Short answer is the US will not diliver. A more interesting question is when will the middle East deliver some basic human rights for it's own people.

You could..COULD have said all you said withOUT this bald faced lie...

//the glorious history of Muslim civilisation//

Was that the little subliminal hook designed to implant a seed thought and draw people to the possibilties of Islam?

If you want to have your ears tingle.. just give me 5 minutes speaking about that 'glorious' history.

U must of course mean when Muhammad systematically beheaded 900 surrendered Jewish prisoners from the Banu Qurayza Tribe ? Yep.. lots of glory and civilization there... or when he married a 6 yr old child.. and consummated it when she was 9 (and he 53)-what did I miss?

If Obama made 'promises' to the Muslim world.. he is welcome to keep them with HIS money and HIS shame..but he does not represent the American people.. who elected him more as a reaction to Bush than an embracing of what he stands for.

70% of the Americans reject his socialist health care plan. I dare say 90% reject his overtures to the Muslim world.

There seem to be two kinds of religious people, Boaz.

Those who demonstrate their faith by exhibiting kindness, tolerance, and an overwhelming wish for peace on earth.

Then there are those who spend every waking moment fermenting the fear and loathing that will guarantee a "fight-to-the-death" conflict, where only one is left standing.

In which camp do you see yourself?

>>U must of course mean when Muhammad systematically beheaded 900 surrendered Jewish prisoners from the Banu Qurayza Tribe ? Yep.. lots of glory and civilization there... or when he married a 6 yr old child.. and consummated it when she was 9 (and he 53)-what did I miss?<<

What, indeed.

http://www.historynet.com/first-crusade-siege-of-jerusalem.htm

"The Crusaders spent at least that night and the next day killing Muslims, including all of those in the al-Aqsa Mosque, where Tancred's banner should have protected them. Not even women and children were spared. The city's Jews sought refuge in their synagogue, only to be burned alive within it by the Crusaders. Raymond of Aquilers reported that he saw piles of heads, hands and feet on a walk through the holy city. Men trotted across the bodies and body fragments as if they were a carpet for their convenience. The Europeans also destroyed the monuments to Orthodox Christian saints and the tomb of Abraham."

Motes and beams, Boaz. Motes and beams.

Did you actually read Obama's Cairo speech, by the way? Here it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?_r=1

"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."

Amen to that.

While you continue to define yourself by your hatred for religions that are not your own, Boaz, you will always be part of the problem.

And as a result, never part of the solution.

Dear_Pericles

You know what you did, and you should by this time know why I raised that particular_incident from Muhammad's life.

You did a cherry pick of human history which suited your purpose... but you did not pick an incident from JESUS life..and that is the key.

I chose an example of action done by the FOUNDER of Islam, and considering mankind is urged

Quran 33:21 Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

You don't have to spin the text at all to understand that "What Muhammad did... is the example-for Muslims"

We've had this discussion many times.. and I always enjoy an opportunity to emphasise that Jesus didn't lift a finger against his enemies or urge his disciples to do so.... the notable exeption was the cleansing of the temple, which to be technical, needs to understood in terms of fulfilment of prophecy as per Luke 24:

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Do you see it ?

Example. Psalm 22 "My God..my God..why have you forsaken me"

Mark 15

34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Do you now understand why Jesus did/said much of what he did?

Here is the Temple cleansing example. Mat 21

Action:
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

Interpretation:
13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

This is based on Isaiah 56:7

7 for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.

I am fully aware of the length, breadth, depth and quality of your exegetical contortions, Boaz.

You should be aware by now that your attempts to divert attention from the acts performed in the name of your religion have never been at all convincing.

The more so, because you refuse to accept that the basis of your waving away of all the nasty bits is itself a highly suspect - even flawed - document.

You excerpt this, for example.

"He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." "

If you were to remove the "about me" from this sentence, you leave yourself exposed to all the nastiness that the Old Testament is famous for. You know, all those lovely punishments in Leviticus.

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0320.htm

But since it is there, you are able to claim that it means "ignore all the nasty stuff, just concentrate on the bits that talk about me".

Why should we be required to honour this as an exception?

In your terms, of course, it is simple. It doesn't mean what you want it to mean, so your faith requires you to ignore the contradiction. The old circular argument - you believe because you have faith, you have faith because you believe.

But to the objective viewer, you are simply being - once again - highly selective in your interpretation.

>>You don't have to spin the text at all to understand that "What Muhammad did... is the example-for Muslims"<<

Nor do you need to spin "Everything must be fulfilled that is written... in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms", to find a strongly parallel example for all Christians.

And it's not that pretty, is it?

“real progress has been slow”
You can say that again.
Nothing to show after 1400 years.

“Congress must back the Obama science initiative with serious money”
Otherwise known as jizya.

Good ol Pericles :)

You nailed it, then you jumped into denial.

"about me"...noted.. and that should have been the end of it, but no....

You then refer to the 'nasty bits' of the Old Testament, suggesting that I'm saying we can ignore those ?

On the contrary, we cannot ignore them, but rather embrace them for exactly what they are.

-Reports of historical incidents
-Accounts of the judgement of God on specific peoples.

But what is NOT found there is any generalized or even generalizable 'command' to get out their and crack heads for the sake of extending God's kingdom.

It's not in the old Testament and it's sure isn't in the New.

So....I rest quite comfortably in my affirmation that the incidents for which the 'Church/Christianity' is usually blamed (Inquisition, Crusades/various protestant-catholic conflicts) have nothing to do with sound Biblical interpretation and everything to do with the human condition against which it speaks.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23

So lets have a look at "exactly what they are", shall we Boaz?

>>You then refer to the 'nasty bits' of the Old Testament, suggesting that I'm saying we can ignore those? On the contrary, we cannot ignore them, but rather embrace them for exactly what they are... Accounts of the judgement of God on specific peoples.<<

And these judgments are:

(1) Idolatry (specifically, Molech): death
(2) Spiritualism: exile
(3) Being a spiritualist: death
(4) Cursing your parents: death
(5) Adultery: death
(6) Incest: death
(7) Bestiality: death
(8) Homosexuality: death

...and so on. That's a whole lot of embracing, right there.

Some of them of course make absolute sense. I'm pretty sure he had John Edwards in mind when he decreed (3). I'm less sure about killing the animal in (7), unless they were strict vegetarians back then.

And I have to say, that it is all very well for you to try to load the blame back on the individual Crusaders all these years later. But there is absolutely not a skerrick of doubt that, at the time, they very firmly believed that they were "doing God's bidding"

Much like Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

According to Jacques Chirac, Bush told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277411

Now, to you M. Chirac may be a discredited cheese-eating surrender-monkey. But it all sounds essentially plausible to me.

It must be a source of great comfort to you, Boaz, to be able to sit back and pronounce your verdict on all these people, the way you do.

>>I rest quite comfortably in my affirmation that the incidents for which the 'Church/Christianity' is usually blamed (Inquisition, Crusades/various protestant-catholic conflicts) have nothing to do with sound Biblical interpretation<<

You don't actually accept responsibility for anything, do you?

You just sit in judgment over everyone else.

Tacky.