Robert wrote, in part:
> "Ben Irvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > >>>> I would encourage that our government, and especially individual citizens, >>>> to publicly condemn Islam devoutly followed. Islam like Nazism >>>> and other ideologies is a political philosophy; however, unlike most >>>> other political philosophies it is also a religion. >> >>>> Some of the main Islamic areas to be condemned would be: >> >>>> 1. The supremacy nature of Islam. >>>> 2. Dhimmitude and beheading areas of the Koran. >>>> 3. Low status of women. >>>> 4. Lack of separation between church and state. >>>> 5. The general barbaric primitive nature of Islam. >> >>> Have you ever heard of a case in which outsiders' in gov't or the private >>> sector condemning of someone's religion has led to changes in that religion? > >> I don't have to even give examples outside the inland West where I live. The >> Mormons in the early 1890's suddenly decided that polygamy was not only >> not part of their faith, but that it was illegal. This was traumatic on the >> Saints. >> Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Mexico because his >> polygamous family had fled with hundreds of other Mormons to LDS colonies >> in Mexico. By the time Mitt's dad was born, social pressures had convinced >> his family that polygamy was no longer acceptable. > > Well, ya got me there! But I meant "condemning" in the sense of measures > short of OUTLAWING practices! Beheading people, etc. for violations of > their religious laws is illegal, but we don't make it illegal to BELIEVE IN > beheading people, etc. It would seem that's what it would take, going by > the example above. Or you could get followers to abandon their religion by > threatening to expropriate or expel them, as with Jews in Spain. Mormon changes happened mainly because of social-pressures to conform just a bit to the values of the larger culture. A major difference between Jews and Mormons and Muslims, is that they don't feel a compelling need to force others by intimidation or the threat of death to join their flock. Indeed, Muslim behavior in the manner is mandated by the Koran which is to them, the living word of Allah (god). Their faith leaves little wiggle-room for infidels. >> The same happen to Mormons in 1972 when they suddenly announced >> that blacks (Negro) were fully human, and could enter the Mormon >> priesthood. Before that date blacks could never become full Mormons. >> It was social pressures again that caused the Mormon church to rethink >> their doctrine and traditions. > > I don't think it was JUST social pressures, although there's no way to weigh > the factors. I think a major factor was the threat of denial of tax > exemption to institutions, religious or otherwise, that practiced racial > segregation. IRS hadn't ruled yet IIRC, but people saw it coming. It would > look better if you switched before IRS made you. I don't buy the IRS threats, as an IRS that won't confront Black Muslims, has little courage to take on a religion a hundred times that large and a thousand times richer. The anthropologist, Dr. O'Dea (sp), predicted that the LDS would soon admit blacks into the priesthood in a book he wrote around 1970. He noted that the social pressures were forcing Mormons to rethink many of their religious ideas. >> In 1903, the federal government prohibited the Crow Sun Dance. Violators >> would be fined and jailed. Thus, the traditional Crow Sun Dance has not >> been performed since 1903. However, it is doubtful that there would be much >> demand, as Crow culture changed, and there wasn't a need for the religious >> ceremony. In 1939 the Crow adopted the Shoshone Sundance that was >> entirely different than the old Sun Dance, and that has been used ever since. > >> I could site numerous other examples where social pressures altered religious >> habits. > > Yeah, but you're conflating legal coercion with social pressures. A combination of both governmental and social pressures on Islam devoutly followed, was part of my original premise (look at top of page). Linked is part of an interesting video that is creating a big stir at the University of California at Berkeley. Most Muslims and the politically-correct at Berkeley want the man fired from being on the commission that looks at prejudice at the U of C. I would guess he'll soon be canned, as Allah's fascism will not be denied: Link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a9_1179661533 >>> Muslims that will not compromise on at least the small list given above, >>>> should be treated similarly to the way America treated activist Nazis >>>> between December 1941 and May 1945 that desired to destroy our way of >>>> life. >> >>> Like that had any effect on Nazism??! > >> It did force a lot of German Americans to decide if they were Americans >> or Nazis; for, society would not tolerate both. At least 99% decided that >> they were not Nazis, though still German-Americans. Those that remained >> openly devout Nazis, were generally detained, harassed, or arrested. > > But Nazis in America were not a serious threat. Some of them were even > anti-German, while others were Germanophiles. Among those who were not > enemy agents, they posed less of a threat to the USA than did American > Communists/communists, then or since. American social pressures impacted German-American and even German-Nazis behavior in America. I am suggesting that the same social pressures be used to bring Islamists kicking and screaming into the late 18th Century and the U.S. Constitution, if not fully into the modern era. The "Bill of Rights" alone is a contradiction to Islamic values. Islam is a serious threat as it is a philosophy every bit as evil as Nazism Compare Mein Kamph to the Koran, and major Nazis leaders speeches to what leading Muslim clerics tell other Muslims. Islam has 25-times the followers that Nazism had at its peak, and procreationally they are the fastest growing population on earth. >> There were not many. Muslims can still be Arab-Americans, >> Anglo-Americans, etc. However, their fascist philosophy should be >> condemned by all whenever possible. > > I think it would be a grave mistake to align American Muslims in the same > way as American Nazis, explained above. In what ways is Islam, the philosophy, better than Nazism? Would it have been "a grave mistake" in the early 1940's to have aligned Nazis-Americans? Would America and the free-world have been better off to allow all the Nazis Bunds to continue to operate freely, and to spread their political-faith to other Americans? I think not. Islam should not be tolerated in any form that promotes the 5-items I listed earlier. Evil needs to be confronted any time it threatens my right to live as I wish. >>> Or like any such change in American >>> Nazism or American Islam would have any effect on the foreigners who >>> were/are the real problem? > >> It would have an effect on Muslims living in America, which is my main >> concern. Like the old Nazis of yesteryear, those that can't stand the social >> criticism can always go to a place that does. > > It wouldn't save lives, and might actually endanger them. In other-words, give totalaritaian Islam a free pass, like we failed to give the devoutly Nazis in the 1940's? Perhaps, this time, the Neville Chamberlain approach will work better than in 1938? Remember, I am only referring to Islam in America. > If you think, for instance, circumcision is a bad thing, you won't get far > and just stir up resentment if you try to agitate against it by condemning > Judaism & Islam for practicing it. Rather, you should give evidence that > it's painful or otherwise harmful. If you think certain Christian sects > have gone off the deep end with Creationism, you don't condemn those > Christian sects, you give biologic evidence. Lol! I don't care what Muslims do to themselves...only what they say they plan to do to me. The analogy you draw between different religions as all being about equal hints of relativism, and fails to address the central concern many have about Islam (as opposed to rock-worshippers, Sun Dancers, Hindus, Snake-charmers, etc.). Islam needs to be compared to other political philosophies and not religions, as it is as much a political idea as a religion. As I condemn the political ideas of Fascism, Nazism, divine rights of kings, etc. I also include political Islam. Remember, Islam rejects any separation of church and state (think: heresy). We can either deal with political and philosophical Islam now, go into dhimmitude, convert, or die (if not of the book...like I). We only have those options if the past 1400-years of Muslim history is a guide. As the old TV commercial used to say,"You can either pay me now, or later." (implying a much greater bill). Let the debate begin with Islam the political force. ~ Ben
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
