Town Talk Publishes Letter Claiming Islam is a Threat to America
Yesterday, the Town Talk published an opinion piece written by Donald Fuhrmann, Sr opining on the “threat” of Islam to the freedoms we all share as Americans. The senior Fuhrmann’s letter was written in response to an opinion piece published and authored by Cynthia Jardon, editor of the editorials for the Town Talk, concerning America’s multiculturalism.
Ms. Jardon’s column was actually written in response to another story: that Representative Keith Ellison would be using the Koran in his swearing-in ceremony. Although I accept Ms. Jardon’s thesis that America should embrace her future as a multicultural and inclusive society, unfortunately, the story about Representative Ellison is a hoax that was created and perpetuated by conservative talk show radio host Dennis Prager. As previously reported, the Bible is not used during the House of Representatives swearing-in ceremony, and therefore, this story, however captivating, is not accurate. (By the way, the Town Talk published yet another article about this fake story today, an op-ed piece written by Jack Daniels, not the one of whiskey fame).
Perhaps most interesting is the way mainstream media has run with this story in its op-ed sections, without any editorial oversight or fact-checking. See, the truth is that Ellison will be carrying the Koran; he won’t be including it in the official swearing-in ceremony. The Christian Science Monitor may clear it up a little bit. Jane Lampman writes:
In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible. One senator is known to have carried an expanded Bible that included the Book of Mormon.
The Constitution says: “The senators and representatives … shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Some confusion may come from the long-standing tradition of presidents taking the oath with a hand on the Bible. But this is a choice and matter of custom, as is the phrase, “so help me God.” President John Quincy Adams took the oath on a law book including the Constitution. President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t use a book.
“The United States is not a Christian state or even a generically religious state,” says Derek Davis, a church-state expert at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton, Texas. “We’ve worked hard for 200 years plus to uphold a principle of religious freedom for all citizens.”
Somehow, though, despite the facts, radio talk shows, conservative bloggers, and the editorial sections of newspapers throughout the country have been using this fake story as a means for engaging in a discussion about Islam’s role in American society. Perhaps this fake story speaks to a collective fear about the extent of “multiculturalism,” and perhaps the senior Fuhrmann believed that this fake story represented a fake threat of Islam impeding on a fake tradition.
Either way, Fuhrmann Senior is wrong and so is the Town Talk, though Fuhrmann’s opinions are much more reactionary and misguided.
Mr. Fuhrmann writes, in entirety:
I feel compelled to respond to Cynthia Jardon’s Dec. 10 column in The Town Talk regarding her definition of “Our greatness lies here: with liberty, justice for all.” Her apparent understanding of Islam is no better than her understanding of the Judeo-Christian history of the United States of America.
Americans have fought and died for our liberty and justice for all which Islam opposes with their teaching and practices. Islam opposes religious freedom and only recognizes the teachings and writings of Allah. If you want proof of this truth, you only have to look at the nations where Muslims control the government. Where is the religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and other nations under Shiriah Law? Would Ms. Jardon be allowed to walk around in Saudi Arabia in Western garb and writing editorials criticizing Islam? I think not! The Nazis also, like the Muslims, wanted world domination and the citizens of the United States would never have stood for an elected American official taking his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States while placing his hand on “Mein Kampf.”
World Islam does not plan to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. They want Shiriah Law to rule America. Islam must be understood that it is not just one of the many religions of the people of America. A Muslim can be assured of paradise after death only if he dies in a war, Jihad, with infidels. Infidels are all non-Muslims, such as Christians and Jews. Ms. Jardon seems to believe by her words that, “The Koran and the Muslim religion are not things to fear.” If she would just spend a little more time studying the history, beliefs and goals of Islam, she would then understand that we are not facing just a mere religious affiliation but a religion, a way of life and a way of governing.
It is not just a matter of respecting the rights of Muslims with whom we disagree but recognizing the threat of a religion bent on world domination, including the United States of America. Our test is one of protecting our way of life from an evil empire determined to eradicate Judaism and Christianity.
