I beg to differ. Of the world's major religions, only Islam promotes the sword as the means of converting others. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all espouse peaceful coexistence. When you accuse God of racism, you're missing the point completely. God created those people, loved them enough to give them free will, but held them accountable for their actions. When they chose wrongly, He had to act. But the Canaanites and the Philistines were not different races (maybe slightly, but not enough to matter), but differed in their culture, which was pagan and idolatrous.

The creator of mankind has the right to do whatever He wishes with His creation.

And the New Testament, upon which Christianity rests, has none of the aspects of which you speak. I challenge you to show me anywhere in the New Testament where Christians are commanded or even encouraged to use force in any way. Rather, they are told to "turn the other cheek" when struck by an enemy, and to pray for that enemy. That corrupt men used the name of Christianity to justify their immoral actions in the middle ages does not mean that they were obeying the precepts of Christianity.

Yossi –

I wonder if the problem with perceived intolerance in Islam stems from the fact that for Muslims God’s law is law and that’s that. There is no separation between church and state within Muslim societies and even though Christendom also suffered from this lack of separation for some time, Christianity did also proffer the message “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, unto God what is Gods”. This institutes a divide between government and God. In Islam this distinction does not exist. This does not mean, however, that Islamic societies are unjust. Ancient Muslim societies were much more tolerant in the past than Christian ones were. Jews in Middle East and Christians were allowed to follow their own religions even though they lived under Muslim rule. Some countries conquered by Muslims were allowed self autonomy as long as they paid a poll-tax to their Muslim rulers. Bernard Lewis makes this case very will in ‘The Crisis of Islam’.I think the problem is that radical extremists have pushed the limits to an extreme degree of intolerance, which creates problems both within the Muslim world and beyond. Islam and democracy and tolerance can be compatible. Turkey is an example of a country where it works (sort of).

As for our Bible Belt friend, thanks for that enlightening nugget of knowledge. I must have missed that in my nine years of Catholic education.Did you know that the Bible also says that you should not eat shellfish? And that women should be subserviant to men? And that slavery is acceptable? Sadly, you are just as intolerant and extreme as the Muslim radicals that Yossi despises. Jesus was all about tolerance and love, not intolerance and hate. You might care to reflect on another nugget of biblical wisdom…

On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

Think of Jesus as the gay man you like to repress and try not to cry as you get lead to the downwards escalator.

In response to an earlier post:

India does have laws against homosexuality. However, I dont believe they are strictly enforced. Also, the laws are a direct result of the outdated British common law, which Britain has updated, but we have not.

Many people may not like hearing it, but the ancient Indians understood that not everyone is wired the same way and were very open and tolerant towards homosexuality. Its the forced messages from the Mughal invaders and the Britishers that has led to the current day scenario of don't ask-don't tell policy amongst Indians regarding homosexuality.

"it’s true that one can find racism, hatred, zealotry, intolerance and vengeance in the Old Testament and the New Testament as well as in the Koran (and, I assume, in the scriptures of Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto). The writings of monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions are a wonderful mixed bag which can be used to justify any hypothesis, cause, or ideology: love and hate, social justice and exploitation, peace and war, tolerance and intolerance – and all in the name of God."

Hinduism has none of the above. Our religious folks have used Caste as a mode for subjugation. Buddhism was created to cleanse Hinduism from its social ills as the priests in that era had completely hijacked the religion. (Surprise?) I am not too knowledgeable of Shintoism and will reserve comments on it.

In response to an earlier post:

India does have laws against homosexuality. However, I dont believe they are strictly enforced. Also, the laws are a direct result of the outdated British common law, which Britain has updated, but we have not.

Many people may not like hearing it, but the ancient Indians understood that not everyone is wired the same way and very open and tolerant towards homosexuality. Its the forced messages from the Mughal invaders and the Britishers that has led to the current day scenario of don't ask-don't tell policy amongst Indians regarding homosexuality.

"it’s true that one can find racism, hatred, zealotry, intolerance and vengeance in the Old Testament and the New Testament as well as in the Koran (and, I assume, in the scriptures of Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto). The writings of monotheistic and non-monotheistic religions are a wonderful mixed bag which can be used to justify any hypothesis, cause, or ideology: love and hate, social justice and exploitation, peace and war, tolerance and intolerance – and all in the name of God."

Hinduism has none of the above. Our religious folks have used Caste as a mode for subjugation. Buddhism was created to cleanse Hinduism from its social ills as the priests in that era had completely hijacked the religion. (Surprise?) I am not too knowledgeable of Shintoism and will reserve comments on it.

thanks to your government in USA and Israel, as they melt the ice they melt the money.

do you have any idea about why USA lost so much money in so few years? in Iraq? for Israel?

one of the grand signs of Stand Up of Islam of Jews after Ahmet Prophet is that a country shall lose all of its money and all others shall earn their prosperity and peace.

so think one more time, before you speak, dark ocular!.

