard from BIGD is typical. No real debate other than the bible says so and God is perfect so the church is perfect. It gets old but I haven't stopped the questions hoping that, one day, people like BIGD may realize that everyday people are running what he considers the most perfect religion which produces the most perfect law, rules, and way to heaven.

oh- good points fate- i was about 7 or so when vatican II kicked in- the doily veils came off the heads and lain was out (supposedly- it tooks years for many churches to comply)
as for confusion, i went to a very very VERY progressive catholic school- (also very very VERY poor- the principal left because she got pregnant, and we didnt have history, we had black studies-half the teachers brought their kids with them) and we had mass every morning for 2 years.(that i went)

i was an adult and was telling a priest about hearing mass in latin at this church in the early 70s.
when i told him the church he asked the name of the priest- when i told him that he laughed and laughed.
apparently, this priest had just come fresh from india, and his accent was so thick he was giving mass in english!
(alot of prayers were still in latin in my defense) but the point is- i didnt understand it in latin, and i didnt understand it in accented english so it was all greek to me anyway.

i guess that proves how easily young minds accept gibberish as spiritual guidance-
(obviously at some point i explored what i was hearing)

ive heard this point before and its well taken.

Victoria,

Eating meat on Friday (during lent these days) is a mortal sin if you know your doing it (i.e., you didn't forget the rule or that it was Friday). Look it up.

And I understand its not a burning issue in the church. I never said it was. My whole point has been that it is a canon law, a law made up by the church, not by God via biblical writings, and this law made by the church changes over time. It did not start with early christians or even when the church was formalized. When it was adopted it was EVERY Friday. Since 1966 it is now only during lent, in the US, with some countries not required to observe it at all.

I started out this thread by asking what a guy in hell for eating meat on Friday thought about all the catholics enjoying meat on Friday these days. The point, since I need to spell it out, is that the church makes up canon law and modifies it over time and applies it differently from place to place. That may be fine for stuff that would be considered venial sins, but mortal sin, well, thats a serious ticket to hell. If the church can impose its laws willy-nilly and in doing so send some people, but not all, to hell, it just seems like maybe a lot of what the church is doing is made up. In other words, the church, which represents the perfect God on earth, seems far from perfect, and can, on its own via modification of canon law or creating canon laws out of thin air, send people to hell. And God seems to have little to say about it and goes along with what the church decides, not because He says so, but because the people in charge of the church say so. So I ask, who is in charge of God's laws? It seems God is just a cop who enforces church law fater you die. The tail wagging the dog if I ever saw one.

Why blame anyone. Just be happy and ejoy what you did today to make it a better world.

FATE- that IS the churches position- it falls under appetites, and its a venial sin-
it seems to be your opinion that eating meat on a friday confers hell on one- but its not the position of the catholic church.
i surely didnt get the impression that bigd thought of himself as perfect, but eating meat on friday definitely isnt punishable by hellfire-

ive heard countless arguments on this inane topic- over the years-its really not one of the big issues in the church.

Victoria wrote:
---FATE- theres mortal sin and venial sin---

Yes, and catholics learn that mortal sin, not absolved, is a straight ticket to hell. Eating meat on a Friday I don't think meets you definition of a mortal sin but the church made it one. You can read my arguments about this with bigd, who is defending the faith, above. My passion for this and other religion topics is driven by the bigd's of the world who take their religious human institutions and consider them perfect because they represent the faith and tout themselves perfect. A perfect human is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

FATE- theres mortal sin and venial sin-

qickly, mortal is contrary to the ultimate achievement of the end(gods divine law and our placement thereof)and there are many varying degrees- i.e. sins of omission, intention etc-

venial- It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment.
It is sin at variance (not contrary) to HUMAN law, and things like appetite fall under this category.

While dbig? stated that dogma is unchanging- actually limbo is pretty widely recognized as coming into popularity, and crystallizing into dogma from dantes purgatorio- so it really wasnt a dogma before that, was for hundreds of years, and apparently is fallen out of favor.

as for transubstantiation- theres a church called lorenzo in spain, that has a piece of flesh and some blood, miracles that occured i forget when- validated by the church as such and considered proof positive- most catholics approach this (IMHO) more symbollically-

i never took such a hard stance against the OT- i felt Jesus(ata) was a practicing jew- and the OT was certainly his heritage and scripture- he didnt denounce any past wars or violence, but he certainly reinterpreted his own scripture in a most lenient way, and called to account those hardhearted who "pracriced the letter of the law, while missing it's spirit"

he was definitely an esoteric jew.
peace all, i found this interesting

ps- frank- islamic is an adjective and i,personally have a more noun-like nature

Brother Eboo,
Thank you for sharing that moving story. I think that this anecdotally answers the question that was posed. The message: we as individuals can choose and our faith traditions speak to those choices.

I have been reading many peoples' posts on this and other threads and a constant question keeps coming up: "If God is so great and loving, why does He allow all of these terrible incidents to happen?" The most basic and foundational answer is, "Because He allows us to choose."

One thing that countless people fail to realize is that the three Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all share an understanding that human being are meant to be in relationship with God. Now an honest treatment of those three faith traditions will show that the forms that this relationship takes are different, but the foundational notion of a human and divine relationship is present.

It is for this reason that God gives us the ability to choose, for no relationship would be truly genuine without the ability to choose. For example, if I created a computer that, whenever I turned it on, said, "I love you Nick" I would still be left feeling empty, knowing that the computer had no choice. It loves me because I forced it to do so. It has no other option. Such an interaction is not a relationship, but rather, a hollow gesture.

My relationship with my fiancee, on the other hand, illustrates a very different kind of relationship. Recently I had a conversation with her in which I revealed some parts of myself and my past that I am not proud of. At the end of it, she paused and said something that I will never forget: "I love seeing your naked heart and I love and accept you, warts and all". I cannot tell you how much that meant to me, knowing that she chooses to love me, even in spite of my mistakes. I think that this is the kind of relationship that God desires to have with us.

In my own faith tradition, Jesus tells us that, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). God already knows all of our faults and chooses to love us in spite of them. However, He will not force that relationship on anyone. We must, in turn, choose Him. In the end, God gives us exactly what we want in this regard: either life with Him or without Him. That choice is up to us.

What is clear is that there are those who choose a life without Him, even if they profess otherwise. There are countless actions by people of faith who are saying that they can fulfill this relationship with God by killing those who, according to them, are not. So the issue is not God, the issue is the choice of human beings. So the question we need to be asking ourselves is, "How am I going to choose to live for God today and how can I grow in my relationship with Him?" People of faith need to be reminded to put God first above their own agendas, because the failure to do so leads to the kinds of devastation that we see in Darfur, Iraq, and countless other places around the world. We need to know who we are in relationship with and live lives that reflect the nature of that relationship.

May God's hand of healing be upon each of us.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Fate -

I have explained this several ways that I think most people can understand and find logical. You don't agree and that is fine - but it doesn't seem like you want to accept any of the legitamte arguments as you keep asserting things that simply aren't believed.

Yes it is transubstantiated and I believe there is more evidence for this in the Bible and in the early Church history then any other view. Quite certain I won't be able to change your mind though so I am not going to argue with you.

I think the Church would have died out after Jesus's death - if it wasn't true. Just me though.

I think you are unfortunately mis informed and you seem to be basing your beliefs on an elementary school education - just from your references that you keep referring to.

I wish you the best - I hope you actually look into the facts with an open mind and heart some day.

BIDG wrote:
---While the observance might have changed slightly I can commit a mortal sin against it just as easily today as anyone throughout history has -- so it does apply equally around the globe - through time. It is still a sin to break the precept.---

Yes, but you must consider that while all other mortal sins are pretty well defined this one is not. Penance is a general term. It can mean fasting any day. It can mean working in a soup kitchen instead of going to a ball game. Its something I admire the church for encouraging. But encouragement is different from making eating meat on a specified day a mortal sin. There are three problems:

1) Specifying an absolute penance.
2) The punishment being a mortal sin.
3) It is not defined in the bible as a sin.

What other penance does the church require which if broken results in a mortal sin? I'm sorry BIGD, I just do not understand why what should be an encouragement to be pious is on an equal level with one of God's ten commandments. And only in certain countries, at certain times of the year, can be waved by special dispensation, and it changes over time.

Look, I understand that the church is fallible and you seem to accept it makes mistakes. I think the church screwed up this canon law by making it a mortal sin, and once done, could not undo it. I don't know nor care, but having grown up catholic it is one of the main curiousities I came across and helped me understand that the church is a very human organization but those humans believe they are infallible and will use their power to maintain that image. I don't think they need to be so rigid and disciplined. I mean, is the communion host ACTUALLY transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ? You can believe this but my understanding of the Last Supper was that Christ used the bread and wine as a metaphor, equating his soon to be death with the sacrifice of a lamb whose meat is shared to seal a compact. Christ may well have said to "do this in rememberance of me" but he never said to do it because my body and blood will be present when you do it. As usual, my questions on this in catholic school were met with violence.

I think if you look at the catholic church's history you will find it would have died out had Constantine not spread it as Rome's national religion through war and conquering others. It was then maintained through strict controls, cherry picking the gospels, and eventually through the Inquisition. Today it is a relatively benevolent religion. It has matured. Maybe Islam is going through what Christianity did during its darker days, I don't know, but when you step back and look at christianity as a whole, with all its claims, its about as easy to believe as believing in the easter bunny, which by the way you cannot prove does not exist. I guess, in the end, my main problem is that if the church said black is white there is no way anyone could argue with a catholic that this is not correct. The requirement for strict belief with horrible consequences for even questioning the doctrine reminds one of a cult. I do not think the catholic church is a cult, but the level of control is very tight.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE COMPASSIONATE AND MERCIFUL

The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct, Acceptance, Respect and Cooperation
By Faysal Burhan, Edited by Michael D. Berdine

Islam Denounce Violence -- Freedom of Belief, no Compulsion in Islam
Islam does not Command Muslims to Kill Westerner, Christians or Jews

Introduction
America is the land of opportunity, where people of different ethnicity and nationality together share a common land. Muslims and Jews have a chance here for better understanding of one another and for participating in activities that would bring mutual benefits to both communities.
Unlike the popular, Islam is not a hostile religion. Acceptance, kindness, respect and cooperation are divine Islamic principles revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, (p) for conducting his affairs with the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians). These principles have led to the establishment of the constitution of the first pluralistic community known in history, in the City of Medina, in the Arabian Peninsula, in the year 622 CE. The Constitution of Medina is the first written civil and political law spelling out the freedom of worship, trade and speech, community defense against its enemy, promotion of justice and goodness, and the fighting of evil.
The city of Medina is where people of different faiths and nationalities, including Jews, Muslims, Ethiopians and Persians lived together in cooperation, peace and harmony.
This article addresses certain Jewish and Muslim historical events and Islamic principles relevant to the mutual benefits for both Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, the divine laws and the historical events are proofs that Muslim's relation with the People of the Book is based on acceptance, consideration and collaboration.
Although the subject of this book is about the Prophet of Islam and the Jews, Christians and other ethnic groups are treated in the same manner. A beautiful work made by Dr. William Baker, a Christian Scholar and archaeologist, in his latest book, More in Common than you Think, Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, I strongly recommend not only Christians to read, but every man and women of any faith.
Although, some hostilities and differences between the Muslims and the Jews occurred during and after the life of the Prophet (p), the causes were not that Islam changed its standards, but rather the breaking of covenants such as that of the tribe of Quraythah with the Prophet, as we will see later under the title: "Harmony is the Goal of Every Muslim." Recreantly, hostility between the Jews and Muslims is about the conflict in Palestine. As President William Clinton, Palestinian Authority Leader Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu and others, are moving toward peace in the region, we hope that justice and peace will return to that part of the world.
Next is a focus on some of the universal Islamic principles relevant to the topic and which include Christians and others.