Mr. Fuhrmann’s opinion represents the extreme radical right, and I find it to be xenophobic, ignorant, and intolerant. As a side note to this, I have a degree in Religious Studies and an extensive academic knowledge of the Islamic faith, and therefore, I feel confident, speaking on behalf of a body of knowledge, that Mr. Fuhrman’s understanding of the “history, beliefs, and goals of Islam” is completely misinformed. Mr. Fuhrmann expresses his ignorance in each and every sentence. I can only imagine what a Muslim family must have thought when, yesterday, they read in bold in their local paper (or on the Town Talk’s internet site, of which his letter was a featured editorial) that their faith represents the extension of an evil empire.
Unfortunately, Mr. Fuhrmann confuses religious belief with political freedom, while, at the same time, he asserts that the world is locked into some type of religious war. I understand that there are many people who prefer to conflate religion with politics; it’s a convenient habit.
I suppose, however, we should hold the Town Talk most accountable.
Earlier this week, it was noted that the Town Talk has allowed a handful of habitual, reactionary writers to become “de-facto” columnists. They frequently fail to check their facts. They frequently express racist and bigoted opinions.
One has to wonder about the prerogatives of the Town Talk’s editorial staff. Why do they continue to publish the opinions of a small handful of misinformed and bigoted individuals? Does this sell newspapers? Should the Town Talk press for more letters from a more representative cross-section of our community? Is there an agenda at work here?
What’s going on?
CenLamar 
Bravo, Lamar. This needs to be said and you said it well. Have you considered sending it (or a shortened version) to the TT? The Saturday religion page, as guest columnist, would be an alternative place to aim for if the op-ed letters don’t publish you.
Jr.
Once again you expose your complete and total ignorance in trying to profess how much you know. Your 20-something years of experience has taught you little about life, and I have to wonder if you actually attended class while obtaining your “religious studies” degree.
And I quote… “Unfortunately, Mr. Fuhrmann confuses religious belief with political freedom, while, at the same time, he asserts that the world is locked into some type of religious war. I understand that there are many people who prefer to conflate religion with politics; it’s a convenient habit.”
Explain to me in your vast all-knowing, religious world view why the black boxes on the 9/11 planes recorded the terrorists yelling “Allah Akbar” as they slammed into their targets? What political freedom purpose did that serve? And how did attacking major American symbols advance their political agenda? I agree that religion and politics have been linked throughout history. But of course you choose not to agree, therefore, the Crusades, Masada, French Wars of Religion, N. Ireland bombings, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Sudan are all just myths.
You are very naive not to understand that there is an element that truly believes in God, (whether you do or not is useless in this debate) and they want those that are non-believers to convert or die. So while your explaining to me how 9/11 was political, not religious, in nature, also explain to me why the FoxNews crew was videoed converting to Islam to have their lives spared.
Jr., go to http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm and notice how often the “Muslim” is listed as a participant in a current conflict or war. There does seem to be a trend don’t you think? Just as the Christian faith was taught to spread the Gospel of Christ, there is a call for Muslims to convert the masses, because their soul depends on it. So your “political” argument holds little water to those that forsake life on Earth for a better life in ETERNITY!
Democracy and capitalism just ain’t gonna compete with that.
well, as enlightening as that last comment was…..
Lamar, I know you were skeptical of it when it first came out, but I’d direct you and your readers to check out the TT’s webforum services. On this topic specifically as well as on a few others pertaining to the Opinions page, we’ve had some decent responders chime in, producing some pretty detailed discussions on why the racial and religious intolerance routes are not the way to go. Enjoy.
Jr,
being sworn in using a bible is a tradition. No, it is not required but is still done by an overwhelming majority of elected officials being sworn in. You site the exception and not the rule to prove a point. And by the way, i am sure the nation of islam would be thrilled that a white Methodist has chosen to speak on thier behalf. Also, was that class on the muslim religion taught by a muslim. Open your eyes Jr, the world has been involved in religous wars since the beginning of time. To not acknowledge that is either extremely naive or plain dumb. I dont think you are dumb.
Lamar, your posting is an excellent discussion of our law and tradition and culture. This evangelical christian intolerance is the precise reason that our forefathers included the protections of the first amendment in the constitution. The evangelical ultraconservative christians are a nasty bunch. Who could have imagined that in 2006, Darwin would still be an issue in education. The good news is that our wonderful country is full of intelligent decent moral people and for that reason, we will continue to thrive.
Thank you for all of the comments posted.
Let me first address the anonymous individual who found it appropriate to mock my education: Yes, I did attend my religious studies classes, and while I recognize that a degree in the subject doesn’t necessarily allow me to speak as an authority (the Religious Studies major is uniquely faced with this situation), I believe that you have conflated the beliefs of the hijackers with the beliefs of over a billion Muslims.
(Oh and to DLC, really quick: The classes I attended on the Muslim faith were taught by Muslims and non-Muslims).
The notion that the Muslim faith is bent on world domination is dangerously wrong and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam.
But I can certainly understand why some people would believe that the Muslim faith is a “threat:” In a time of war, we have a tendency to use religion both as a language and as a rationale for said conflict. At its core, however, wars are fought over real, tangible things– land and resources– and are merely explained or justified using the language of religion (which is most easily communicable). Relatedly, by using the discourse of religion to explain and analyze something like war, we can create moral polarities; we can otherize vast groups of people.
If you remove the superimposed discourse of religion (which is nebulous and subjective) from wars, you will be forced to recognize that wars are, typically, conflicts over resources (whether real or imagined).
So, regarding to the tragic events of 9/11 and the religious devotion of those zealots who hijacked airplanes to murder thousands of innocent civilians:
We must be able to see this action for what it is–a coordinated attack by Al-Qaeda in retaliation for the US political and economic presence in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. Certainly, Al-Qaeda has used the Islamic faith, relying on the definition of jihad made by a small handful of radical clerics, to provide a religious and even moral justification for this attack and this ongoing war, but again, this is not really about Islam in totality.
Though I doubt you’ll take me up on this, if you want to understand the Islamic faith, consider going back to its core text, the Koran. Perhaps, then, you may realize the extent to which political agendas have been used to pervert and dilute the message of this faith, creating false dichotomies, undermining the rights of women, and setting off a series of desperate, violent, and terrorizing attacks.
The whole deal about swearing on a bible is about religious showboating. If a person is inclined to lie, placing their hand on whatever they happen to think is a sacred artifact won’t make a difference. If you don’t believe me drop arround to the Rapides Parish of Federal Courthouse sometime.
The amazing thing is that someone could not understand that if you are not a christian believer, putting your hand on a chistian book would have less meaning to you than a betty crocker cookbook. These evangelical christians are a lot like the muslims in that they spend a lot of time declaring that everybody else is wrong.
I LOVE how you, and other posters, take swipes at the ultraconservatives who you insinuate have corrupted the Christian faith, and also admit that the Koran has been corrupted; but cannot bring yourself see that these two diametrically opposed beliefs are coming to a showdown someday (soon?).
The insinuated mockery of evangelicals by posters supports my notion that a background of religious “studies” does not focus on the committed believer. It is more akin to the Americanized, John Lennon, Roman Empire version of religious apathy: “If my beliefs get in the way of my economic choices, then damn the religion.” I think some in the Rome Senate scoffed at “those Christians” prior to Constantine. But we all know that those Christians who were burned at the stake were only out for “tangible benefits.”
Those that have corrupted the Bible and the Koran will hold “lukewarm” believers or non-believers at bay, while the war is being waged. What was the US response to 9/11? Almost unanimous support to attack the Islamic based Taliban.
What tangible resource was the US citizenry after? So I am supposed to believe that grown men piloted fully fueled “missiles” as a political protest to US economic influence in Saudi Arabia? Seriously? Did you proof that before you posted it? Dying while flying into the side of a building gave them what tangible benefit? The fact that they were to be rewarded in the afterlife for bringing down “The Great Satan” was not the reward they sought? Nor the fact that they wanted US economics out of Saudi Arabia due to the “evil” that has followed our money.
This “corrupted” religion wants to destroy your way of life Lamar, and you don’t see it. They truly want women in burkas, walking behind their men, men who disdain liquor, sex, immodesty, and are at prayer 3x daily. Can you live that life, Lamar?
The hypocrisy of your classes is that they did not teach you that the ultraconservatives are willing to die to defend your right to participate in the activities that both the Bible and Koran teach against. The only difference is the war to come is about which Prophet they will ask you to serve, Jesus or Mohammed? None of this will have anything to do with “conflicts over resources (whether real or imagined),” because neither side recognizes this Earth as having eternal value, real or imagined. The so-called ultraconservatives have been taught, and ABSOLUTELY believe that an Armageddon is coming.
