Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee. The Golden Rule and other reciprocity sayings indicate that what we grant ourselves or some others should also be granted to everyone. This would include the right to critique religions and governments. Islam and it’s Muslim adherents are quite vocal in denigrating other religions and political system, yet say that others who denigrate Islam and Sharia should be penalized in various ways, --- even unto death. Where I come from, reciprocity is fair play and all players in a game play by the same rules. Islam ND Muslims wants to win the God wars by having different restrictive rules for their interlocutors. Should we respect and tolerate a religion that denies us the rights and play by the same rules that they enjoy? If yes, please tell me why we should respect such a religion. Regards DL
Do you have a relevant reference please? I'm happy to believe there are Muslims who want religious freedoms and I am happy to believe that there are Muslims who don't want others to have religious freedoms. I'm even happy to believe there are Muslims who believe both of these things (although a reference would be nice). However, I am less convinced that our respect and tolerance of [those who believe others should have religious freedoms] should depend on the beliefs of [those who believe others should not have religious freedoms]. In particular, I believe us failing to respect and tolerate [those who believe others should have religious freedoms] will if anything lead to them joining the group of [those who believe others should not have religious freedoms], which is the opposite of what we want.
That's so biblical it's the First Commandment. The Israelis go nuts whenever someone questions their fairy tale about the magic six million. But in the Babylonian Talmud they claim that the Romans killed four billion Jews in the city of Bethar (Gittin 57b). In Gittin 58a they claim that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive. It seems that they play fast and loose with numbers. All religions want others to cater to their fairy tales because it gives them special status. The thing is that not one of their favorite deities has ever shown up in all of its reported splendor to defend itself from critics. That's because they are all imaginary.
your happiness to believe doesn't necessarily mean you seek a realist view does it? freedom of religion in the US respects the right to practice said religion according to the religion, but what the OP is pointing out is if Islam is practiced according to its rules, then it can't coexist peacefully with any other system of belief because it specifically prohibits such. if there are Muslims that go the secular way, then as the OP pointed out they should be killed according to said religion of which these people will eventually insist on their right to practice. of which they have since they have been here, killing their own children because they dishonored their family or religion. thing is, if they want to do such in their own countries then there's nothing wrong with that because that is the law in their countries of origin. but the US and it's people are not required to tolerate or appease anything that is against it's own laws or way of life with in it's own boarders, (of which Islam intrinsically is) that is the accepted rules for any nation in the world understood by the world. but you go ahead and be happy believing what you want people to be like. the world isn't in your own image, no matter what you're happy to believe. and incase you are ignorant of the facts, Islam is spread by war, and its the duty of Muslims to spread Islam via war.
There are versions of Islam that advocate killings, and there are secular ones that do not. Killings of infidels (or similar things) should be dealt with as killings. This will give every muslim who kills people the appropriate response to killing people, while every muslims who does not kill people are not influenced. If we use our (in particular your) understanding of Islam, then we will treat one muslim based on the crimes of another. The view I present above treats every individual, well, individually. If it is true that Muslims have to make war or kill people, then exactly those muslims will face the repercussions. If, instead, some muslims are secular, do not kill people, do not advocate killing people, do not interpret the texts to say what you say they do (regardless of how accurate you think that is) then those muslims will not face the repercussions. Your idea risks punishing people for acts they have not done and don't intend to do. Mine does not. Your idea risks misinterpreting Islam. Mine does not. Your idea risks grouping people together who believe different things. Mine does not. Your idea rightfully goes after those who act badly. But then again, so does mine. If there are bad things that Islam brings, then those bad things should be illegal and any muslims who does it will face the repercussions. Any muslim who does not bring these bad things are fine. I think you'll find that murdering people for leaving Islam is already illegal in the US.
Because, excluding extremists groups that exist in all religions, the following is a lie. American Muslims: The Islamic Networks Group, Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, representing the majority of American Muslims, are all part of the Interfaith Alliance that embraces freedom of religion. For more information please go to their website. http://interfaithalliance.org/americanmuslimfaq/ We can also address Muslims from other countries and their support for freedom of religion. A good place to start is with the Palestinian Liberation Organizations Charter from 1964 that states: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=640&doc_id=8210 The statement that would best represent Muslims and their belief in religious freedom comes from the Quran where it states: To you be your religion, to me be mine. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/tolerance-of-prophet-towards-other-religions The sad truth in America is that religious intolerance and denial of freedom of religion is a trait of social conservative Christians based upon ignorance, bigotry and prejudice and is not a trait of Muslims in America or of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide.
Speaking of being ignorant of facts. Historically the "Right of Conquest" employed war as a means of expanding political power and control over territory and people. The religion of the conquering political power went along for the ride and was typically never the motive for the war. Starting with the Age of Enlightenment the "Right of Conquest" was slowly rejected and replaced with the "Right of Self-Determination" as the basis for establishment of government with the "Right of Conquest" being formally rejected in 1945 with the creation of the United Nations under Article II of the UN Charter. Few nations today believe in the Right of Conquest and the most glaring example of a nation that clings to that principle are the Zionists of Israel that rejects the "Right of Self-Determination" for the Palestinian Arabs as Zionist leaders of Israel seek to use military force to systematically cleanse the Palestinian territory of the resident Muslim Arab population. The misrepresentation that the expansion of Islam was based upon religious beliefs advocating war is a bigoted belief, not supported by those with an understanding of political power historically, used to fuel anti-Muslim prejudice and hatred by right-wing social conservative Christians. These same right-wing social conservative Christians fail to even address 19th Century American history where by force of arms the westward expansion of the Unite States based upon a doctrine "manifest destiny" replaced the political control of the Native-Americans over the territories conquered also spread Christianity. So was the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th Century a case of spreading Christianity by war or was it a case of spreading political power by war where the religion simply went along for the ride? If the statement "Islam is spread by war" is assumed to be true then the statement "Christianity is spread by war" is equally true.
That may be true, but you lack the understanding that muhamad conquered lands killed people and raped.. Jesus never done that, my example is Jesus ... If I follow muhamad I would chop heads, kill and chop hands of someone who may stole an apple....anyway... Muhamad is a puppet of the devil Jesus is light.. Muhamad can never be a messenger of Light ...he is the servant of the dark lord... thats it...