Conviction not Compulsion
Compulsion in religion is incompatible with the spirit of faith. This is certainly true in the Islamic Faith. Religious belief must depend on people's free-will and choice. Islam establishes that people's belief must come by conviction. A believer is one who willingly, through the signs of God in the universe and in himself, and through inner-self satisfaction, accepts the faith of Islam. The Holy Qur'an is plentiful of verses and examples on this subject. Since belief by conviction is not our topic here we will not discuss any of these relevant verses. Confirming the "no compulsion-in-religion" Islamic principle, however, the following Qur'anic quotations are considered:

"If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed- all who are on earth: will you then (Muhammad) compel mankind, against their will, to believe?" Qur'an, 10: 99.

Another Qur'anic verse states:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an, 2: 256.

The two verses above basically establish the no-force, or pressure to be used or applied to force people, including Christians and Jews to be Muslims. This principle is clearly reflected in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad, and is reflected in the Constitution of Medina which guarantees the freedom of worship for all.

Qur'an Teaches Peaceful Dialogue
A Muslim is encouraged to carry out an intellectual dialogue with the People of the Book to establish and improve relations. Following are two examples:

"Say O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God. If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)." Qur'an, 3:64.

"Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another." Qur'an, 3:84.

After all, it is an integral part of Muslim's faith to honor Prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other prophets of God, and follow their teachings.

Acceptance and Understanding
Islam teaches the Muslim to be kind, tolerant and understanding, and to establish fraternity among all people. The Qur'an tells us that God has made people into nations and tribes in order to know and deal with each other in kindness, and that the best of us is he who is more pious than others.

"O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware." Qur'an, 49:13.

Thus, Islam bases people's relational conduct on kindness. Hence, it condemns intolerance, prejudice and bigotry, and rejects discrimination based on color, creed, national origin or religion.

The Muslim acceptance applies to all elements of life and must reflect in all of the Muslim's affairs. The teaching of Islam towards proper behavior, anger control, patience, treatment of spouse, parent, neighbor, the young and the old, the friend, the enemy, the environment and specifically the People of the Book are evident in the Holy Qur'an and the life and example of the Prophet Muhammad (p).
In calling people to the Islamic Faith, for example, a Muslim must be wise, sensitive, humble and considerate. The Qur'an teaches:

"Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best and most gracious." Qur'an, 16:25.

The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians, is even more intense and specifically addresses the Muslims to prevent any communication or approach that would lead to dispute, anger or negative implication between the two parties. Allah instructs the Muslims:

"And dispute not with People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury." Qur'an, 29:46.

The Prophet (p) also said:

"Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment." Izzeddin Blaque, Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 106.

Mr. Patel,

Who should we blame for the destruction and death of the jews of medina, Mohammad or Islam ?

Who should we blame for the exploitation of 9 year old Aisha, Mohammad or Islam ?

Norrie Hoyt

Of course I was not referring to the goal of Islam today but of the times you mentioned in your post.

Norrie Hoyt

Your claim that Islam may have been more tolerant may be a bit biased. Remember Islam as a religion has political goals. Once they gain political power to rule the land (achieved through violence and forced conversions in many cases), then it is mission accomplished to a great extent. At that point, a ruler may choose to be lenient with people of other faiths, depending on his whim. Non-Muslims only need to pay tax, so it is good for the state koffer.

Fate -

I am not sure we are going to get anywhere but...

Let me try another example. You seemed to agree with the idea that penance is a valid idea in the Church. I assume you also know that the Church only has 5 Precepts that it asks believers to follow, one of which is this fasting. So there are only 5 rules the Church asks you to do on a regular basis - pretty simple.

So I also assume you know the reason for doing penenance and would agree that doing penance is supposed to be at least a small challenge.

So if in Spain they do not follow this penance but instead have another maybe its because not eating meat isn't much of a penance there since their diet is heavily fish orientated what penance would it be to eat fish on Friday? This is the reason it can change by country. To better suit the intended purpose of penance to a particular culture.

And through time the Church has asked for this to be one of the precepts. While the observence might have changed slightly I can commit a mortal sin against it just as easily today as anyone throughout history has -- so it does apply equally around the globe - through time. It is still a sin to break the precept.

...unless you're in Spain. God's law is not applied equally around the globe or through time. Again, what should the poor soul in hell think when his mortal sin is no longer a sin?

Fate -

This is the Canon Law:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

US Bishops (the Episcopal Conference) - adjusted the US observence to only Friday's of lent with other penance being acceptable the rest of the year.

As I stated the mortal sin is NOT from eating meat. It is for willfully disobeying the teaching of the Church without good reason. The Church teaches you should not eat meat on Friday's if you know this and do it anyway without good reason then its a mortal sin.

BIGD,

You have not answered all the questions. The main one now is why eating meat is a mortal sin in one country but not in another. You say the bishops make local practice decisions, but if those practices have mortal sin as a result of not observing the practice, then I have a problem with the church's cannon law which should apply equally to all men.

Its these types of things that used to get the nun to swat the ruler on my knuckles. I dared bring out the obvious inconsistencies or outright contradictions in canon law or the bible when all I wanted was an inconsistency cleared up. I quickly realized that God had little to do with anything associated with the church.

I agree, there is no point in banging our heads against a wall, but its not a wall I made. I enjoyed being a catholic when I was one. Its not the religion so much as the people who, for lack of a better term, ENFORCE it and its rules, which when pointed out as being arbitrary in some cases was met with violence. No religion should use or condone violence in anyway.

Norrie -

Well I am not sure how they are trying to take your freedoms away if not in the public political forum.

As I detailed the only issues they are trying to make non-believers listen to are where they see a grave injustice - in their eyes murder. Not whether or not you drink alcohol.

The Church does speak out and seek to outlaw actions it views as murder and I don't see how that is wrong or trying to take away your freedom. I wouldn't call it tolerance if a religion that believes something is murder didn't speak out against. Murder is still against the civil law not just the religous law.

BIGD,

I'm afraid your latest post at 2:48 pm isn't responsive to mine of 2:16.

My quotes do not say that I think the Catholic Church "does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum."

I said I object to the Church's trying to take non-believers' freedoms away. There's a big difference.

A tolerant religion would allow other religious communities to do things their ways, rather than trying to enforce its beliefs on all citizens.

I noted earlier that in classic Islam, Islamic states allowed religious communities within the states to legislate for themselves on religiously sensitive matters, such the drinking of alcohol.

So it would seem that Islam centuries ago was more tolerant than the Catholic Church is today on allowing non-believers to follow their own consciences on social issues.

NORRIE - Quotes from you:

"My beef is with the Catholic Church as a political force, trying to enact its beliefs into law to the detriment of non-Catholics."

"Actually, most of my concern has to do with the Church's attempts to prevent freedoms"

"This isn't about "Catholic hatred" or license to do whatever I please. It's about keeping the Church from taking away fundamental human freedoms from those who don't share its doctrines."

In your last post on your issues against the Church you posted a series of your beliefs that you disagreed with the Church on. Then you asserted that they were trying to force their beliefs on you through politics. See the first quote above. These are just from this thread.

Fate -

I guess there is no reasoning with you. I have already explained all of these points. Unless someone else wants me to I am not going to just keep giving you all the information and you just keep ignoting them and posting your same response.

Of course I am sure you will take this as avoiding your question and we can start all over again.

BIGD,

Please show me where I ever posted that, as you say, I think the Catholic Church "does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum."

Thanks.

Well, as I was taught, "serious" meant it went against God's/Christ's teachings. God/Jesus never taught to abstaine from eating meat or doing penetance on Friday. This is all made up by the church, with some reasoning I admit. But still, a MORTAL sin?

But a mortal sin it is, not because it meets any criteria but because it is so ordained by the pope and his bishops in the US (at least back in the 60s). And, of course, the pope is infallible in this even though other catholics in other places are not covered by the law. In fact, you can go to Spain and eat meat on Friday. But what other sin can you commit in other locations on the planet?

But regardless, why do people in hell for eating meat on a Friday before 1966 have to watch those eating meat on Friday today going to heaven? Extra punishment? Did the pope change his mind? Did God change his mind? Or my theory, the pope changed God's mind and those poor souls will be left to burn in hell.

I agree, the church defines its laws as God's laws. I just wonder how they can change them and God complies. Just who is in control here, man or God? I think you know my answer.

FATE -

If I profess to being Catholic and claim to believe what the Catholic Church teaches and I know that it teaches to not eat meat on Friday as one of its very, very few set rules. Don't you think that if I will fully disobey it - that it is then serious? What makes it serious is willfully disobeying what you profess to believe.

Church Law, God Law - I thought that was the point I made. If the Church is the Church of Jesus (you can debate that) then wouldn't it make sense that the Church Law is God's Law?

Norrie -

I did not respond to all the things you disagree with the Church on because I am not trying to change your opinion on specific beliefs of the Church.

You have asserted in several posts that you think the Catholic Church is a violent organization, that does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum. I have simply tried to counter what I believe are false assertions. We can debate each of your grievances with the Church if you like -- but that is a seperate debate.

The Catholic Church isn't out to take away any fundamental freedoms. To use FATE's example its not trying to make everyone not eat meat on Friday. But in matters that the Church believes are not freedoms but in fact serious offenses against humanity (i.e. Abortion) of course its going to stand up and make its voice known. What kind of faith would it be if it believed something was murder yet stood by and did nothing about it?

If you want to debate the merits of the euthanasia argument we can do that seperately and I am happy to - I don't know if this is the place for it though.

Well, now that you bring up the three criteria lets look at them:
1: Serious matter that ruptures you relationship with God.
2: Deliberately doing the action.
3: Knowledge that it is wrong.

How does eating meat on Friday, a Canon Law, meet the first criteria? I was taught and all the references to this subject I can find say it is a mortal sin. Yet I see no way eating meat on Friday, which is never mentioned in the bible, can be a mortal sin.

And I understand the non-universality of the eating meat law. The Spanish never observed it from what I read. How can it be a serious matter if only some people are held to this law?

You wrote:
---So no the Pope does not dictate what God does, but IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established -- then if its followers willfully disobey a teaching of the Church without just reason then yes it can be a mortal sin and I believe God would hold the same opinion.---

So you "believe" God would hold the same opinion. But that's not what the church says. They say that Church Law IS God's law. On earth as it is in heaven BIGD.

Fate -

I won't keep arguing back and forth with you. I gave you the teaching of the Church and the very limited aspect that it believes in any sort of infallibility. It has always asserted that all people, even the Pope, are capable of making errors or sin.

In regards to eating meat. This could be a long discussion. I will try to make this a short response.

A Mortal Sin requires 3 specific criteria. So just because someone ate meat does not mean it was a mortal sin - but yes it could be. If you want me to explain this further I can but I'll let you decide.

The change in the observation of this actually is only a US change. The rest of the world (as far as I am aware) still follows this practice. Each country under the directions of its Bishops can make changes to practices of the faith - not to the faith itself.

You are correct obviously only God decides who goes to heaven or hell. But if you believe the Bible and understand it the way the Catholic church does Jesus specifically told the disciples that whatever sins they forgave on earth would be forgiven in heaven and whatever sins they held bound on earth would be bound in heaven. So no the Pope does not dictate what God does, but IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established -- then if its followers willfully disobey a teaching of the Church without just reason then yes it can be a mortal sin and I believe God would hold the same opinion.

This is all contingent on your beliefs of course -- you very well may not believe most or any of this and that is fine. But if you understand it the way the Church does then it makes sense.

CZRPB -

My point is that many people say the Catholic Church believes this or that (such as the infallibility issue FATE is trying to make) when in fact that is not what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church has a very definitive source for virtually everything: the Catechism. So that reference is the "real" deal of what the Church teaches - not what the evening news necessarily says.

In some religions yes it is highly interprative. One of the big problems I had with most forms of Protestantism when I was searching for the truth was how do I know who is correctly interpretting this stuff? With Catholicsm that is not an issue there is a definitive teaching source - that you, I and everyone can look at. Now of course many people proclaim to be Catholic and don't agree with some of its teachings. Personally I would make the argument that is not actually being Catholic but that is a whole seperate debate.

There in lies my point - you can disagree with the views of the Church, especially if you are not Catholic. No problem there this is America and we are all free. The reason I started this conversation was because NORRIE kept posting things I consider to be inaccurate or at best half-truths in reference to Catholics.

BigD,

I really do not understand how you (and others) can keep suggesting that everyone misunderstands Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and/or the Church:

You wrote: "All I ask is that before you
write off the Church for its views you
actually understand why it has its views."

Why is it that you or the references you site are the "real" deal?

And this is of course the problem with "religion": They are interpretive and hence you, and your info, are not the official version, nor can you (reasonably) dismiss everyone else's interpretations as wrong. So, your (and other's) protestations that religion is whatever (non-violent, non-exclusionary, peaceful, etc.) hold as much weight as the guy holding a sign declaring the coming of the Rapture on the overpass.

BIGD, you only need to look at the Canon Law and liturgy and infallibility of the pope as defined before Vatican I, during Vatican I and now during Vatican II to understand that the chruch wants to be infallible but understands that nothing is infallible when it comes to things people do. The church understands that some past popes were heritics but were considered infallible. This has been reconsiled as the pope's word is infallible while his actions may not be. This is a little bit of weaseling and if you read it historically it comes from the church facing up to the obvious, just as it has with scientific findings of a non-centric earth, the sun not being proof of god and even evolution.

Now, with respect to eating meat on Friday, it was deemed a mortal sin (go directly to hell) during Vatican I except during certain feasts which were defined. That was changed in Vatican II to refraining from eating meat on Fridays during lent (a mortal sin still) with some other form of penantence on other Fridays. Canon Law, today, is not considered infallible. That's ok. My question is whether those in hell who ate meat on Fridays outside lent before 1966 got to go to heaven when the Canon Law was changed. And, since only God can send people to heaven or hell, does the pope's decision become God's decision? Does the tail wag the dog?

BIGD,

I imagine we've both said everything we have to say and it probably isn't profitable to continue much longer. However:

This isn't about "Catholic hatred", as I've tried to make clear. A few years ago I spent a month at Duke University's Diet & Fitness Center. Four priests and a legal advisor to the Vatican were also there. We usually ate together and had a great time. I like to give books to people and gave each of them a book I thought they'd enjoy.

One Msgr., a retired military chaplain in his 70's, told me a great joke about JP II which I don't dare repeat here for fear of being called a bigot. We corresponded until his death from cancer. He said a Mass for my mother when she died. I made a donation to a convent he liked for several years thereafter.

This isn't about "Catholic hatred" or license to do whatever I please. It's about keeping the Church from taking away fundamental human freedoms from those who don't share its doctrines.

In rereading your last post, I note that you don't really argue with me or respond to points I raised. You simply ignore them or dismiss them, or say I'm ignorant of Catholic doctrine, which I'm not. What about the right of a terminally ill non-Catholic to have help in ending her life and pain?

Franklin Roosevelt said: "The sins of the warm-hearted and the cold-blooded are not weighed on the same scale."

In all the instances I've cited, I'm afraid that the Church is the cold-blooded party.

Fate -

By sad i am not saying its your fault. I would assume they didn't teach you. I will agree with you that the Catholic school system is far from perfect today and in the past.

Norrie -

I should have made a much shorter reply. In re-reading your posts it really seems as though you believe that people who think differently then you, should just shut up and keep to themselves. At least that is the impression I am getting. I thought this was America.

FATE -

What is sad is that you went to Catholic school and don't know what the infallibility means or applies to.

While the one scene you describe is deplorable - obviously it was corrected and recognized as such. I am pretty certain you do not know enough about the person who did it to judge what lead her to do it. Of course your parent's had the choice to send you to a Catholic school - they didn't have to.

Now on infallability -- the Church only teaches that:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... "

This has no bearing on the arguments you make which are simply practices of the Church.

BIGD, I watched a nun who lost it try to strangle a 6th grader. Once we pulled her off him she grabbed a stapler and stapled him in the neck. His offense? Talking. She then looked at me and I tried to figure out how to get out of the room, but she got a grip and dismissed class. We all ran out. She was gone the next day.

The culture of violence in my 1960s catholic classroom was the norm then. I'm convinced allowing corporal punishment lead this woman to use it to extremes. Had it not been allwed, the incident may never have happened. And yes, I have a scar in my knuckle.

Today corporal punishment is not allowed in the catholic school I went to. Funny how the infallible church used violence to teach back then but gave it up as American culture recognized the harm it does. Infallible indeed.

Enjoy your meat on Friday's BIGD. I tried to post about that but was blocked, three times. Maybe God's hand in that. Just google "meat on Friday" and "canon law". It was a mortal sin to eat meat on any Friday before 1966 but today only during lent. But when you're infallible and you have the power of God, nothing is wrong, right?

FATE -

Wow you had discipline in your school, how awful. I can't imagine how many permanent scars you have from it.

Definately much better the way it is today. Nothing like my mother-in-law being scared for her job as a 2nd grade teacher because she lightly swatted a kids hand to prevent him from getting injured. Yes much better. After all we really shouldn't ever discipline - it might cause poor self-esteem.

Norrie -

Wow Frank's right I guess this is mostly about Catholic hatred. I won't try and correct or change your opinion on any of your issues. In my opinion many are way off base and if you understood why the Church was gainst many of them I think you would see a different view. Some, like zoning, are pretty pointless.

What many of them boil down to though is this. You believe Freedom is the ability to do anything and everything you want at anytime so long as it doesn't directly violate or injur another person. This is actual License. Some examples from your list.

Porn - why do we have obscenity laws and let them be clearly violated when the local corner store will let almost anyone walk in and buy obviously obscene (defined by the government material)?

Immigration - the Church has only been fighting to make sure it is not illegal to help illegal immigrants. Sorry but the Church thinks it should help anyone in need even if they have screwed up and not legal immigrated.

Abortion - Obviously a very devisive issue. But the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception. Even a majority of scientists are acknowldging this fact. In every definition we use to define life. After conception there is a new life. You can disagree with this if you like. But if the Church believes this how can it condone abortion which would be murder. Of course its going to speak up against it and it has every right to do so. You don't hear the Church complaining that you are out picketing for the opposite view point and saying down with whatever you are.

I could go on but I won't. All I ask is that before you write off the Church for its views you actually understand why it has its views. After that of course you can disagree its America. You and the Church both have the right to state your opinioins and try to persuade the legal system that you are right. The solution isn't to try and eliminate each other.

Norrie wrote:
---One year our Catholic teacher every day loudly banged down a ruler on her desk when we reached the end of the Catholic version of the prayer, in order to prevent the Protestant kids from completing their version. This had the salutary effect of turning me against everything Catholic for life. As the Jesuits said, "If you get them by age five you've got them for life."---

Yea, I grew up in catholic school in the 60s. Those rulers certainly turned me away from the loving catholic church. They were not being banged on a desk but on my neck, hand, back, and forehead. Such a loving religion that treats children worse than animals. I guess when you believe you have the power of God behind you, nothing is wrong...

how did the islamics turn this into an anti catholic board. that was a good trick.
did i miss something? did the new testament change to demand hate for islamics or anyone else? does it now demand torture and murder and forced conversions as part of the new testament? the last time i read about forced conversions by the catholics we 400 or 500 years ago. are they at it again? are those pesky catholics now teaching their children that they should grow up to be bombers of the children of other religions, walking into pizza and ice cream parlors and going onto buses full of school children? darn i must have missed that one too.
and those catholics and 911 - how dare they.

BIGD,

You raise a good question. Actually, most of my concern has to do with the Church's attempts to prevent freedoms rather than enforcing some required positive action on my part:

** Opposition to gay marriage and civil unions (not personally applicable but is discriminatory and denies a freedom to many in society).

** Opposition to allowing physicians to provide the means of ending one's life in terminal illness (considering my age this is likely to become applicable before too long); this is now being debated in our legislature. If I feel the need to end my life I'd like to have a pill. Otherwise I might endanger someone: jumping from a height, tossing an appliance in a bathtub; driving into a bridge abutment at 80 mph, etc. One Catholic physician testified here a week ago that such people should starve themselves to death because that was morally acceptable while taking a pill wasn't! I'd like a little comfort at the end.

