Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

That's simply not true. Islam's establishment is what put an end to the killing of female children in much of Arabia. Also the end of the use of rape during war.

I know it's not perfect nor does it give women equal rights (in terms of inheritance). But the teachings establish dignity and respect for women. They are not practiced by Islamic governments. That is not a flaw in the teachings, but rather a flaw in humans and human establishments.


And there is no such thing as anti-integration in Islam. Nor anti-free speech. I just don't even know where you are getting this.

Not exactly. Women prisoners of war become the "women of your left hand," which basically means slaves or concubines. He's supposed to receive her consent for sex. If she consents and subsequently has a child with her Muslim captor, then she is freed upon his death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

I guess I'll add what I see as problematic about Islam. I'm still thinking about this, but at the moment my concerns have little to do with banning religious expression like the niqab, and little to do with divorce or other laws, if that's what people freely decide to live by.

Instead it's this idea of theocracy: that a good Muslim needs to live by sharia law, and for that you need a Muslim government. Wanting to implement sharia law opens the door to theocracies, and there is nothing good about theocracies IMO. The problem with the CH assassinations was partly a reaction to bigotry, poverty, and the rest. But the CH attack was also based partly this idea that France's secular values are meritless just because they're not sharia law. (Along with the romanticism of a caliphate that never existed like they think it did, but that's a digression.) Of course, Christianity had horrible theocracies for much of history, but the Enlightenment saw a move towards taking the "render unto Caesar..." line as calling for a separation of church and state, and you saw this 200 years ago in the US constitution, even if we're still fighting conservatives for gay marriage.

I know that millions of Muslims area already there, and that they appreciate democracy and secular values. But the caliphate/theocracy/caliphate idea persists, and whatever you think of religious expression like the niqab, the idea that there's only one valid form of government, and that's a theocracy with sharia law, seems pernicious to me. I can't remember what's in the Quran about establishing an Islamic government, apart from various elements of sharia law itself. So I guess that's my next line of inquiry as I think about this.

That' s not true, Muslims are not required to live under shariah law, they are required to follow the law of the land they live in I-e , if you live in America, you have to follow the laws of America!

As for this thread, I consider myself a Liberal Muslim, wonder what that says about me .....

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

Anonymous wrote:They hate America . Anything that weakens America or individual liberty, they are for. Christianity was around the whole time the USA became the greatest and most powerful/free country on the planet. Liberals instinctively hate the empowerment of the individual ... Islam helps destroy the individual.

Anonymous wrote:So ... CNN has announced a policy of not portraying the "prophet" is any manner that could be offensive.

When will we be hearing that they will not portray "the Christ" in any manner that could be offensive?

They won't ... Because they are scared of Islam .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

Please provide some examples or you're basically erecting a straw man.

The only "defense" I've ever heard is a caution that extremist factions don't represent all people of the faith.

What liberals "love" to bash Christians?

Again, you really need to prove your point instead of assert it. This just doesn't happen.

What liberals "love" to bash Christians?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hate America . Anything that weakens America or individual liberty, they are for. Christianity was around the whole time the USA became the greatest and most powerful/free country on the planet. Liberals instinctively hate the empowerment of the individual ... Islam helps destroy the individual.

What will destroy America are blanket stereotypes about whole groups of people. You can't really defend the country if you have difficulty determining who the enemy really is. Casting whole groups of people as the enemy will keep you from seeing the true villains among them. Ironic that you should champion the empowerment of the individual but refuse to see people as individuals yourself. That hurts America more than it helps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They hate America . Anything that weakens America or individual liberty, they are for. Christianity was around the whole time the USA became the greatest and most powerful/free country on the planet. Liberals instinctively hate the empowerment of the individual ... Islam helps destroy the individual.

What will destroy America are blanket stereotypes about whole groups of people. You can't really defend the country if you have difficulty determining who the enemy really is. Casting whole groups of people as the enemy will keep you from seeing the true villains among them. Ironic that you should champion the empowerment of the individual but refuse to see people as individuals yourself. That hurts America more than it helps.

You just described liberals grouping people into ...
Blacks , Hispanics , gays/lesbians / angry white men / war on women

No individuals . Just groups that need government help or government punishment , Islam and liberalism cannot tolerate too much individualism with too little centralized control. They are natural allies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ... CNN has announced a policy of not portraying the "prophet" is any manner that could be offensive.

When will we be hearing that they will not portray "the Christ" in any manner that could be offensive?

They won't ... Because they are scared of Islam .

Admittedly I haven't been watching CNN as much as I used to but I have yet to see them portray Christ at all. What have you seen on CNN?