The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Does Obama know better than Adams, Jefferson and Churchill or were they Islamophobes?

Does Obama know better than Adams, Jefferson and Churchill or were they Islamophobes?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
So, we have a hate-bait post by KMB, the Clayton's evangelical, endorsed by GrahamY, Christian convert. Yet there is no criticism of Islam in the quotes provided that does not apply equally to Christianity.

"[B]y degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy, and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.” All encouraged by the Bible, and practiced by Christians throughout history.

"[E]very woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine". How unChristian! But then: www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/ddinchristianmarriage.html

The lesson of history is that Christianity is just a version of Islam that got castrated by the Renaissance. And thank God for that.

The simple answer is yes, Obama does know better than Adams, Jefferson and Churchill. Unlike them, he has the advantages of a modern education in a global age, and of living in a secular society which allows him to form his own opinions without religious compulsion.

Do you truly believe, Graham, that refusing to rise to KMB's tired "Obama is a secret Muslim!" nonsense constitutes trolling? If so, we need a whole new definition of the word.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 24 April 2009 12:08:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Y
Answering the headline Question to me is begging a Historical and/or Contextual argument.
I am or should be known for my drum beating on 'context'. All the latter politicians named by *today's* standard would appear to some degree racist but in *their* time perhaps not. Except perhaps Churchill while in a bygone context to me he clearly believed that God WAS an Englishman and all else were secondary.
I would contend that even if they were Islamophobes what earthly (pragmatic)value is that to us today other than in a nebulous academic sense i.e. 'comparison of dogmas'.

This in turn implies that there is some worthwhile value in such discourse. A concept which I generally reject because on matters like politics and religion they often degenerate to gain saying and insults.
I view trolling as one line highly prococatively/negative response without any explanation or substance for a rebuttle.i.e. "Only an idiot would believe this" or "more of Kevin/Malcolm's crap".

IS this question trolling? Not in my opinion but neither is it a useful one.
I saw it at yet another badly thought through attempt to an entre to a rave on religion from the highly personal/emotional perspective rather than an objective debate.

Given my opening criteria I believe my comment was neutral in that I did express my reasons i.e. Context.

On my definition the latter part could perhaps be viewed as trolling but in reality was a friendly jibe to CJ. Whose rationality I respect.
The problem I have is that explanations like this are often misinterpreted as being arrogance

In hind sight perhaps I shouldn't have responded at all.
Notwithstanding I apologise for any discomfort I may have caused. This is rarely my intention.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 24 April 2009 9:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Obama went on to explain just how Islam shaped the US of A. I'd suggest only in a refexive, negative way. No to paying tribute, no to slavery, no to the subjugation of women. Yes to apostasy, yes to freedom of belief and disbelief. Yes to individual choice, no to "submission".

'Deep appreciation' my butt. Naysayers, name one Islamic nation that has contributed one zillionth to the wonderful world of technology, of freedom, or freedom to dissent in the last 233 years.

Well said GrahanY
Posted by palimpsest, Friday, 24 April 2009 11:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear palimpsest,

Perhaps the following website may clear
up a few things for you:

http://www.islamic-study.org/setting_the_record_straight.htm

or:

Alternatively you could google:

"Islam's Influence On The World."

It's always good to get a historical perspective
on things.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 25 April 2009 12:22:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
I know it must be hard to see clearly when you have pixy stardust in your eyes but the site you link to is pure fabrication.
You'd probably be interested in another fantasy site which outlines 1001 Islamic inventions:
http://www.1001inventions.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewSection&intSectionID=309
If Islam leads to inventiveness why have there only been 3 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry and Literature and 5 winners in (don't laugh, it's rude) Peace from the billion plus eligible Muslims?
http://www.islamichistorymonth.com/education/nobel.php
Must be the Zionists on the selection panel.
(In fact Jews outperform Muslims by a factor of more than 2000:1 on a per capita basis in respect of Nobel Prize Winners. Interestingly there appear to be no Jewish Peace prize winners (I am not a Jew))
Muslims are no less intelligent than non-Muslims of course (and no more peaceful than Jews) but Islam seriously discourages freedom of inquiry and this could reasonably be hypothesised as a causal factor behind the above discrepancy.
For a more realistic assessment of the impact of Islam on the world I refer you to:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Scroll down to the List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Last 2 Months and then let me know what you think of Mohammed's contribution to enlightenment, civilisation, inventiveness and world peace.
Posted by KMB, Saturday, 25 April 2009 10:42:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear KMB,

"Pixy stardust in my eyes?"

Thank you for the compliment.

"For a book by itself is nothing -
a film shown in an empty cinema:
one can only assess its value by
the light it brings to a child's eye."
Elaine Moss.

Having pixie stardust in my eyes is better
than having hatred -isn't it?

Tor Hundloe points out in his book, "From Buddha
to Bono,":

"Today we might have very serious concerns with the
fundamentalist fringe of Islam - but we should never
forget the role of the Muslim scholars of 1000 or
so years ago. These people discovered (just as some of
their Christian counterparts did) that scholarship
was possible in an ostensibly religious environment..."

The point that I was making was -
when assessing what's currently happening in the world -
we should look at the entire picture, not just a part of it.
As others have pointed out to you - it is a question
of context.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 25 April 2009 12:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy