Anonymous wrote:The finger-pointing at Christians is simply a deflection. Two people were stabbed in Paris last night - Islamic terrorism.

FBI took the Orlando killer off the list a week before the attacks, because he started screaming racism. Sounds to me like the guy knew exactly how to play this administration.

Three people were shot in DC , on dead over the weekend - DC terror. Or, do we not care about local killings.

Anonymous wrote:The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

Really? Cite your source.

Anonymous wrote:The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

Oh boy. Another Islamic scholar in our midst. I suggest you find more informed sources if you wish to become better informed yourself.

Anonymous wrote:No, we don't agree. We're talking *relative* differences in latitude for scriptural interpretation. You want to make it black and white: you want to say that both Christians and Muslims differ on how to interpret their holy books, end of story. I'm saying that, when your holy book tells you that being gay is bad, and it also claims to be the literal word of God, then we've got a whole different scale of problems in interpreting away from it.

I really don't know what to say. You are simply ignoring what I have written about 10 times. There are some Christians that believe their holy book tells them that being gay is bad. If your argument is that is less important because the Bible is not considered the word of God, I think you are making a meaningless argument. There is no homophobe in existence who justifies his homophobia via the Bible that also offers caveats because the Bible is not God's literal word. To the contrary, such people more than likely do consider the Bible the word of God.

Muslims consider the Quran to be the literal word of God, but they don't agree on the meaning of those words. Some Muslims believe that the Quran says that gays should be killed. Some take the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach and argue that gay people are okay but gay acts are forbidden -- not unlike the position of some Christians. Others say that being gay is forbidden, but any punishment should be left to God. Others argue that the Quran doesn't forbid homosexuality at all and find support for their arguments in the life of Muhammad. All of these interpretations are based on reading the exact same "literal word of God".

Yet, you are convinced that all Muslims agree on the exact same thing because the Quran is the word of God. I guess you will just have to ignore me once again.

The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

Anonymous wrote:Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a British-born scholar who currently lives in Iran and travels the world to spread his hateful message, preached at the Husseini Islamic Center in the Orlando suburb of Sanford last month. The sermon -- delivered behind closed doors -- was titled, “How to deal with the phenomenon of homosexuality” and raised the ire of local LGBT community leaders.

The sermon came just three years after Sekaleshfar had spoken at another engagement in the U.S. where he discussed his twisted idea of “compassion” for gay people.

“Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence,” Sekaleshfar said during a 2013 sermon at the University of Michigan, according to Orlando-based WFTV 9. “We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

Someone please tell me why he's not getting charged with anything.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mosque, The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, that Mateen attended was Sharia-compliant. In addition,

The mosque is linked to Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). "an Islamic movement with a heavy presence in the U.S. that has been linked to ISIS rival al-Qaeda, which also enforces shariah law on the territory it holds"

How things are linked:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/06/12/philip-haney-orlando-shooting-remarkably-similar-san-bernardino-theres-lot-overlap-two-networks/

Not that I would trust anything from the Islamic scholars at Breitbart, but how do they explain a guy associated with an al-Qaidia-affiliated Mosque (something I also don't believe) supporting rival ISIS?

That his goal was extremism and killing in the name of Islam. He's American and isn't well-versed in the differences. It's not like was have ISIS fighting Al Qaeda in this country.

My Christian God gave us a similar law: http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

So, would you be so omniscient, heretical, and extremist to know better than God?

Anonymous wrote:The mosque, The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, that Mateen attended was Sharia-compliant. In addition,

The mosque is linked to Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). "an Islamic movement with a heavy presence in the U.S. that has been linked to ISIS rival al-Qaeda, which also enforces shariah law on the territory it holds"

How things are linked:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/06/12/philip-haney-orlando-shooting-remarkably-similar-san-bernardino-theres-lot-overlap-two-networks/

Not that I would trust anything from the Islamic scholars at Breitbart, but how do they explain a guy associated with an al-Qaidia-affiliated Mosque (something I also don't believe) supporting rival ISIS?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem determined to ignore my point, however. That's that the Quran has homophobic passages, and is also seen as God's literal word and is therefore pretty hard to ignore. You've done a lot of waving your hands and saying that some Muslims (who, a handful in the West, like Manji?) interpret this differently (how, no more Quranic inerrancy?). But you've offered no examples.

I think these are important points to acknowledge even if you're liberal, like me.

We both agree that there are differing interpretations of Christianity's position regarding homosexuality. You insist that "the Quran has homophobic passages, and is also seen as God's literal word and is therefore pretty hard to ignore." For something like the 10th time, I'm going to say this. While the Quran is seen as the literal word of God, there is not agreement on the meaning of those words. The same biblical story that is disputed in Christianity is disputed in Islam.

The Human Rights Campaign knows a lot more about how gays are treated than I do. Here is what they have to say about Islam:

http://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-islam

"Because Islam has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding issues of interest to LGBT people. Depending on nationality, generation, family upbringing, and cultural influences, Islamic individuals and institutions fall along a wide spectrum, from welcoming and inclusive to a level of rejection that can be marked by a range of actions ranging from social sequestration to physical violence. In the United States, there is a growing movement to create inclusive communities for LGBT Muslims and their allies. This encompasses scholarly work that interprets sacred texts through a lens shaped by Muhammad’s own celebration of the diversity of Creation." (bolding added).

There are also gay Imams, one right here in Washington, DC:

http://www.parhlo.com/first-muslim-gay-imam-says-quran-doesnt-call-for-punishment-of-homosexuals/

who would be glad to discuss this with you.

No, we don't agree. We're talking *relative* differences in latitude for scriptural interpretation. You want to make it black and white: you want to say that both Christians and Muslims differ on how to interpret their holy books, end of story. I'm saying that, when your holy book tells you that being gay is bad, and it also claims to be the literal word of God, then we've got a whole different scale of problems in interpreting away from it.

Also, the issue is not all the wonderful people who are finding ways to be more inclusive. The issue is the nutjobs, the hateful or the mentally ill, who are looking for scriptural justification. It's a lot harder to do this (not impossible, as we have seen, but much harder) when your scripture tells you not to kill and to turn the other cheek.

Others, like this ex-Ahmadinejad, can acknowledge these issues: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_575c1dabe4b0b6c49600c87b . Why can't you?

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter what Christians are or aren't doing. That's just a distraction. The issue is within Islam.

The mosque, The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, that Mateen attended was Sharia-compliant. In addition,

The mosque is linked to Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). "an Islamic movement with a heavy presence in the U.S. that has been linked to ISIS rival al-Qaeda, which also enforces shariah law on the territory it holds"

How things are linked:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/06/12/philip-haney-orlando-shooting-remarkably-similar-san-bernardino-theres-lot-overlap-two-networks/

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, now say it with me, everyone: religion is bad.

I am personally not religious, but I can't agree with such an unequivocal statement. A lot of good has been done in the name of religion, just as a lot of bad has. There are good and bad people who practice religion, just as there are good and bad people who don't.

I'm hard pressed to think of things that would even begin to offset the war, hatred, and oppression that religion has wrought. I think that if humans were able to relinquish superstition, then they would find their humanity again and would finally be able to meet everyone's basic needs on earth. Which would, of course, end violence like this.

It's not acceptable to say religion is bad, I get it, but just because Aunt Lois was able to find solace in a fairytale on her deathbed and a few people build a house every year doesn't mean that religion gets a pass for what it's done to humanity since time immemorial.

I agree. Throughout the history of time, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and maybe even the Hindus have committed unspeakable atrocities against humanity and it was committed in the name of their religions. There have been some good people in all the religions who have tried to do good and positive things in the name of his respective religions. But the horrors committed by others in their name, far outweigh the good.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the Lot connection, thanks. I actually am quite familiar with Islam. To re-iterate, whatever you think of Lot and his wife, Jesus' strictures against humans taking justice into their own hands, as PP said, means that the death penalty, or taking justice onto your own hands, for anything including but not limited to homosexuality, is on extremely dubious scriptural grounds. Sure there are Christian supporters of the death penalty (for other murderers only, not for homosexuals or apostates), but the fact that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty is telling.

I think that you are missing my point. While some Christians find justification for killing gays in the story of Lot, others -- like you -- say that such interpretations are wrong. The verses in the Quran, based on the same story, are subject to the same debate. Your suggestion is that because the Quran is considered the word of God, there is no debate. That is simply incorrect. Therefore, you can point to a verse and say, "that is scriptural support to kill gays", but I can find Muslims who will say that those verses don't mean what you think they do.

PS, I'm sorry you deleted the first part of my post, which pointed out that these two guys, and other homophobic Christians, (1) don't call for gays to be killed, even if these two celebrated it with disgusting words, and (2) don't cite scripture.

These are important points in drawing the differences.

I'm curious as to the editing of your post. Seems like that's shaping a message, against your will?

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. I didn't delete anything from his post. I shorten the quoted text in my reply in order to emphasize to what I was replying. I subsequently replied to the part of his message that I didn't include in my earlier response.

I'm a "she" not a "he".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the Lot connection, thanks. I actually am quite familiar with Islam. To re-iterate, whatever you think of Lot and his wife, Jesus' strictures against humans taking justice into their own hands, as PP said, means that the death penalty, or taking justice onto your own hands, for anything including but not limited to homosexuality, is on extremely dubious scriptural grounds. Sure there are Christian supporters of the death penalty (for other murderers only, not for homosexuals or apostates), but the fact that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty is telling.

I think that you are missing my point. While some Christians find justification for killing gays in the story of Lot, others -- like you -- say that such interpretations are wrong. The verses in the Quran, based on the same story, are subject to the same debate. Your suggestion is that because the Quran is considered the word of God, there is no debate. That is simply incorrect. Therefore, you can point to a verse and say, "that is scriptural support to kill gays", but I can find Muslims who will say that those verses don't mean what you think they do.

PS, I'm sorry you deleted the first part of my post, which pointed out that these two guys, and other homophobic Christians, (1) don't call for gays to be killed, even if these two celebrated it with disgusting words, and (2) don't cite scripture.

These are important points in drawing the differences.

I'm curious as to the editing of your post. Seems like that's shaping a message, against your will?

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. I didn't delete anything from his post. I shorten the quoted text in my reply in order to emphasize to what I was replying. I subsequently replied to the part of his message that I didn't include in my earlier response.

Anonymous wrote:You seem determined to ignore my point, however. That's that the Quran has homophobic passages, and is also seen as God's literal word and is therefore pretty hard to ignore. You've done a lot of waving your hands and saying that some Muslims (who, a handful in the West, like Manji?) interpret this differently (how, no more Quranic inerrancy?). But you've offered no examples.

I think these are important points to acknowledge even if you're liberal, like me.

We both agree that there are differing interpretations of Christianity's position regarding homosexuality. You insist that "the Quran has homophobic passages, and is also seen as God's literal word and is therefore pretty hard to ignore." For something like the 10th time, I'm going to say this. While the Quran is seen as the literal word of God, there is not agreement on the meaning of those words. The same biblical story that is disputed in Christianity is disputed in Islam.

The Human Rights Campaign knows a lot more about how gays are treated than I do. Here is what they have to say about Islam:

http://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-islam

"Because Islam has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding issues of interest to LGBT people. Depending on nationality, generation, family upbringing, and cultural influences, Islamic individuals and institutions fall along a wide spectrum, from welcoming and inclusive to a level of rejection that can be marked by a range of actions ranging from social sequestration to physical violence. In the United States, there is a growing movement to create inclusive communities for LGBT Muslims and their allies. This encompasses scholarly work that interprets sacred texts through a lens shaped by Muhammad’s own celebration of the diversity of Creation." (bolding added).

There are also gay Imams, one right here in Washington, DC:

http://www.parhlo.com/first-muslim-gay-imam-says-quran-doesnt-call-for-punishment-of-homosexuals/

who would be glad to discuss this with you.