** Terry Schiavo situations and the right to die; my late aunt, dying of cancer, prevailed on her doctors to end her life by increasing the morphine dose; the Catholic nurses complained - who made them the moral arbiters of my nonbelieving aunt's distress?

** Preventing useful stem cell research.

** Banning adoptions by gays (again, not personally applicable but hurts both gays and potential adoptees).

** Support for the federal law that lets churches override local zoning decisions. I don't really want a megachurch cum parking lot the size of Yankee Stadium suddenly sprouting next door in our rural residential zone.

** The Church might conceivably try again to ban contraceptives for everyone. The Vatican still constantly inveighs against their use. Pardon my prejudice, but the new Catholic majority on the Supreme Court seems perfectly capable of reversing Griswold v. Connecticut.

** Attempts to ban access to pornography and other materials for adults. Is the index librorum prohibitum going to be resurrected?

** Attempts to ban all abortions or restrict them until nothing is left of Roe v. Wade. The aforementioned Catholic majority took a big step toward that a few days ago. I find it significant that the five Catholic Justices voted one way and the four non-Catholics voted the other way. The Catholic Justices seem to be voting as dutiful altar boys. Most law professors agree that they tossed aside recent S.C. precedents despite the testimony of Roberts and Alito that they would respect the doctrine of stare decisis.

** Attempts by some prelates to basically nullify the immigrations laws along the border with Mexico.

** The successful attempt by the Knights of Columbus in the 1950's to add "Under God" to the Pledge of Alleigance, thereby preventing me from expressing that patriotic sentiment in a non-religious way. Result: haven't said the Pledge in fifty years.

These are some items that spring immediately to mind but there are undoubtedly others.

You have to understand my conditioning. I apologize if you've read this on one of my earlier posts:

I attended public elementary school in Massachusetts at a time when every class was required to recite The Lord's Prayer every morning. One year our Catholic teacher every day loudly banged down a ruler on her desk when we reached the end of the Catholic version of the prayer, in order to prevent the Protestant kids from completing their version. This had the salutary effect of turning me against everything Catholic for life. As the Jesuits said, "If you get them by age five you've got them for life."

Best wishes.

Norrie -

I am not trying to distress you or cause an argument. I am trying to correct false impressions that you and many others have about the Catholic faith. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the Church's teachings. I am not trying to convince you to become Catholic. I do want you to know exactly what the Church teaches though before you disagree with it or claim it is not enlightened.

As far as polital force goes -- what beliefs is the Catholic Church trying to enact on you? I would say the Catholic Church is a realtively poor political force. Many of its influential people in political office disavow many of the teachings of the Church - not a good idea in a politcal arena. Please give me some examples of where the Church is trying to force its beliefs on you.

You know, BIGD, while I enjoy debates, I really don't like religious arguments. They make me too emotional and distressed. And they don't solve anything.

Actually, I've never, in writing or in person, ever tried to change anyone's religious belief - a difficult to impossible task anyway. I simply don't care what anyone believes religiously.

My beef is with the Catholic Church as a political force, trying to enact its beliefs into law to the detriment of non-Catholics.

I understand from posts here that in traditional Islam, Islamic law did not apply to non-Islamic communities that were subject to the Islamic state. For example, Christians were allowed to drink alcohol. That practice prevails in some parts of the Middle East today. There's no civil marriage in Israel - you have to be married within a religious community.

It's a fantasy project, but I might not mind an imagined United States where civil law barred Catholics from obtaining conrtraceptives but not Protestants or nonbelievers.

Again, my problem is with the Catholic Church's insistence on obtaining laws that enforce its beliefs on non-Catholics who don't share them.

Why can't the Church focus on trying to persuade its Catholic flock to follow its dictates and leave the rest of us alone?

Henry -

Thank you for your response. I completley agree (except of course with you always being right - I thought we agreed that was me :) ).

Norrie -

Your response doesn't seem harsh to me. If its what you believe that is fine. I am quite solid in my faith and not above being questioned on it.

In response to some of your specific's I quoted John Paul II above. I did not see his response or in any of the links making any justification of the actions that people took during these times. They all admitted that the actions were not approrpriate responses. Further they were not perscribed by the Pope. The Pope's fault was that he did not stop them and yes he gave the approval to the beginning of many of them. He screwed up. We all can.

As far as YOUR SENSE of the Catholic Church please realize your sense maybe way off. As a Catholic I do not feel the Church is in anyway authoritarian or opposed to liberty and freedom. Take Henry's examples of Catholics who are still Catholic and yet don't believe everything the Chruch teaches. Many faiths would ride them out of the Church. In fact some would argue the Church allows too much freedom.

As far as its intolerence and imposing beliefs. I would invite you to find out what institution does more to help the poor and less fortunate than any other institution in the world (regardless of their faith or belief).

Finally, as far as the beliefs go I think a lot of the one billion Catholics are enlightened people, many a great deal more than you or I. I left the Church for sometime when I thought I had become enlightened in college. But you know what when I got serious about trying to find out the truth about all of this it led me back to the Church. I have an extensive education and looked into a lot of belief systems. My conclusion after the research was that the Catholic Church was right and that its beliefs fully reconcile with science and reason.

You might not agree with my beliefs but you can't make a good case that the Catholic beliefs are not enlightened.

BIGD,

Thanks for your post. I've read the three articles you provided the links to. Before we get to those, though, let me comment generally:

The reasons for my dislike of the Roman Church are not all based on distant past horrors but are also based on modern Church practices and doctrine.

My sense of Roman Catholicism, past and present, is that it is authoritarian, opposed to human liberty and the spirit of freedom, intolerant of others who are not part of its obedient flock, tries to impose its religious beliefs on the lives of non-Roman Catholics, has been cruel in its actions, promotes beliefs that are unbelievable by any enlightened person (and even by some not very enlightened), and does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

My references to the extermination of the Cathars, the Inquisition, and so on, are merely specific examples of what I see as the soul of Catholicism, which I've described in the preceding paragraph.

As for the three articles which you recommended, I'm sorry, but I wasn't impressed. They suggest that Catharism had to be surpressed with fire, torture and sword because its beliefs were a threat to the Church. This argument doesn't exactly resonate with a modern mind.

Can you imagine what a person experiences when tortured and burnt at the stake? Do you know that you bleed profusely while being burned? Can you imagine what a person experiences while watching his/her spouse being burned? And the Church justified this because the "heretic's" beliefs were supposedly a threat to the Church? What would Jesus say?

And these tortures and burnings were not rogue actions of sinful Catholics - they were prescribed from the Popes on down as a deliberate policy.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II made a supposed apology (really a non-apology apology) for the Inquisition and the persecutions of the Jews.

He referred to the tortures and burnings as "violence in the service of truth". Can you believe that?

I think that the Church is basically unchanged from medieval times - it is only constrained by other forces, such as governments, from continuing to torture and burn.

So the Church must content itself with trying to prevent non-Catholics from using contraceptives (it succeeded in this until 40 years ago), obtain non-believers' tax money for Church activities, and so on.

I hope this gives you an idea of where I'm coming from. I know that millions love the Catholic Church and that their belief is a solace for them. I have nothing against any individual Catholic. I also realize that my attitude is in part hereditary, bred in the bone through my Protestant ancestors.

[When I was in my state's legislature a number of years ago, we had votes on abortion issues. I said at the time that the votes were the tail end of the religious wars. Every member voted with his tribe and I voted with mine.]

The Catholic Church believes in eternity and that what happened 2,000 years ago exists actively in the present moment. I agree with the Church on this.

That is why the Church's medieval horrors are still alive and influencing events. Perhaps the Church should turn Buddhist for a moment and contemplate that the karma generated by its tortures is still active today.

I know that what I wrote will seem harsh to you.
I'm sorry if it causes any distress or discomfort.
You asked and I've tried to answer.

Keep the faith (yours if you want, or you can share mine).

Best wishes (I mean it).

BigD

thank you for your response.

i agree with you that it is consistent for the Catholic Church to have a different position than I do on
Comdom Use
and Homosexuality.

The Church clearly has a right to those positions, just as I and others have a right to disagree.

My point is that there are significant moral issues that the Catholic Church can be strongly disagreed with on. Many of my Catholic friends also disagree with the church both on ondoms and on homosexuality as well.

They are very smart people, and choose to remain Catholics while having these disagreements with their own church.

More general point one final time: one can disagree with certain positions of the church without being "anti-catholic", and it seems that you agree with that statement.

Doesn't necessariloy mean that I am right, though since I always am right, I must be in this case.

Henry -

I don't know if you your comment about being not anti-Catholic was directed at my comment or not. But I didn't think you were being anti-Catholic.

In regards to your complaints against the Church they are fair enough. That is as long as you understand why the Church is against these things. I would assume from our prior conversations that you do at least understand the actual teachings of the Church on these issues where most really don't. So not being Catholic you have every right to object to them.

Of course as a Catholic I can also agree that the Abuse Scandal was about as bad as it gets and that the handling of it could have been much better.

I didn't find any articles specifically on rumors being spread. If they were I would assume it was by locals on the ground (another example of people screwing up). Again - I would always disagree with spreading false rumors.

But I would assume you know the Church will never change its position on the use of Condoms. Despite the persistent rumors the Church has always been clear on its stance against all forms of contraception. While the argument is made this causes a problem in Africa some would disagree:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/59737

You'll see the rates of HIV/AIDS in the African countries with high Catholic populations are much lower than most African countries.

Finally on homosexuality I don't know the Mormon stance but here is the official teaching of the Catholic church on it. Of course you can disagree with it as many do but often many do without knowing what it actually is (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Continuation of the cleansing of the Koran.

"6. To believe that Allah Most High has knowledge of everything from before-hand and that only that which He sanctions or wishes will occur."

This is invalidated by the natural/inherent/God-given gifts/attributes of the human race i.e. Free Will and Future.

As per the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx,
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

We must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God/Allah the great scapegoat of history.”

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human
activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God/Allah; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

"7. To believe that Resurrection will definitely occur."

The spiritual resurrection occurs at each death. There will be no physical resurrection from common sense considerations i.e. Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include those of Jesus, Mary, Moses etc. can reside there.

"8. To believe in the existence of Heaven."

Acceptable but it exists only as a spirit state.

"9. To believe in the existence of Hell."

Maybe, maybe not. Some say if one dies is significant sin, that person’s soul will simply no longer exist since God/Allah does not tolerate imperfection in the Kingdom.

"10. To have love for Allah Most High."

Of course, just like there is love of all creatures, spiritual and living. Again there has to be an all-inclusive statement for Allah, i..e. aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Jehovah, etc.

I try not to be "anti-catholic"
given our WASP's unfortunate history of same.

BUT
I do have strong disagreements with some very important policies and efforts of the Church, and unlike Norries these are all in the present.

=I stongly abhor the Catholic stance on Homosexuality. I also abhor the Mormon stance, and a number of others (I am an ex-Mormon, what they call an "anti-Mormon.")

- I think the work of the church to supress Condom Distribution is scandalous, contributing greatly to what is in effect a genocide.

There is a pretty well substantiated story that the Vatican spread rumors of pin-holes in African Condoms, to scare people away from using them, for instance (google this).

= Many of us in Boston, Catholic and non Catholic alike, were scandalized by the Church's reaction to the Abuse Scandals.

As I have noted many times, the Church does many very good things as well, and all of my Catholic friends are great people, who are often pained by these actions of their church as well.

I don't want to destroy the Catholic Church. I want them to change these actions.

- - - people respond with outright irrational emotions controlling their every word- but the muslims remain reasoned.- - -

if by refusing to respond to the points and ignoring contrary facts you mean reasoned - well you must be right.

It was man who created religion, man who decided on the rules of the religion and who was going to be allowed into the religion. God, Allah, Great Spirt or whatever has nothing to with it.

Mr. Patel,

Excellent article. You some very good points.
But for the people who blame all the worlds ills on religions, the gist of your article will fall on closed minds.

You would have to give the God and religious haters something else to blame for all the evil that we as humans are capable of inflicting on our fellow humans. Hitler and Stalin both knew psychology 101 in how to direct and channel the need of some people to hate something or someone.
Stalin directed his peoples hate against religion and God. Until he needed religion when he was losing against Hitler. He then brought it back for a short period. After that he controlled religion on a tight rein as he systematically murdered and starved millions of his people.
Hitler used the Jews as his "whipping boy". And to a lesser extent other religions as well.

Look at how our own society has sanctioned hate against "smokers". Never in my life did I dream that I would see such overt hateful behaviors directed at a group of people in present day America. And no I don't smoke.

My point is that its me who decides on what I am going to hate today. Or the opposite, what I will love and respect today. One of those two emotions will influence my thinking and behaviors toward anything, and or anyone. And sometimes being a fallible human I have conflicting emotions between the two. But I am still responsible for my actions and my thinking. And changing my thinking as well.

FATE -

You have a very poor understanding of the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church. Please show me where the Church or the Pope said anyone was going to hell for eating meat on Friday or any other day of the week for that matter? I am not really sure what point you were trying to make in the first few lines but I would make the case that if people claim to be Catholic then not listening to the Pope is what would be stupid.

Norrie -

Here is my third reference for you. For some reason i guess you can't post more than two links in one message.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Norrie -

It seems your only argument against the Catholic Church is always the same and revolves around some agreeable horrible events in the past. Please read these articles to get a better understanding of the events that actually occurred - not your understanding of them.

http://www.catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

In short I can't say it better than Pope John Paul II, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.”1 To assess the Inquisition properly, we must distinguish between the principle which undergirded it, and the actions of those responsible for implementing the principle. The principle — that the Church must guard the faith against deviations — is an obligation of divine law (cf. Mt. 18:18; 2 Tim. 1:14). The actions taken to implement the process sometimes were questionable and even deplorable. Yet, because of centuries of misinformation, we must take care to distinguish fact from fiction.

Despite these facts, Pope John Paul II warns us:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”

So what are you trying to say Norrie with this being your only reference ever to the Catholic Church? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of all other systems on earth (religous or secular). But it doesn't prove anything that the Catholic faith and its organization aren't a good one.

TO MESSRS. EBOO PATEL, DAVID IGNATIUS, FARID ZAKARIA

Mr. Patel clearly said that the crimes of the crusades were the massacres perpetrated by CHRISTIANS. Every one accepts that, from the layman to Popes to Historians. I think it was Edward Gibbon who wrote that the the Popes uprooted Europe and flung it in the face of Islam and in return Salaheddeen and his refined coreligionists gave them the Arabic numerals, Arab science, the Hindu Zero, Chemistry (Alchemy), Algebra, the works of the Greeks in arabic translation and through it in Latin, of of, course, that so ultra-modern concept the algorithm., etc.

In case anyone still disputes it, refer to Amin Maalouf's writings (he is a Christian despite the name), among countless others.

Then, why does the caption on the front page of www.washingtonpost.com give the impression that it is Muslims that are responsible for the atrocities of the crusades?

Messrs. Patel and Zakaria,

It is high time to grow a spine! Protest!

---people respond with outright irrational emotions controlling their every word- but the muslims remain reasoned.---

I think you are generalizing a bit, don't you think? I was on another board a few weeks ago with a muslim who was lying, calling me names, saying that Islam would crush the west, you name it. I tried reason with no result.

I think, if you look hard enough, you'll find people are pretty much the same everywhere. They love good food, they love their children, they want peace and justice, and they love a good argument.

How many Catholics do you think adhere to the "no contraception use" rule, or check out which movies the church says not to watch? Many catholics listen to the pope but they are not stupid. But I'm wondering about all those people who went to hell because the ate meat on Fridays before Vatican II. Must be tough, sitting in hell for an eternity watching those who are today eating meat on Fridays going to heaven. One has to wonder why God would take people to heaven or send them to hell based on what the pope and his committees decide. Sort of gives the pope God-like powers with God as the executioner of the pope's will. It shows me that man is in charge of all religions and the gods just do what they are told to do.

i would like to make note that i just finished my afternoon prayer- so that is my state of mind in this composition-

also this happens 5 times a day, so at least 5 times a day i have this reasonable attitude(however i am inclined to believe the reason overlaps from prayer to prayer)

Muslims comprise the most diverse population of any grouping on the planet, yet people still persist in believing fox news perceptions-

id say the proof is in the pudding-

witness the very apparent examples on these boards-

where do you see angry and abusive muslims here?

do you see muslims name calling and castigating others?
acting impolitely, judging others, slandering others?

id say there is a disproportionate amount of reasonable response to overt aggression here-

and yet it doesnt strike anyone as indicative of islamic manners and behavior?

while i see a preponderance of verbal violence against muslims-

is this verbal violence and abuse answered back in reciprocal manner?

there are even those who mislead others by using arabic names, and then propagating outright hatred and vitriol-

has anyone seen a corollary malice in return?

or even anger?

if islam is filled with out of control emotional and anger filled adherents, why dont we see any evidence of it here?

people respond with outright irrational emotions controlling their every word- but the muslims remain reasoned.

it is a phenomenon that certainly deserves mention and attention.

peace all

The Pope's not the brightest tool in the shed either.

Hola Norrie!

Hello, again, Soja John Thaikattil,

You must have read my post of 11:53 PM last, because your post to me was next after it, but I have the feeling you didn't comprehend what I'd written, so here I go again:

I don't hate the adherents of any religion. I do hate religious ORGANIZATIONS (basically corporations created by men) who act in an intolerant and cruel way.

I'm quite familiar with the New Testament, having attended Christian sunday school throughout my youth. I've never written anything against Christ or his teachings. I wish that humanity had and would adopt and practice the essence of His teachings.

You seem to object to my "repeated mention" of Christian atrocities. If the Nazi regime were still in existence would it bother you if I kept bringing up the Holocaust? And, yes, I know about the Christian doctrine of Jesus's dying to redeem our sins, but other cosmic views hold that a horrible deed continues to exist eternally, which would make it worthy of repeated mention. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

You say that "it is not fair to blame the religion for the way human beings have misused their free will".

What I blame is the corporate religion on earth, not the religion's enlightened teachings. The Pope is said to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, with the power to loose and bind. When a Pope commands the religion's adherents to commit genocide (the Cathars) or torture innocents (the Inquisition) I blame the religion in its earthly, organizational form. Does not the Pope speak authoritatively for the Catholic religion?

Frank Collins wrote:
---fate you miss the point about religion and violence. the koran demands violence.---

But so does the bible. Much of it is in the old testament (slavery, eye for an eye, sacking cities that do not accept God's rule, etc) but the new testament has it as well. Here, in Mark 7-10 Christ calls for the death of children who do not obey God's fifth commandment:

7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.
9 And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

Now, today, we do not put children to death when they curse their parents, (thank God!), but Christ calls for it and those who wish to justify beating children will certainly find it ok in the bible. You see, the bible, the koran, etc, can all be used to justify violence for they all contain violent acts. Guess why? Because it was written about human beings. Sorry to inform you but humans are violent animals, but, like many animals, are not violent to what they perceive to be their own kind. Violence in anything written by people is expected to contain violence. Its in our nature. Controlling it is imperitive now that we have such destructive weapons. Religions will not do it since they reinforce the differentiation of people into US and THEM. 32 people die in one day by violence in VA and all of America morns and hold vigils. 140 Iraqis die in one day by violence and its a headline Americans ignore. US and them. We need people using whatever tools necessary to bring down the us/them walls. Ghandi did it. King did it. But I see no one today making an impact as they did. Today those who would build the walls are talking and being listened to. Both the warmakers and the peacemakers use religion to justify their beliefs and actions. History shows this is not new.

You have been had dude. Your lies and those of other islamics are known. Even if its the smiling face of a big eyed girl under a veil, or a handsom man in western garb, it cannot turn the vile message of hate and murder that is the koran and islam, into peace and love.
and it was the hindus that discovered zero, it just happens that islam was in the process of spreading its special love in india at the time and they stole that, along with a lot more.

fate you miss the point about religion and violence. the koran demands violence. the koran demands hate. so what do you get when you meld humans, which are by nature violent, with a religion that demands violents? you get an islamic.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
more?
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
more?
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
more?
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
more?
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
more?
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
more?
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Ralph ponders that evolution is a religion and:

---That the pack attacks are normal.---

In some species. Humans do not form packs but form societies small and large. Its a little different than a pack which is usually limited to related individuals. But humans are territioral and will fight to protect the society and its land, and will attack other unrelated societies for profit. History shows this has happened under all religions and all societies over a long period of time. Pack attack is the wrong term. But to wage war is human. Evolution is not what explains this. You'll need to talk to the Sociologists.

---That deception is natural.---

Humans have this ability thanks to our unique intelligence. However its not inate, meaning that it is not a reflex reaction but a conscious choice that is usually learned. Again, not an evolutionary explained trait but one defined by Sociologists.

---That some humans are less human.---

Evolution PROVES this is not true. Religions however teach it to be true. Sociologists study this self deceptive behavior.

---And that the weak have no right to live.---

No. Evolution is explained by the weak dying and thus removing their genes they carry from the genepool causing the genepool to change over time allowing the species to adapt as the environment changes. This is an observation. It is not considered to be "good" or "bad". In fact, evolution has no moral teachings within it as no science has moral teachings. My guess is you have learned this from a religious person to reinforce the religion. More intellectual justifying through deception by intelligent humans.