That is why I stated earlier two things: 1) whether you or other posters believe it or not is immaterial, and 2) The unfulfilled hope of democracy and capitalism just ain’t gonna compete with an eternal paradise (which I’m sure you heard about in your classes).
Dear Mr. Ultraconservative Christian:
You embrace your faith and religion because you believe it to be true and it satisfies your needs. Do you realize that most of the people in the world embrace a different belief and truth which fulfills their needs to the same degree as your religion. Respect them if you expect them to respect you.
That’s wonderful. I feel all warm and cozy now. All this respect for those that want to kill. If only those people in the twin towers, on flight 93, and in the Pentagon would have known this, then they would still be alive today. LOL!
I feel like singing some Burt Bacharach “What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of.” No wonder you don’t need God, you’ve got respect. ROTFLMAO.
I don’t need your love or your respect. You’re the one that is frustrated because the entire world won’t see things through your narrow field of vision. You are they guy with the WWJD bracelet spouting intolerance.
I could honestly care less whether or not a person views God the same as I do. But any of you that think that if we just understood the nation of islam that we could all get along are truly naive. These people want nothing more than to destroy America and kill all of its citizens. Jr, you are truly, truly naive. Spirited, but naive none the less. Do you think if you offered them your hand in peace and told them you understood b/c you took classes on thier religion that they would embrace you??!!
We will not embrace you Lamar. You are an infidel and always will be, REGARDLESS of what classes you may take. DERKA DERKA
I gotta say that i’m tired of the same lot who seem to plague the opinion pages of the Town Talk. I can’t wait each day to check the newest set of Ruth B’s missives against the ACLU or other non-fact checked assaults against the “non-believers”. It seems that the editors believe this type of discussion will bring in the dollars but it mostly pushes me towards buying the Advocate. My solution is just get a point/counterpoint column going whereby we see the true ideological nature of these people’s rants come to light as they pose their nuggets of wisdom against reason and rationalization.
As a Muslim let me just say this, we’re not out for your lucky charms of wonderfulness. We don’t all want to convert you the one true faith. We aren’t trying to subvert American dominance. We’re good people who strive to live good lives. We teach our children similar values and work to make their lives just as valuable. I don’t judge a Christian by his belifs nor should he do the same. I live my life through the Qu’ran as much as you do through the Bible. I take every word with a grain of salt the same I would from any Mullah.
Mr. Anonymous, you seem to prejudge Muslims without seeming to have ever encountered one outside of purchasing gas. I drink, smoke, pray every now and then, and if I had a wife would let her acculturate herself to America as she saw fit. Hell, I dated an Iranian girl who was more American than some of those around here.
Lamar,
Kudos for tackling what you know will be one of your more inflamatory threads, right up there with the Bolton thread probably.
I have read much about Islam and repeatedly draw on one common theme: conversion by violence. The Bible does not profess the violent conversion of non-believers. The Qu’ran does. True I believe that it is a fringe interpretation but that fringe is coming closer to mainstream.
I welcome a person of any faith who respects my faith as I his, but when he takes up arms against my fellow countrymen I, as you, am duty bound to defend what our forefathers eastblished some 230 years ago.
Please explain how the 9/11 attacks are not a true window into the soul of Islam??
Christians soon forget that Christianity has been associated with war and violence mucu longer than Islam has. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the hundreds of years of warfare between protestants and Catholics in Europe and, more recently, in Northern Ireland. Many Nazis and other killers throughout history have been Christian, and Christianity not to blame for its evil followers any more so than Islam for the murderers who happen to be of that faith. I am a Christian, but let’s not loose sight of the fact that Jehova and Allah are the same God. Many should read the Koran, and they will see that it has nothing to do with suicide bombers.
I found this translated verse from the Qu’ran. Lamar, Greg, Anon, Muslim… explain to me how this is a corruption of Islam:
“…slay the idolaters wherever you find them…take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…” Excerpt K 9:005
Set 33, Count 91
And Anon explain to me how this verse is more respectful than those followed by the ultraconservative Christians that you seem to despise.
Here’s a lesson for you: Just because you can find a random quote from the Qu’ran doesn’t make you right in your assertions.
Qu’ran 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
This is no worse than…
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Dt.13:6-10 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.”
Then again, Romans 16:17 tells us, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
And I Corinthians 2:15: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
It’s not hard to pull random quotes and use them as overriding justifications. Try again.
Muslim,
You have done exactly what you have accused the other poster of doing. In the Chritian faith, the blood that is required for salvation was given freely by Christ when he died on the cross. Therefore, Christians are not to convert people by threat of death.
As for your “random passages”, the verse from Luke that you cite is actually a parable told by Christ condemning those that want (like some Muslims) to kill others who will no accept the reign of a certain king.
From what I have read there are 109 passages in the Qu’ran that call for killing of the infidel, or unbeliever. That’s not hardly “random passages.” And even if it was just one, it would still justify those clerics that preach conversion by death.
You cannot name one mainstream Christian sect that preaches to take up the sword against non-believers (unlike Al-Qaeda, Hamas, PLO, Taliban, etc.). Nor can you name anytime that all Christians have been asked to “jihad” against non-believers. Christians have spread their message through missionaries who have often given their own lives, instead of taking the the lives of the “unsaved.”
One of my major points in setting up those quotes was to illustrate how one can justify the disdain of another religion by producing pieces of religious doctrine as proof of some misdeed.
Furthermore, setting up a strawman argument–Christians are a more peaceful religion because they do not actively take up the sword, ergo we are a better religion–does not justify anything. From what I see, yourself and the other poster posit that Islam is a terrible religion bent on destruction of non-believers.
As to your assertion that Christians have never been asked to “jihad”, perhaps you have forgotten the Crusades or the Thirty Years War or even the exploits of the British in Africa. I seem to remember Christians tormenting the Jewish ghettos throughout history and producing what is called “the blood libel”. How about Algeria? How about the Balkans? To say that Christians have not engaged in war against non-believers is absurd.
I’ll concede that you are correct in that no Christian sect advocates outright conversion or murder. That is true. But remember that Al-Queda, Hamas, the PLO, and the Taliban are minor sections of the Islamic faith. They are not whole-heartedly the majority. It is the same way as I view Unitarians, Pentacostals, or Baptists as the main sites of Christianity.
Outside of reading the Qu’ran, I would suggest looking into Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and Edward Said’s Covering Islam or Orientalism. IF that is not your flavor try Albert Hourani’s History of the Arabs or Robert Irwin’s Orientalism and its Discontents. Each offers a wide scope of reading on the subject of Islam, it’s history, the Western view of Islam, and the place of Muslims in western society from 711-present.
“It is the same way as I do not view Unitarians, Pentacostals, or Baptists as the main sites of Christianity.”
It should read like this not as I posted above.
I do accept that the Christian religion has been used to wage war, in the past. However, I did not live in those times, nor do I presume that the events depicted by historians are entirely accurate. But I see in that reasoning, that there will never be forgiveness, and that the hostility between Jew & Arab (and now Christian) will never end.
I only know that in my lifetime, vast segments of a religion have called upon their followers to kill the non-believers. It cuts across race, geography, culture, social class, etc. The only common link is the teachings from the Qu’ran.
I can only hope for peace in my times, and with the lingering uncertainty, I do not see any hope for peace. It only reinforces what I have been taught from my Bible; all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
And even tho that same Bible tells me to turn the other cheek, my government (consisting of people like Lamar who see all actions being tied to “tangible benefits”) will continue to bring the sword of justice to any and all that threaten America.
America (and the Christians therein) have never found themselves in an engagement where there is not one authority that can say this “jihad” is over. With the many sects that have been mentioned, who has the authority to stop further attacks on America? Regardless of Lamar’s postulation that 9/11 was a reaction to economic policies, how do we ensure that this will not happen again? The sword has been drawn in my lifetime, and I do not see it being sheathed anytime soon.
You cannot name one mainstream Christian sect that preaches to take up the sword against non-believers (unlike Al-Qaeda, Hamas, PLO, Taliban, etc.).
I can, the Catholic Church. See the Muslim slaves in Brazil, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Crusades, the Cathars in France, and the Inquisition in Spain. Oh, and don’t forget the Catholics killed by the Chruch of England during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign. I too am a Christian and do not belive Jesus Christ condoned those murders. But read some history before that Christianity has as many atrocities as Islam.
You need to know more about history. You compare what happened on 9/11 to the forced conversions you cite??? When were those killed in the Twin Towers given a chance to convert??? Your examples are mostly filled with govts. using religion to further their influence (which is basically the premise that Lamar was making to which I disagreed). Your examples are more like present-day Iran or WWII Japan, than Al-Qaeda.
1) The Spanish Inquisition was at times opposed by the Pope, Sixtus IV. It was also a governmental policy of Spain against its own citizens, not a religious body against the entire world.
2) The Muslims slaves were forced to convert only after fear arose from the Muslim slave uprising on Jan. 24, 1835. Again, a govt. policy to help ensure peace, not a religious edict from the Pope.
3) The persecution of Aztecs in Mexico is essentially a continuation of the Spanish govt. policies of the Inquisition. Again, I see no edict from the Pope calling for the Aztecs to die if they did not convert. This was more a govt. conquest than a religious issue.
4) Prior to any crusade in 1009, caliph, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. Many reports began to circulate in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims. The Crusades was the use of the church to re-conquer land. It was a response to the Muslim expansion into the area, and was even used to sack Christian communities. (this is probably your weakest example since it is a retaliation against Muslims rather than a church edict to kill non-believers).
5) In 1208 Peter, a papal legate was murdered by Cathars and the Pope decreed that Cathar land be confiscated. That turned loose the French nobles from the north (in the name of the church) to raid & plunder. Far from a “jihad,” this is, as Lamar suggested, a war for tangible benefit in the name of God. I doubt the northern nobles would have went to war to force these people on their knees to God; but they sure pounced on the Pope’s idea of free land.
None of these would be allowed to happen in the name of the Christian God, today. My question was meant to focus on the present day Christian sects, as the poster acknowledged in their response. Most of your examples are retaliations for murders, uprisings, etc. against the church. The US invasion of Afghanistan could be included in your list since the US killed Muslim combatants after 9/11 at the urging of many church leaders, but it is still not a fair comparison to clerics within the Muslim community issuing jihad against unsuspecting victims!
That is why I told Lamar two things 1) whether you believe it doesn’t matter to those that do, and, 2) there is nothing on this Earth that you can offer these types of Muslims to gain peace.
“But remember that Al-Queda, Hamas, the PLO, and the Taliban are minor sections of the Islamic faith. They are not whole-heartedly the majority.”
Therein lies the problem – this “minority” has declared war on a global scale against anyone not loyal to Allah and the Qu’ran. The last person to undertake a global campaign of this magnitude was Adolph Hitler. Need I remind you what happened before he was stopped?
Modern day Christianity has not allowed itself to be defined by a radical minority as has Islam.
My faith tells me that my God will deal with the unbelievers at the end of days. Radical Islam intends to pass that judgement here on earth.
As an aside, picking a fight over scripture in the heart of the Bible belt is a “no win” proposition.
For some reason, I feel the need to return to this long-forgotten thread. Regardless of one’s opinion on my views, the thread proves there are many highly-educated and opinionated people in the Central Louisiana area who wished to contribute their opinions to this topic. As a point of clarification, I did not seek to grandstand about my credentials, merely to point out that I have received, at my own volition, an education in the Islamic faith, which I believe is probably more than can be said about many of the talking heads in the mainstream media, some of who are speaking from an radically and explicitly Christian agenda. Most Christians believe in the doctrine of loving one’s neighbor as oneself and recognize the inherent hypocrisy of piece-mealing a conveniently and selectively culled list of quotes from the fringes of Islam as a way of blindly dismissing the entire faith. This would be analogous, for example, of me comparing ALL Christians to someone like Pat Robertson, who, at one point blamed the attacks of 9/11 on homosexuals and non-believers (the underhanded and unintended implication being that God, by necessity of this claim, worked through these terrorists to spread a message of hate against those who do not subscribe to Robertson’s narrowly defined constructions of the Christian faith. We must question outspoken zealots, regardless of their religious affiliation, and on a human level, recognize that those who seek to divide us and to misrepresent the basic, fundamental truths are only doing so in order to attract more attention and money toward their warped cause. It is utterly reductionist to claim America was attacked for our freedoms; though they are brilliant and effective talking point, one built on the notion of scaring average citizens, but still, they are simply untrue.