I was responding to your remark about “religions that used violence to convert belivers (sic).”
Now you’re talking about proselytizing & having babies. How dare they!
First, as I said, I would not move to the states generally and specifically, I would not move to highly homophobic places like Texas and Virginia. But when I am in the USA as a tourist, I would NEVER sound off about how much better Canada is than the US in its treatmnt of gay citizens, because the simple (and fully justified) response of my American hosts would be “then why do’t you go back there?”
I would *not even set foot in * viciously homophobic places like Jamaica, where reggae singers write lyrics about setting faggots on fire, and politicians defend it saying that Jamaica has a right to its “Christian” heritage. And where homosexual acts are punishable by 10 years hard labour. Please do not bother to post saying that Jamaica is not Muslim. I never said that vicious homophobia ia exclusively Islamic.
I would not set foot in the states (all of the Islamic) that have the death penalty for gays.
Similarly, I left the RCC and will not go into a Catholic Church because I DO NOT GO WHERE I DO NOT FIT IN, WHERE I DO NOT BELONG.
Are you disagreeing that Christianity spread to North and South America through violence? The seat of the Spanish Inquisition was in Peru for a while. The Inquisition used torture and forced conversion to grow the ranks of the church.
Of course they have a right to do so. My observation is that religions follow patterns similar to speciation. Things like encouarging members to have lots of babies, proseltyzing, and using tithing to raise the money necessary for proseltyzing make a religion more “succesful”.
It’s already been explained to you that that was long ago, and for a short time. It’s a pitiful point and repeating it doesn’t make it true or worth trying to argue.
See, there’s these things called ‘facts’, with which you might like to make your acquaintance.
You are apparently in Yemen, Uzi. Fine. Yemen is a Muslim country. If that is how they want to do it, fine. Personally, I could not and would not set foot there, because I happen to be gay, and Yemen punishes gays with penalties ranging from flogging to death (see this cite . But if I DID work there, as an outsider, I would not even ask for pork products. I would make do with beef, lamb, etc.
I do not know why Muslim thugs in France do what they do. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they are a powerful and growing minority, and that they belong to a religion that is also a political world movement that believes that all the world must be submitted to Islam.
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” (Koran, Surah 9, verse 123).
First of all, do not fall for the line that jihad means only “inner struggle” to be a better person. While this is a possible interpretation, reference after reference to *jihad * in the Koran and Hadiths make it clear that it has a military meaning and that war against infifdels is not only permissible but a duty.
This is also why Islam has, in the words of author Sam Harris, “bloody borders”. Look at the number of places in the world where Islamic populations are at war with non-Islamic neighbours. Israel, Kashmir, the Philippines, Bosnia, Sudan, Eritria-Ethiopia, southern Thailand. I believe there is a list of some two dozen or more conflict areas. As my mother used to say, if you are fighting with everyone, maybe the fault isn’t with everyone.
Then there is the non-military jihad. An interesting example is in an article by Daniel Pipes here entitled “Spreading Islam in American Public Schools”.
In Case you are wondering, Daniel Pipes is described this in the Wikipedia article:
“Daniel Pipes (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian and counter-terrorism analyst who specializes in the Middle East. He has written or co-written 18 books, maintains a widely-read blog, and lectures around the world presenting his analysis of world trends. His work has attracted both admiration and criticism as a result of his view that Islamism is incompatible with democracy, freedom, multiculturalism, and other human rights values.” (emphasis mine).
My response, as an American host would be “I am on your side here, and I’m attempting to change our treatment of homosexuals through my actions and my votes”. If you think any potential American host would defend homophobia because it’s the current state of the law in most places here, and be justified in doing so, it’s no wonder you think all of Islam shares ideals with the fanatics. The “If you don’t like it, leave” mentality is the problem here, and it seems to be one you share.
I almost forgot. Check out this article featured in an Islamic site, written by a Muslim, entitled “How to Make America an Islamic Nation.” Enjoy!
How many times do we need to say it. Islam’s stated goal is the total world victory of Islam. You have only to look at the Koran to realize that. But then again, people had only to look at Mein Kampf to know what Hitler’s territorial ambitions were. But people like Churchill who pointed this out were seen as anti-German hate-mongers, bigots, and enemies of peace.
All the Americas were conquered by violence–although disease helped greatly. The Spanish practice involved converting the natives. Clergy sometimes worked hand in glove with secular authorities; at other times, they opposed the more inhumane practices. The Protestant conquerers preferred killing off the natives or sending them to less desirable land. The demographic makeup of the resulting countries demonstrates which philosophy of conquest was more “efficient.”
The Inquisition in the New World searched for Jews & “Crypto-Jews”. And for Heretics–also known as Protestants. Other crimes were punished. But it was not an instrument of conversion.
Summary of trial records by the Mexican Inquisition.
Let come out & say that I’m against the Inquisition–Spanish & otherwise. And I think the European Conquest of The New World was not very nice.
Here is a site that wants to make America a Christian nation. Round up the Christians!
It seems you agree with me on the facts. In the past, Catholicism spread widely through the use of violence. My point, if I can even remember now what it was in relation to, is that give a set of religions the ones with the more adaptive traits will prosper. What is adaptive changes over time, but forced conversions, proselytizing, tithing, and high birth rates through discouraging birth control or encouraging large families are some of the behaviors that have made some religions successful. This is one way to explain why some religions spread so widely while others have withered. LDS will soon outnumber Jews in the US because of differences in their views on proselytizing and family size.
Thanks for the link, fascinating reading. I did not realize how much Jews contributed to the early history of the Americas (including Columbus’ journey) and that they were one of the main targets of the Inquisition.
And here’s a site just brimming with people who think America would be better off if it were wholly atheistic! The bastards!
And yet you continue to post. . .
Valteron,
I’m sorry to say you are wasting your time. This site has many who would defend Islam if there was one peaceful adherent on the planet.
I was going to start a new thread about this article, but it seemed to fit nicely here. It is written by a Muslim doctor who used to be a terrorist. Here’s how it ends:
The only thing missing is the salutation to tomndebb and other SDMB defenders of the “religion of peace”.
I do not go where I am not wanted and do not fit in, it is true. As a gay person I would never live in Texas or set foot in Saudi Arabia. But if you can be a moderator on a site dedicated to fighting ignorance, I guess I can post on such a site
Besides, when I paid for my membership, I do not remember there being a condition that my postings had to meet with your approval. 
But the “you” in your claim is not a single group (except in the way that they have sought each other out for mutual support after the violence began).
The Palestinians come closest to supporting your thesis. While the people of Palestine, themselves, could have perceived Israel as a European invasion of their land, the situation got out of control because the surrounding Muslim neighbors of Israel turned it into a cause.
In the Philipines the “Muslims” who are fighting are the same people who have been fighting for a separate independence since the eviction of the Spanish over 100 years ago. Their reason? Persistent discrimination (including massive land grabs) by their persistently Catholic neighbors who controlled the government.
Those same conditions apply to Chechnya, (continuing an approximately 200 year old fight for independence after having been taken by Russia).
Eritrea has a mixed population of Orthodox and Catholic Christians and Muslims, but it is under attack by Orthodox Christian dominated Ethiopia that had a taste of “ownership” beginnng in the 1950s and has been trying to reclaim some of the lands (always historically part of Eritrea) that it had to relinquish when Eritrea finally won its 30+ year struggle for independence. Using Eritrea as a sign of “Islamic” aggression is a truly macabre distortion of reality.
Sudan looks more like what you want it to be, although, again, jihad has played no role in the conflict in which separate cultural groups are fighting for resources and religion is simply the marker that identifies them.
The conflicts in Nigeria, Cote d’Azure, and a few other Western African nations have also tended to be fights for land or wealth, using religion as an identity marker with no calls for jihad–and the conflicts were initiated by the Christian or animist factions on several occasions.
I find it interesting that regardless whether the conflict originated in aggression by Muslims or Christians, you have decided that it must be the Muslims at fault even when they are in a defensive war. Does that suggest anything to you?
As a former poster with Middle Eastern experience had noted on several occasions, Pipes is little more than an anti-Muslim bigot who cloaks his prejudices with a bit of handwaving and claims for scholarship. The scholarship is real–provided one draws its final limit somewhere back in the early nineteenth century. Pipes then used his knowledge of ancient Islam to get a voice criticizing current politics–frequently publishing borderline lies to make his point. His “counter terrorism analysis” is nothing more than his use by the neo-cons to rationalize their land grabs. He has no serious understanding of the current regional situations.
It has nothing to do with my approval and I do not suggest you leave. I only note that for someone who spends as much time as you whining about the conditions here, you still keep coming back to whine some more.
My God! You’ve actually admitted that there’s such a thing as a moderate Muslim! That’s real progress, magellan! Good for you!
Well, I have never paid any attention to the phrase “religion of peace” and would not use such a broad brush to describe any very large group. Making insupportable claims about entire peoples based on selective interpretations of cherry-picked evidence is the domain of posters such as you and Valteron. In fact, it is exactly my resistance to such inaccurate over-generalizations that tends to rile up those posters who have some need to describe everything in the most simplistic (and, hence, inaccurate) way.