Many, including the Nazis, have used evolutionary biology to justify human misdeeds. Using evolution, or any science, in this way is not a reflection on the science but a reflection on us humans who seem to have an uncanny ability to justify the unjustifiable. I have yet to see a religion stop a war.

Ralph:

I think you are missing the point in regards to Evolution my friend. Totally off the mark.

Ralph wrote:
---All religions are violent. That's part of what makes a religion so powerful.---

No, all people are by nature violent and their religions embody the violence in one way or another. Muslims spell it out, attack muslims and be met by violence. So does Judiasm. Christianity actually says to turn the other cheek, but as a nun once told me, that was only one cheek to be turned. All religions allow violence. I do not hear many christians using Jesus' teaching to tell Bush to stop the killing in Iraq, nor was it used to stop the butchary of the American Indians 150 years ago. So blaming religions for any violence, even violence where the religion is named as the reason, is wrong. Its human to be violent. Religion is only an excuse, not the cause. It will occur whether any religion is present or not.

All religions are violent. That's part of what makes a religion so powerful. It can so move and motivate people that they will kill others over disagreements on religious belief.

That's also what makes Evolutionism the world's most dangerous religion. It is a religion that refuses to call itself a religion. It demands that its beliefs be taught as truth to children who are even too young to join the military. And what are its truths? That mights makes right. That the pack attacks are normal. That deception is natural. That some humans are less human. And that the weak have no right to live.

The first Crusade began in 1095…

460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies,

457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies,

453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies,

443 after Muslims first plundered Italy,

427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople,

380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies,

363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies,

249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

---- Info provided by Frank Collins

Thank you Homer.

Now we have the real reasons for the rise of Islam and the justification for the violence in it.

According to you:

1. Islam was a reaction to Christianity.

2. Mo was using violence for survival from Christians, who were his enemies.

3. Christians were using violence as a justifiable means to convert people, so Mo did the same.

4. The Muslims were beating Christians at their own imperialistic game.

SO,

1. The goal of Islam was to provide an alternative for Christianity?

2. Mo considered Christians to be his enemies and felt justified in using violence to deal with them?

3. Mo followed the example of Christianity in using violence to convert people?

4. Christians were playing an imperiliastic game, so Mo would show them that he was better at it by beating them at it?

WHAT IF,

1. The whole idea to create a new religion was merely part of Mo's imperialistic plans?

2. Mo found Christianity a threat and a hindrance to creating an empire of his own?

3. Mo used violence to eliminate the threat that Christianity posed?

4. Mo advocated use of violence to convert people to Islam, his empire, because they wouldn't do it any other way?

5. Declaring himself a prophet was the best way to gain the greatest power and obedience from the people and create a truly global empire with undying loyalty?

6. Explaining the violence Mo initiated as defence against Christianity was the rationalisation he needed to proceed with his imperialistic plans unhindered with immediate effect?

Comments (31)
Norrie Hoyt wrote:
"I consider Catholicism a tradition of peace that only sanctions violence when necessary for survival or the greater good."

AS IN THE INQUISITION, THE CRUSADES, AND THE EXTERMINATION OF THE CATHAR PEOPLE?

Homer.

And who decides what is greater good? The sword?
Mo also considered using violence was for survival {Christians being the enemy] and greater good for all.

Strange ISA or Christ never advocated this line of action. So turning the other cheek is only to convert people. What hypocrisy and you talk about Islam being a violent religion.

Islam was a reaction to Christianity. Christians who thought violence was justified to convert people. He beat the Christians at their own imperialists game.
Homer

CURIOUS CAT wrote:
I am not trying to be a pest posting the same question on every forum, but I really am curious about this. Someone has sort of answered this question on another forum, but I want to ask the same thing (and a few other questions) to Mr Eboo Patel. So here goes:
Why are non-muslims not permitted to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina? Is it that they are NEVER permitte to eneter

Homer
Before Mo took over the Kebba. The tribes of Quraish were the keeper of the Kebba. They were very secular, people were allowed to enter.

Mo took over the Kabba by force killing his own people.In war you don’t allow the enemy into your home. So Mo decided none Moslems would not be allowed into Kebba. They could also do the same, as what Mo did; take kabba by force..
Islam lives in fear. Fear of the modern world, modern thoughts and no one should question Islam.

There is also another reason why none Moslems are not allowed. Some sign of the last hour.
Before the last hour comes, the Kabba would be destroyed by an Abyssinian having two small shank. According to some translator this refers to either Christians or the polytheista of Abyssinia.

Homer

Norrie Hoyt

Since I'm a Catholic (although I belong to a denomination called Syro-Malabar Catholic which had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church and came under it only four hundred years ago with permission to retain the Syrian Rite - a long winded explanation for,'my Christian church has nothing to do with the atrocities you repeatedly mention in connection to Christianity')I wish to clarify yet again,

Whatever wrong might have been done by Christians down the centuries (the repeated reference made to the Catholic Church), when some of them gained political power, it has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ or the example he set through His life. Read the New Testament to verify the teachings of Jesus, not the Old Testament which describes the time before the birth of Jesus. I do NOT condone any wrong doing by Christians/Catholics. But I will repeat that it is not fair to blame the religion for the way human beings have misused their free will.

It would be the same if all the wrongs done by Buddhists were blamed on Buddha and his teachings, which as you know did not teach violence.

Atheists in the Soviet Union and other countries have also done atrocious things. Nobody says for that reason that atheism is inherently violent or teaches violence.

Atheists and religious alike have a free will which can be used for good or evil. Belief in a God or a particular religious belief does not rob anyone of free will. In fact the first chapter of the Bible refers to the free will of man, as God's gift to man as proof of his love. God did not create puppets. He created us in His image and likeness with the power to create or destroy with our free will, to love or to hate.

What is being attempted here is to sort out if the tenets of any religion teaches violence or hatred. As a Christian I can say an emphatic NO! Please don't quote the Old Testament because Jesus Christ who is the founder of Christianity was born 2000 years ago.

Of course I can't stop you from referring to the crusades over and over again, in spite of knowing that Jesus Christ taught no such thing.

BIGD,

"Your seeming hatred for religion continues to amaze me."

I don't hate the adherents of any religion.

What I do hate are religious ORGANIZATIONS (creations of men) that act intolerantly and cruelly.

Witness the extermination of the Cathars and the hideous tortures of the Holy Inquisition.

The torturers would not have committed their crimes against nature and humanity but for the direction and command of the Church's authorized officers and agents, starting with the Pope himself.

to be a good islamic you must follow the koran. the koran demands hate and murder of anyone not islamic. so for an islamic - hating and murder make them a good islamic.

to c kat
...
sow what you think ? and some money ofcoures to travel with .

to c kat
im not a practicant muslim but ofcourse you can go to medina and mecca you only have to say few words frome your heart and some practis...no one can stope you, you will see ther all kind of human b, krazy ones like you too...whats deep daun in your heart and your brain ...its only you , if its negative its your problem positive its your... you are in mecca or in church ..,
i was invited at the church few timees to the weedings, afriends, and i went with lots of respect and to axepte what ever they tell me to do take my choes ,i will. no to ,no to ,bla bla what imean is that no one forced me to go and when i dicided to go means axepting all the stuf ...
sow what you think ? and some money ofcoures to travel with .

Dear Mohamed

Forgive me. I did read your response, and I thought I had thanked you for it.

I thought what you said made perfect sense, as I remember, not having it right in front of me.

And I do remember that you satisfied my curiosity about what you had been referring to.

Sorry again.

I will look at it once more and be more specific but the above is an accurate summary

nice story. islam is still a religion that not only demands violence and death, islamics practice that in accord with the mandates in the koran.

Curious C
Mormons do not permit "gentiles" in their tabernacles. Is Mormonism a violent faith?

Betty,

Good evening!

I saw that you are on this (sub?-)forum too, according to your post of 3:23 p.m.

I hope that you read my two posts (i) answer to your question "When is a Muslim allowed to kill another person?'; and (ii) what is truth?

You would read and make an effort to understand them if you are sincere in seeking to understand; however, you would not bother if these exchanges are just for fun or a combination of fun and scoring points.

All the very best to you!

Mr Mark -

First the so called dogma of limbo was not a dogma. There was no official teaching on the theory of limbo in the Catholic faith. Dogma is something that does not change. Nothing changed in the teaching of the Church on this issue - but don't worry many others made the same mistake on that. We could get in to the nuiansances of this and why its a common perception but I think that is for another conversation.

I believe it is all your asking and I don't think any religion or system of any kind should be given a pass. But while you are correct any given Individual can use religion for Good or for Evil, Good religions do not condone "bad stuff" or offer universal get out of jail cards. Some might, but not most - at least not as I sense you portray it. God is the source of all Good, Man is created in God's image and is therefore also good. Human nature can turn man into something "bad" though. (A common and still occuring false (in my opinion) religion is that which states Man and all creation is bad. God created everything and it is good - very good - just like it says in the Bible.)

Big D -

Thanks for the responses.

I didn't say that it was always the fault of religion. I said that the system that is religion seems to be given a pass, most notably by columnists on this blog. It's always mankind's fault or the individual's wrong-headed, free-will based decision. It's never something wrong with the ridiculous, irreversible, god-bestowed dogma of the religion. (NB: there's always the exception. Religions can sometimes alter their ridiculous dogma. Why, just today, the RC church did away with their dogma of limbo! How sweet of them! So, does that mean that the centuries of limbo were all imaginary, or did newlyborns who died actually go to limbo for all those centuries, but today, they go straight to heaven? Ah...the wonders and mysteries of god's dogma...)

All I am asking - and believe me, on this particular thread, it is ALL that I'm asking - is that we stop giving religion a pass that we would not give to any other system we use to arrange our lives. Let's admit that just as surely as one can read any good or evil into religion that they wish, their doing so is exacerbated by all religions condoning some pretty bad stuff while simultaneously offering themselves their universal "get out of jail free" cards (the chief of which is "god is good, man is bad").

Candide - really when? Who? The Catholic Church has everything it believes pretty much written down in a nice book called the Catechism (if you don't want to buy it you can find it all on the vatican website) - can you show me where it says to hate outsiders?

what baloney! The Catholic Church taught its members to hate outsiders.

Mr Mark -

You make an interesting point in the analogy: "In some states, the bartender who over-served you and assited you in getting drunk could be liable as well."

Who is the bartender on the religous side? When does the bartender in the real world actually get held liable? I believe it's typically only when he is grossly negligent but I am not sure on that so please correct me if I am wrong. This might be the best analogy to work through to see both sides of our argument.

Mr Mark -

Sure if you think everything is one big conspiracy. You can make an analogy to back up your point but that doesn't make your point correct. I read your post to say that it is the fault of religion.

The point of my post (in such my analogy) is simple. If the Muslim world (or any other system) is out there promoting the violence, telling their followers that yes this is what you are to do, and not coming out and saying that those actions are not an accurate understanding of the faith and that the followers should not be doing that then it is the system. I am not Muslim but I give the benefit of the doubt and am starting to see many of them come out and say that this is not right. I don't think that the vast majority of them, that do understand their faith, are in some conspiracy trying to take over the world by force and just not telling us about it until they do.

Big D writes:

"If I go out drinking tonight and kill someone in a drunk driving accident. Is it my fault or is it the fault of the driver’s education system or the state law manual? Do you want to make the claim that no, in those cases it clearly says not to drink and drive? Well it’s legal to drive up until between 0.08 and .1 BAC so what if I get impaired before then? Who is at fault?"

According to most state laws, you would be at fault. In some states, the bartender who over-served you and assited you in getting drunk could be liable as well.

Of course, there could be mitigating circumstances: say the person you hit was a pedestrian who deliberately threw himself in front of your car. Suppose during the investigation the police find a note stating the pedestrain's intention to commit suicide by throwing himself in front of a car. Even if you were legally drunk, the court may not throw the book at you for the death of the pedestrian. In fact, they could legally cite for DUI while not attributing the death to you.

But your analogy really misses the point of what I was saying.

Using your car analogy, let me posit the following: suppose I am driving my 6-moth-old car, when suddenly the brakes give out, I can't stop at a traffic light...and I strike dead a pedestrian. The following week, the car manufacturer issues a recall on my car as they knew the brakes were faulty. In fact, they knew they were faulty a year ago, but the corporate lawyers needed time to come up with a defense before they let the public know that the cars they manufactured and sold were a hazard.

In such a case, who is to blame for the death of the pedestrian? The individual driver, or "the system," ie: the people who manufactured the car I was driving?

This analogy better suits my post, wouldn't you say?

Norrie, Mr Mark, Henry –

Your seeming hatred for religion continues to amaze me. Mr Patel makes an accurate assessment and you all resort to nope its religions fault not the people. This is an epidemic in our society of no personal responsibility for anything.

If I go out drinking tonight and kill someone in a drunk driving accident. Is it my fault or is it the fault of the driver’s education system or the state law manual? Do you want to make the claim that no, in those cases it clearly says not to drink and drive? Well it’s legal to drive up until between 0.08 and .1 BAC so what if I get impaired before then? Who is at fault?

This is obviously just a simple example and I won’t go into more. I think it is Henry that likes to always make the point about the Bible having references to kill people as a counter to many arguments. You can do this with anything. As an individual I can take something out of context from the Bible, Koran, My Physics Text book, Microbiology, etc. and justify or act in almost any way imaginable.

You can not condemn a system religious or otherwise (even including the ones you added Mr Mark) UNLESS (now here is where I would put the big IF) the leaders or whatever leadership exists of that system do not condemn actions that are in fact against the beliefs of that system. If the system promotes and encourages such actions regularly then okay blame the system (DEMOCRATS – just kidding on that one, I don’t actually think that – but you could make that type of case against many forms of communism). If they don’t actively help correct the problem then blame the system as partially at fault. But most of the blame has to go to the individual.

BUT if you want to say the system is the problem then how does the system also create such good results. Because any good that is done then would also have to be attributed to the system and not the people. I don’t think any of you would argue that there has been some amazing good done by many Catholics and Muslims.

Greetings Victoria, My Queen

You exude the spirit of peace and of energy. Salut.

I believe that you would admit that most scriptural traditions, whether Christian, Islamic, or Judaic, have texts that are rich in meaning.

When a text is rich in meaning, it is also rich in ambiguity.

Such a text allows people to interpret it to their own desires.

Thus, many Muslims interpret the Quran as justifying unjustifiable violence against other humans, as do Christians and Jews with their scripture (just take the Crusades as an example).

To give those fallible humans a little excuse, many passages in most scriptural traditions DO have clear exhortations to violence contained in them. We can say we must understand the context, but humans are notoriously fallible in understanding context.

SO, we need people like you who Preach Peace as the first message, the most important message, amidst the Babel of conflicting human tendencies and fears and hatreds.

Keep the Faith

Henry

while i usually suffer through concerned the apparently liberated from reasons vitriol and unrelated anecdotes as proof of his right to propogate fear- and ross's self indulgent and rarely read long diatiribes or cut and pastes (in my opinion the laziest of mental exercises)i will not put more effort into understanding than someone has put into clicking a mouse-

THIS TIME we are actually presented with a personal anecdote- (not a faith freedom parrot) that actually is on point, relevant, and offers insight into the topic itself.

from the safety of my room, with the luxury of my computer in front of me- it is easy to judge and condemn what i dont experience-

but the fact is- many are confronted with violence every day- irratonal brutal hate inspired violence which cant be reasoned against-

while some religions just ignore and hope that man will aspire to non-violence- this is not a practical reality-

and since islam actually confronts and deals with this aspect of mans nature- people confuse the fact that it is dealt with , with an exhortation to do it.

so i am as pacific a human as you will find-

i have allowed my self to be punched repeatedly in the face, kicked down stairs, stabbed, had guns pointed at me and worse which i wont mention.

some of these were to direct the attentions of aggressors away from the intended targets (which worked, but i dont believe it is the best policy, necessarily)

i continue to rescue bugs from glasses of water and deliver them to safety-

i have never in anger struck or hurt another human or any creature

BUT THIS IS MY CHOICE FOR MYSELF

and its also not a very effective way of dealing with aggressors-

i cannot say that now, i would stay pacific if i encountered someone trying to kill or abuse an innocent- and i had the means to prevent it.

taking responsibility for these very hard decisions is the braver course, and the harder.

and they usually need to be made at light speed decision making-

since i have thought alot about it- i have a course of action in my mind-
(my stepfather who was a nut, told me- if you draw a weapon, be prepared to use it- or it could be used against you)

now in most things he was an idiot but that is sound advice

while islam offers reasoning for dealing with th less savory elements of society- it ALWALY ALWAYS ALWAYS exhorts peace and mercy and forgiveness above all-

there is not even allowed to be any pleasure in battle- when one is forced through circumstances to DEFEND oneself or family or land against violent oppressors- (and the rules of war and conduct are very clear and minutely spelled out- as anyone here whos read my many posts will know)

as our prisons are filled with the highest population in the world of inmates-
it seems nonsensical to add problems to problems with further fearmongering-

alrighty then- peace all

All monthesim is, has been, or will be subject to extremism and violence for a very simple reason. While attempting to hold the highest of apirational ideals, tradition has failed to provide the means to realize those expectations. The result is the rationalizing of conduct completely contrary to their own moral and ethical religious standards. Often called hypocrisy.

That failure raises big questions about the efficacy of faith? What God would leave his true servants without the non violent means to achieve His ends? Which can only be a greater peace and justice then political process can offer!

Mr Mark,

Good point.

Blame individual? or Faith encourge violence??

Not equal are those believers who sit(at home) and those who fight in the cause of Allah(jihad) and Allah hath granted a grade higher and unto each Allah hath promised good 4.95 that means Allah loves 'jihadist'.

The Religion before Allah is islam(only islam) 3.19

If only the people of Book had believed(islam) and been righteous(muslim) we(Allah) should remit their sin from them 5.65 that means christians and jews(and all non-muslim) are sinners.

Allah curses those who reject Faith(that means only islam) 2.161

Allah hates non-muslims 8.12 and says to choose not friends from non-muslim and kill them wherever you find them 4.89

So,if I sum up,
Allah loves 'jihadist'(holy warrior).
Only religion is islam.
Christians,Jews and non-muslims are sinners.
Allah curses non-muslims.
...and kill them wherever you find them.

Is it 'Blame Individual'??
Let the readers make decision.

Very Fuzzy "Thinking", Mr Patel

When humans, over and over, through centuries, commit awful acts in the name of an ideology, whether it is Communism or Christianity,

it makes NO sense to say that the ideology has no causal relationship with, and therefore blame for, the terrible actions.

Islam is far from unique among religions for these kinds of effects. But to deny them is fatuous.

ROSS!!!

What on earth gives you the idea that anyhone wants to read (or even scroll through)
a post that long?

It is a self indulgent antisocial act to post such lengthy things.

Ok, lets start cleansing/updating the Koran: (repeated here and elsewhere because of its importance)

"The 77 Branches of Faith is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."

i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(five at a time)
"1. Belief in Allah"

No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain natural events,contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via an "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

And I just love being in a country where I can list these important items for world peace without the fear of Islamic death squads.

Swami Vivekanand was a prominent and respected spiritual leader of the philosophies in India. This is an excerpt of his talk delievered at the World's Parilament of Religions in 1893 in Chicago. I thought this would be an appropriate place to "copy-paste" this part of his talk, considering all the fighting and vitriol being hurled at "other" religions.

"Much has been said of the common ground of religious unity...() But if any one here hopes that this unity will come by the triumph of any one of the religions and the destruction of the others, to him I say, “Brother, yours is an impossible hope.” Do I wish that the Christian would become Hindu or Buddhist? God forbid. Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist would become Christian? God forbid. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth...()
If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that upon the banner of every religion will soon be written, in spite of resistance: "Help and not Fight," "Assimilation and not Destruction," "Harmony and Peace and not Dissension.""

This is what Swami Vivekanand had to say over a hundred years ago and it cannot be any more appropriate than in today's world. TOLERANCE is the need of the hour for everyone. Possibly there are flaws in every religion, but only AS IT IS FOLLOWED TODAY. Does it mean that that was what the religion was really about? Was what we see today THE CENTRAL TENET of the religion when it originated? Maybe not! If there appears to be a disconnect, could it not mean mis-interpretation by a select few, over-interpretation (sometimes deliberate) by some opportunistic few?
And there is a difference between religious/spiritual practices and social/cultural practices. A lack of understanding of the difference between the two makes us wrongly label religions are being responsible for the wrong-doings of the people "following" those teachings!
Learn from other religions whatever you can and try to improve your own life. Meaningless bickering leads nowhere...

What Happened to the Jews of Medina

By: Ali Sina

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the story of the tragic end of the Jews of Medina. A case of ethnic cleansing, betrayal and genocide carried out by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The prophet raided the 2000 year old Jewish communities of Medina, killed their men, confiscated their properties, enslaved their wives and children and banished the unwanted with no provocation on the part of the Jews. The holy Prophet's sole motive was greed for their wealth and lust for their women.

It is difficult for us to find the truth about what really happened to the Jewish inhabitants of Medina at the time of Muhammad. There are no independent sources and the Jews who where eventually exterminated by Muhammad left nothing for us to refer to. We are left only with the Muslim historians’ version, which obviously tell the story tainted with their fanatical faith to their prophet and their hatred of the Jews that is conspicuous in every sentence they wrote about them.

Many Muslim apologists downplay the importance and the number of the Jews of Medina. Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq writes, “History does not record much as to when first Jewish migration from north to Yathrib (Medina) began as their numbers remained small throughout their stay there. (1)

Despite the fact that there are no independent sources by digging into the writings of the Muslim scholars and reading between the lines one can find some glimpses of what really happened here and there. Maududi, in his comments on the Surah 59 of Quran (2) reporting from Kitab al-Aghani, [a book of songs, an important source for information on medieval Islamic society, vol. xix, p. 94, by Abu al-Faraj Ali of Esfahan (897-967)] writes.

Jewish settlement in Hijaz
“The Jews of the Hejaz claimed that they had come to settle in Arabia during the last stage of the life of the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). They said that the Prophet Moses had dispatched an army to expel the Amalekites from the land of Yathrib and had commanded it not to spare even a single soul of that tribe. The Israelite army carried out the Prophet's command, but spared the life of a handsome prince of the Amalekite king and returned with him to Palestine. By that time the Prophet Moses had passed away. His successors took great exception to what the army had done, for by sparing the life of an Amalekite it had clearly disobeyed the Prophet and violated the Mosaic Law. Consequently, they excluded the army from their community, and it had to return to Yathrib and settle there forever. Thus the Jews claimed that they had been living in Yathrib since about 1200 B.C.

The second Jewish immigration, according to the Jews, took, place in 587 BC. when Nebuchadnezzer, the king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world. The Arab Jews said that several of their tribes at that time had come to settle in Wadi al-Qura, Taima, and Yathrib.(Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan).”

Maududi rejects both these claims and says that “these have in fact no historical basis and probably the Jews had invented this story in order to overawe the Arabs into believing that they were of noble lineage and the original inhabitants of the land.”

However he maintains, “what is established is that when in A.D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A.D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib.”

Since there are no compelling historical evidences for us to accept Maududi’s version of the History we may as well conclude that Muslims (perhaps Maududi himself) invented this story in order to undermine “the noble lineage of the Jews as the original inhabitants of Yathrib”. It seems that the Jews, who were well established in Yathrib and by the very admission of Maududi were “practically the owners of this green and fertile land” (2) had little use for making such false claim about their origin. On the other hand Muslims whose enmity of the Jews dates back to the time of Muhammad and even a reputed scholar like Maududi cannot contain his hatred of them when he writes about them, are more likely to invent false stories to justify their expulsion and their ethnic cleansing of the Jews from their homeland.

No matter what, Muslim historians admit that the Arab Jews, were living in Yathrib for centuries. “In the matter of language, dress, civilization and way of life they had completely adopted Arabism, even their names had become Arabian. Of the 12 Jewish tribes that had settled in Hejaz, none except the Bani Zaura retained its Hebrew name. Except for a few scattered scholars none knew Hebrew. In fact, there is nothing in the poetry of the Jewish poets of the pre-Islamic days to distinguish it from the poetry of the Arab poets in language, ideas and themes. They even inter-married with the Arabs. In fact, nothing distinguished them from the common Arabs except religion. Because of this Arabism the western orientalists have been misled into thinking that perhaps they were not really Israelites but Arabs who had embraced Judaism, or that at least majority of them consisted of the Arab Jews.” (2)

Western orientalists may not be that far from the truth after all. Because even if originally the Jews migrated to Arabia, after centuries, or if we believe in the Jewish version of the history, close to 2000 years of intermarrying with Arabs, they must have become Arabs for all intent and purposes.

Maududi writes, “No authentic history of the Arabian Jews exists in the world. They have not left any writing of their own in the form of a book or a tablet which might throw light on their past, nor have the Jewish historians and writers of the non-Arab world made any mention of them, the reason being that after their settlement in the Arabian peninsula they had detached themselves from the main body of the nation, and the Jews of the world did not count them as among themselves. For they had given up Hebrew culture and language, even the names, and adopted Arabism instead.” (2)

Another reason that no authentic history of the Arabian Jews exists is because Muhammad exterminated all of them. Dead people are not known to write history.

If the Jews were so Arabianized that they were indistinguishable from the rest of the Arabs, then perhaps the Jewish version of the history is more accurate and the Jews had settled in Arabia much earlier than the Muslim historians are willing to admit. But even if we had to accept the Muslim version of the history, we learn that these Jews made Arabia their home 500 years before the birth of Muhammad and they were as much entitled to their land (Yathrib) as Muslim Albanians (originally Turks) are to Kosovo.

Other non-Jewish settlers.
In A. D. 450 or 451, a great flood in Yaman forced different tribes of the people of Saba to migrate to other parts of Arabia. Among them Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. These two were big tribes yet they were unskilled people. Unlike the Jews who practically were the master of all trades, and the owners of most businesses, Arabs in Yathrib made their living serving the Jews in their farms and households. They were looked down at, by their Jewish masters and this was the cause of resentment

Yet these two tribes could not see eye to eye and each sought the alliance of one of the Jewish tribes. This worked out well; since the Bani Qainuqa, was not on friendly terms with the other two Jewish tribes also. So Bani Qainuqa and Khazraj formed an alliance together and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir and Aus Joined their strength together. It is important to note that these feuds were not religiously motivated but were tribal skirmishes.

Maududi comments, ”Because of this they (the Jews) had not only to take part in the mutual wars of the Arabs but they often had to go to war in support of the Arab tribe to which their tribe was tied in alliance against another Jewish tribe which was allied to the enemy tribe.”

If we could see through the tick fog of prejudice that has shortened the vision of Muslim scholars, we can see, these tribes living in Medina were all Arabs, practicing different religions. And just as other tribes and nations anywhere in the world they had their skirmishes, but as the structure of their alliances suggest, their conflicts were not religiously motivated. This is extremely important. Tribal skirmishes are short lived but religious hatred never dies. It transcends time and space. As we shall see later, it was Muhammad who introduced the religious hatred. It is him who should be credited as the founder of religious intolerance in Arabia and perhaps the entire world. Muhammad is often hailed as the man who united warring Arab tribes. That may be true. But without him these tribes would have put aside their conflicts sooner or later, one way or another, just as other feuding tribes did eventually in other parts of the world. Almost everywhere, formerly hostile tribes have joined together to form stronger nations. Muhammad united the Arabs and turned them into a mighty force, which invaded other countries, devastating other civilizations and imposing their own language, culture and religion.

By embracing Islam Arabs benefited economically from their unity, yet the harm of religious hatred that Muhammad inflicted upon the entire humanity for centuries has outweighed all the good that the unity of few desert dwellers of Arabia might have brought to them.

Migration to Medina
Arabs were always at war with each other. But among them, Meccans had an envious position. Ka’ba, the holy place of all the Arabs was in Mecca. It was a place for pilgrimage and that meant power and money for Meccans.

When Abu Talib, Muhammad’s uncle and Khadija, his wife died he lost two of his most powerful supporters and the people of Mecca increased their hostility towards him. He recalled the offer of few men from Thaif who had told him if he made their town the holy place of his new religion, thus making it the religious and the commercial hub of his followers, the Bani Thaqif, people of Taif, might support his cause. So he and his adoptive son Zaid ibn Harith secretly went to Taif in 620 C.E. (Common Era) seeking the alliance of its inhabitants and promising them to make their city the holy place for the Muslims. But instead the Bani Thaqif mocked him and even his plea to keep their visit a secret was not granted. The leaders of Taif may have envied Mecca’s religious prestige but they did not wish to jeopardise their comfortable life for a risky adventure with an obscure religious pretender.

When the Quraish learned of this they were enraged and they escalated their hostility to Muhammad until a couple of years later they decided to assassinate him.

Muhammad learned of the plot against his life and escaped to Yathrib. In Yathrib he had some followers. They belonged to both Khazraj and Aus. These two tribes were weary of constant fighting and especially of a recent Battle (Bu’ath) that occurred among them. They were looking for a way to end the hostilities. So the leaders of both parties accepted Muhammad to act as the mediator among them.

The Treaty
It was an Arab custom and it is also practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with the Arab tribes.

This must have been a golden opportunity in the prophetic carrier of Muhammad, which changed his fortune and turned the odds in his favour. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the Prophet as they would protect their women and children if he were attacked by the Meccans.

The numbers of the Muslims in Yathrib grow thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the man to whom they give asylum today would be so ungrateful that would turn against them and eventually would be the cause of their destruction.

The treaty did not give Muslims a mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see this treaty must have been forged. It states.

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is altered. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. So the above document is most likely forged. Also there are contradictions in the context of the document. It starts as a treaty signed by two sovereign nations (tribes) with equal rights and powers. However the phrases “The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts” and “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God;” contradict that notion of equality.

These sentences are more likely inserted later. They give Muslims superiority, which is in conflict with the rest of the document that gives an impression of an agreement between two equals. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? It is amazing that Muslim scholars have read this document for centuries and it has never occurred to them to ask how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is part of the treaty? But that is exactly the point. A religious mind is shackled. Although they would laugh if a similar story is said about another group, they do not seem to have any difficulty is accepting it when it is about their own religion.

These are telltales that the above treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, we are left with nothing, but this lame document to find the truth. Which makes our task not unlike trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Holy Wars!
After the incident of Badr that Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new religion? Does the persecution of the Baha'is give us a clue?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

I am not trying to be a pest posting the same question on every forum, but I really am curious about this. Someone has sort of answered this question on another forum, but I want to ask the same thing (and a few other questions) to Mr Eboo Patel. So here goes:

Why are non-muslims not permitted to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina? Is it that they are NEVER permitte to eneter these cities or is it only during pilgirmage? Is there any exceptions? Can anyone enter the Kabba?

Yes, we all understand that when it comes to religion, one can never blame the religion.

Funny how when it comes to the ills of democracy, communism, socialism, capitalism, Democrat-ism, Republican-ism or whatever else you wish to speak of, we're ENCOURAGED to blame the system. If the individual has a problem, it's because he's bought into the wrong system.

When it comes to religion, the system gets a pass and the individual is to blame. Yep, it's always man's fault, not god's.

But then, maybe you're right. Maybe the blame should go to men, ie: men who individually and collectively created religions in the first place.

"I consider Catholicism a tradition of peace that only sanctions violence when necessary for survival or the greater good."

AS IN THE INQUISITION, THE CRUSADES, AND THE EXTERMINATION OF THE CATHAR PEOPLE?