The occidental civilisation produced the homosexual culture. We (the muslims) don't accept this culture, not only because God said but because (using the reason) it brings destruction to all the humanity (male with male and female with female brings no babies, so no humans on earth after a generation)..Why you call it intolerance? Islam is right, the homosexuality is not a an human instinct..men were creating to love women and women to love men! this love, the most beautiful thing on earth.

What if God didn't REALLY talk to Abraham?

Then, wouldn't you Israelis be committing your horrific crimes against the Palestinians under false pretext?

There are a lot of inaccuracies in your post Mr. Melman:

First, it is known when someone writes a blog entry, he/she should provide a link or a proof to what he/she is stating. You just supposed things here without providing us the readers of how you reached these conclusion:

“Why were some Muslims in Afghanistan so angered by scenes from a film depicting homosexuals in their country? Because there are no homosexuals there? Give me a break.”

Well, this is one of the conclusions that are not based on any fact. Muslims in Afghanistan were not angered by the scene of the rape because it’s very simple: they haven’t seen the movie yet. Secondly, there was no statement whatsoever from any Afghani saying that there are no homosexuals in Afghanistan. So it surprise me that you spit your accusation angrily on the Washington Post blog at people whom you might have never seen.
“It reminds me of the funny and absurd remark made at Columbia University a few months ago by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran: something to the same effect of "we don't have homosexuals".”

This is another inaccuracy. I am not a huge fan of someone whose Mullahs destroyed my country, but I have to be fair and neutral when quoting someone. It is really shocking that you work for Haaretz, as it is known for it’s liberal and open-minded viewpoints. When you quoted Ahmadinajad, you didn’t finish his sentence. You quoted him saying “there are no homosexuals in Iran,” and that sounds absurd. Yet when you continue his sentence which you deliberately chose not to use for propaganda reasons, you failed to give your point. He finished it by saying “… like in your country.” And that gives it another different meaning: that THERE ARE homosexuals in Iran, but not as much as in the US!! It’s really sad to see this coming from a journalist, being a journalist myself. You can hear the exact quote in this link, that’s if you haven’t already and chose not to write it all.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI

“And yet in recent decades we have witnessed, time and again, violence manifested by Muslim communities and leaders whenever they think that their feelings are hurt.”

That might be right, but as a writer doesn’t your role ask you to write about the atrocities your soldiers and government is doing in occupying, destroying and covering up the mistreatments and abuse? Or is that the way writers in Israel work? Just a thought!

I didn’t see any of your statements in relation to the topic presented by the Post Global. Instead, you came to attack Muslims for “not saying they have homosexuals,” which has nothing to do with why the movie actors had to be evacuated.

http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/

Very well stated and expamined I entirely agree wotj Mr. Melman's assessment.

The Old Testament and The New Testament and the Quran all talk about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

So, what should we do Yossi....bomb them like Israelis bomb Gaza with F-16s, just to show that the Israeli method of tolerance is the way to go?

You are dead wrong on several points:

1) Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto are earthly schools of thought and philosophy about forces and powers of Good vs. Bad. None claim to have a special line to God. None have "scripture" as none of them claim to have some Joe from their own lot, read politically smart guy from the Semite race, to have a direct command from God.... and they are "specially" chosen by God in some sort of an absurd beauty contest (and especially amusing when that same Joe.. Moses, Jesus and Mohammad say that God has created all equal). I always wonder why neither of these Semite "politically smart guys" never had any witnesses and their always got the "telegram" when they were alone?

Second, Salman Rushdie committed blasphemy. It was all white-washed by the Brits because to that date the prosecution of blasphemy in UK was limited to insulting the (Anglican) church, although the law of UK is vague on that.

Third, homosexual sex is still punishable by up to 6 years in prison in India, the world's largest democracy and the largest body of pluralist nation on the planet. Ditto in most states in USA (although the Supreme Court struck made that law unenforceable on grounds of intrusion in homes). Russia and China also have laws against homosexual acts in their criminal codes.

Fourth, each culture is different and must be left alone to set their own social standards.

Finally, it is time for you Israelis to get off your "attack Iran" bandwagon as it is desperately looking old and transparent. Read the NIE circa Dec. 2007.

Problem is not with the few people in Islam. It is Islam. Which one of the 50 intolerant Islamic nation do you see as a tolerant, diverse and liberal?