Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[kandrathe]

First, just a friendly request. Please use a few line breaks in your posts. They read fine on the board, but when I go to answer, they become a continuous unit, with quote tags in-line. On a big post like this one, it takes me about five minutes just to go through it and break apart the quotes just to keep track of the flow. Your choice, of course, but I would appreciate it

No trouble. It would be easier for me too. I actually have to go to extra pains to remove all the blank lines (for compactness), and when I edit it is hugely hard to figure out the breaks for me too.

And the anti-Muslim attitude is based on condemning the group for the minds of some.

Some of the anti-Muslim attitude... One can be against an ostentatious Islamic (victory) shrine being built at GZ, and not be against Islam, or Muslims. My point is that even many Muslims are against the "mischief" of being insensitive.

Every religious leader is subversive, if by subversive you mean desiring all to believe as he does. The conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong is the basis for being a religious leader. Some are more tolerant than others.

By subversive, I mean deceptive. He seems to say one thing in English, and quite another thing in Arabic.

It is religion. It may be an ignorant religion, but it is not the ignorance that causes them to believe in witchcraft, it is their ignorant world view of how the universe works that causes the belief. And that belief is their religion.

We won't get anywhere on this one. Every day after my morning coffee I take a dump religiously. Some people are religiously ignorant, but it is the ignorance which engenders their fear. The news articles concerning these witch hunters doesn't clarify how they justify their ignorance. But, you and I know it is their ignorance whether it be based on their tribal shamanism, Islam, or Christianity, which has caused them to organize a mob to roast accused witches and sorcerers.

I see. A Mosque is OK, a Shrine is not. And you get to decide which is which?

Look, again, it is not against any law, and the local planning commission has given them the go ahead. Nothing stands in their way, except for the majority of public opinion that building an Islamic mega-center (Mosque, Shrine, Community Center, Flag of Victory) is extremely insensitive to the community. I happen to be on the side of saying that, if most of the people of the community are against it, then they should be sensitive to the community. That is bridge building. Otherwise, it would tend to be seen as giving the community the middle finger. Most planning commissions generally will not oppose anything which may result in an extensive lawsuit. Even in my community, when a developer comes forward with a plan, there needs to be concrete grounds for opposing a development. Otherwise, after a few million dollars down the drain, they will get an judgment against the municipality and proceed anyway. That's property rights. Those with the deep pockets, get property rights.

Where I grew up, in the middle of nowhere, one of my gung-ho, former marine, gun nut neighbors (nickname Sarge) bought up about 250 acres of wood land to turn into an extensive paint ball commando range. At first, organized by some anti-gun people, the community rose up against it. But, he and some more eloquent spokesmen had a number of public meetings where everyone who had issues with it came forward and we all discussed it. He was granted a provisional land use permit by the township, which to me, gave him community permission to do what he already had the right to do.

I do not know anything of that group, their affiliations, their religious beliefs. I do know that Islam is fragmented into many mutually antagonistic groups. Without a hell of a lot more information, which I just will not bother to get, I cannot tell if that letter is on the level or the equivalent of the JW giving public advice to the Catholics.

Here's their Wiki bios, so judge for youself;

Raheel Raza Wikipedia

Tarek Fatah Wikipedia

They seem more like Islamic versions of Jester. And, no insult meant by that, just that they are liberal, and somewhat progressive. Which leads me to another thought... Since when have liberals, and progressives been supportive of promoting religion? How would they react if the FLDS, Moonies, or the JW's wanted to build a $130 million dollar mega-plex in the heart of Manhattan, and their religious leader was on the FBI's payroll and sent by the State Department on good will liaison missions around the globe?

I’m for that. However, I don’t see why the Muslims should pay for places of worship for other religions. But if all are willing to do this, then that indeed would be a bridge.

I agree. And, I'm sure if they asked for, or were open to an outreach like that, it would be met in good faith.

Then they are deceived often and easily.

They are. Even the most noble of them all, WWII, and the infamous "remember Pearl Harbor". We pretty much drove the Japanese to war in WWII by forcing the British to end trade relations with them. The Gulf of Tonkin deception. "Bully" Teddy Fraggin Roosevelt charging up Kettle Hill, and remember the Maine (deception).

I’ve never had an Islamic missionary knock on my door. I’ve had quite a few Christian ones of one stripe or another. I’m sure that I’ll be able to resist the sales pitch of the one with my experience of the other.

We haven't faced the level of Islamification that the Europeans have. But, look to Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Malmo, etc, etc, for the impact of the Islamic Revival when a tipping point occurs. Even in our secular societies, an underground 2nd tier of Islamic authority can through fear and intimidation subjugate the non-Islamic population into Dhimmitude. Full legal sanction of Sharia would follow tacit complicity. Maybe it can't happen here. But, I bet they thought that way in London, and in Marseilles in the past as well.

So, the Bible should be our guide. But only the parts we like?

There are many views on the inerrancy, infallibility, and interpretation. Most view it as a sacred text that inspires divine enlightenment, but one that needs each text to be viewed in context of the period, culture, and body of knowledge existent at the time of its writing. Personally... I need all that, and an understanding in as close to the original language as is possible (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc). Much of it gets distorted and lost in translation, and further taken out of context to the point of ridiculousness. For Christians, the Old Testament is mostly added for reference, to support the context of the New Testament. Christians acknowledge the "covenant" that God had with Israel, but substitute it for the new "covenant" brought to mankind by Christ. Even the ten commandments, not to mention all the old blood sacrifice mumbo jumbo, and old laws from Deuteronomy were replaced by Christs teaching. Paul's letters to the Galations, and the Romans clarify that we are justified by faith, and not by strict adherence to the law. In the simplest form, to express your love of God, you will weigh and attempt to choose "Good", but in that we are imperfect, forgiveness exists for those who are contrite. Christ's rebellion against ascetic Judaism was to reject passionless legalism for heartfelt love, of God, and each other. So, the shorter answer is; The Bible is only a tool for teaching, but was meant to be used by those schooled in its use. Grabbing many guides can be similarly misused and misread by laymen who don't understand its context how to apply it.

By ‘modern’ do you mean ‘those with a modern outlook’ or ‘those who are our contemporaries’? Because there are many people alive right now who are fundamentalist in their religion and obey Deuteronomy to a large extent.

Those with a "modern outlook". But, you are correct. There are some who refuse to accept reality, or obvious truths. They have to invent ludicrousness to fit reality into their worldview (e.g. God planted dinosaur bones to confuse us, 99 hot chicks await you in heaven).

Or perhaps just aren’t newsworthy? This says it better than I can.

Perhaps not newsworthy, or unwilling to stand up as a target for murder by fanatics. We need a strong voice denouncing the fundamentalist revival of Al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sufi influences or not, Imam Feisal Rauf also supports the views of the more radical fundamentalists (more). Perhaps he also is building bridges within the waring factions of Islam. When he's talking their language, it makes me nervous.