Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

These are from Message 211Buz claims:

quote:

---

Q2.193: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and lreligion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

---

In reality we find: And as to Isreal, read The Children of Israel

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

it's more likely that it was due to the limited population of catholics and the limited political agency among them once the population grew. do share.

But we did have a Catholic in the White House. For almost three years. There were no "bloody inquisitions" during that time. This seems to counter the notion that one can predict the policies of a particular president based on a simplistic (and incorrect) understanding of that individuals religion.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

quote:

---

Imo, the risk the US might take electing a gifted and intelligent son of a foreign Muslim and taught three years during the impressionable years of childhood in a Wahhabe school is risky.

---

Why?What about anything he has ever said or done seems to pose a risk?

quote:

---

The Islamist bible, the Koran written by the Islamist prophet, Mohammed charges all Muslims to subjugate the planet under Allah/Islam. This is alarming to me in light of the statement of Obama relative to a kingdom on earth. Was Obama's statement a sublimal message to the leaders of Islam, perhaps some who may be conspiring to plant a Muslim conspiritor in the higest position possible in the American government? I don't know, but the risk here????

---

So, does this mean that you think that no Muslim can ever be trusted?

quote:

---

Like before Pearl Harbor, we ignore the threat.

---

So...Never trust a Muslim, because they are all evil?Is that what you are saying?

quote:

---

As to the religion of Vatican City, via the popes and bishops during the bloody inquisitions of the Dark Ages, they had no justification from the NT to do the violence. Thus their actions were not Christian.

---

So, what about the nutso Martin Luther and his hate-filled rhetoric and calls to violence and bigotry?Is the Father of Protestantism not to be considered to have acted in a Christian way, either?

Heh. You know the answer to this one, nator. Every Christian is a true Scotsman. Or something like that.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Sure, and we can play devil's advocate and consider the possibility that Obama ingested a radioactive substance and became a mutant bent on using the resources of the United States to destroy all humanity.It's one thing to play devil's advocate in a bar room discussion while drunk off your ass; it's a different matter to bring up silliness and claim it's a serious political discussion.- People attend religious schools all the time without being adherents to that religion; people can formally belong to a religion while having only a lukewarm commitment to it; and, finally, not once have I ever seen you demonstrate that you have any understanding at all of Islam or Muslims.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibi

It's sort of a nitpicky thing, but I want to give buz some support (if to better show him the right direction).I think he has demonstrated an understanding of some very specific interpretations of Islam, belonging to a section of muslims, particularly some of the nut jobs engaged in terrorism. He has accurately quoted what some of them have said, and that they said all "real" muslims should believe.I think his error is believing the nut jobs, and so thinking he can speak for ALL Islam or Muslims. If he can get that distinction down, I think 90% of his errors will go away.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Embolding mine.Thanks for your concern, SH, but the embolded ones engaged in terrorism and the "some of them" needs clarification. My quotes were directly from the Koran written by Mohammed the originator of the religion and the one who practiced what he preached in the violent verses I quoted. So it's not, them or the some of, it's he/him, the prophet of the god Allah. As per the verses I quoted the most devout and good Muslims are the ones who advocate and practice what Mohammed's god Allah inspired him to write and practice. Thus my concern regarding the presidency relative to the risk factor.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So, does this mean that you think that no Muslim can ever be trusted?

Good question.Hitler, the originator of Nazism advocated the extermination of classified segments of the citizenry. According to the Koran, so does it's author, Mohammed, originator of Islam who by violence forced over 200 religions out of Mecca to allow only his Allah god religion. Millions of Muslims including some whole nations espousing Islam today agree with extermination and are willing to offer their lives in the killing of innocent men, women and children to effect it.Regarding the office of the presidency which is the topic issue, I'll answer your question by asking one. In view of the above, could a Nazi be trusted in the White House? After all, most Nazis in Germany before the war were nonviolent good citizens who would have been harmless and nonviolent.By the same token and so as to be fair and balanced with Islam, the reason a Roman Catholic was not in the White House for nearly 2 centuries in America was for the same reason, a history including violence and religious persecution by Vatican hierarchy, including extermination against segments of the citizenry.Again, my point is the risk factor, especially pertaining to a candidate who has had a comfortable measure of anninimity due to the focus on Hillary by people like Rush and other media as well as citizens in general. I'm not advocating hatred against anybody or arguing that Obama is indeed a Muslim. I'm saying that most likely he once was. I'm raising questions and advocating caution as per his kingdom statement etc. Edited by Buzsaw, : To remove a word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

And we did have a Catholic in office. During the part of his term that he served, he neither presided over nor tried to implement religious persecution or extermination of segments of the citizenry, and the main violence for which he was responsible, namely the war in Vietnam, was one that was supported and eventually escalated by non-Catholics, and it was especially supported by conservative evangelical Protestant Christians.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added the last clause.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Why don't you answer it then? All you have provided above is obfuscation.

---

Mutate and Survive

So...does this mean that you think that no Muslim can ever be trusted?