Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

You can find countless references to this. Here's one:"Instead, the Crusades were a direct and belated response to centuries of Muslim conquests of Christian lands. The immediate event that sparked the First Crusade was the Turkish conquest of all of Asia Minor in the 1070s through 1090s."
Your Catholic Voice - Dating Advice For Catholics Looking For Love

What the Nazis were with respect to Christianity is another debate, and not my point. Rather, it is that were Christians to allow their congregations and organizations to be taken over by those who want to bring our western liberal democratic civilization down, and substitute it with a fascist authoritarian theocracy of some kind, you'd object. Yet, although that is exactly what is happening in Muslim NA, you turn a blind eye and otherwise argue that it's no big deal.

The line taken by some about "context" is PC denial. It is absolutely clear what they mean...just what the Islamists recognize them to mean.

Sure, lots of assertions, little evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

What the Nazis were with respect to Christianity is another debate, and not my point.

---

No, it's hard to determine what your point is, since you are all over the map. The question is whether one should simply judge a person as a dangerous fanatic just because they are a Muslim.So far, you have mentioned some vague conversations, linked to an organization that has a definite political agenda, and smeared organizations who have an opinion different than yours.Oh, and special pleading -- somehow pointing out fanatic Muslims is somehow evidence that the majority of Muslims cannot be trusted, but fanatic Christians pose no such problem for Christians in general.

quote:

---

Getting way OT but you are still asserting absurdities. The Nazis were NOT anti-Christian.

---

They were anti-Christian. They felt that Christianity interfered with their hold on the public. The Nazis went so far as to try to create a pseudo-Christianity of their own, full of occult and aryan crap. They also created a Reich Bishop in 1934 to exert control over the Protestants. They ordered the closing of seminaries and religious schools starting in 1938. I know it's OT, but the record's clear.

We're changing subjects. First, again, the Crusades were about Islamci aggression, not Christian.The new subject is about faith and histoty. No question, there has been much unconscionable Christian aggression. But it was antithetical to the faith. In contrast, islamic aggression is consistent with the Koran.The hope is this: The Islamic world will be tamed by democracy as was the Christian world. But it is not coincidental that democracy arose in the Christian world. The faith is not intrinsically anti-Democratic, unlike Islam. Christains could ebcome democrats and still be true to the faith. Muslims will have to practise collective denial as to particular aspects of their faith in orer to be democrats. Let's hope they can do it. But the risk will remain that Islamist pockets will remain and arise over and over into the future, believing in the Koran as written, and that, therefore, Allah wants them to destroy democracy.

Then why did you bring it up? Yup. That's why I fear and oppose Christian Fundamentalists. I don't want them creating a Fascist State.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, I got confused, especially with CanadianSteve posting each separate paragraph in its own post.I thought that you were implying that the Muslim Conquest was an excuse for distrusting all Muslims here today. I see that you were not making such an implication. I apologize.

Not that clear and I'll be happy to try to support that position if you'll start a thread on it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, 'Christian Fundamentalist' is one of those terms that really only means 'people I disagree with'. What religious denominations are CF, or is it more nebulous than that?

frankly, it is you who is all over the place.In no way am i saying you cannot trust particular Muslims on a personal level. Obviously, Muslims are like us, a huge collection of individuals, some saintly, some psychopaths, adn everything in between. My point is that, as a people, they have an identity apart from our own. We identitfy with being western liberal democrats. They do not. That is why they have allowed passionate enemies of democracy and western civilization to take over their institutions.I might add this: I have no doubt that immigranmts from everywhere assimilate ober a generation or two, becoming profound liberal demcrats...except for muslims. Of course, i know many, many Muslims do assimilate into democracy. But i also know that far too many, because of the very tenets of their faith, believe that it is their mission to Islamicize us, even if that means democracy falls.

Isn't it odd that you fear Christian evangelicals, who are demonstrably democrats (like Bush and Rice), but you think I'm way out there when expressing concern that the majority of islamic organizations have been taken over by enemies of democracy, with the aquiescence of the Muslim majority?

I've belonged to the forum for about 12 hours and don't know how to start new threads not the netiquette. I'm listed as a 'junior member' and am unsure if that means I'm restricted in some way or if I have to sit at the kiddie's table for Thanksgiving. :-)

Great question.I would define Christian Fundamentalists as anyone who rejects critical thinking and substitutes a blind adherance to dogma in their actions. If someone truly believes in the Biblical Creation Myths as fact, that the Flood happened, supports oppression and oppressive legislation on Biblical grounds then I would clasify them as Fundamentalists and feel there is a valid question of whether or not they were capable of the critical judgement needed to be in positions of power.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion