Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, a law school acquaintance of Rep. Virgil Goode, explains how disappointed that she is with Rep. Goode, capping it off with this brilliant line: “The Muslim faith doesn’t kill people, people do.”
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, a law school acquaintance of Rep. Virgil Goode, explains how disappointed that she is with Rep. Goode, capping it off with this brilliant line: “The Muslim faith doesn’t kill people, people do.”
Comments are closed.
]IRT: “. . . capping it off with this brilliant line: “The Muslim faith doesn’t kill people, people do.”
Gee, you mean like the same ‘logic’ applied here?
The Nazi propaganda of the Third Reich did not kill Jews, Germans killed Jews.
Reality check: The Islamic “holy” scriptures adovcate the murder ot “infidels”. Is is no wonder that followers of the Muslim faith are barbarically murdering innocent non-Muslims and Muslims that they disagree with – alike?
But hey … it’s not the Muslim faith’s fault – naw … Islam is the religion of Peace, don’tcha know?
Sheesh!
On the matter of a Congressman swearing in on the holy scriptures of his faith – Gee, why would anyone want him to swear upon a book that he does not believe in and therefore doesn’t mean anything to him? That’s pretty dumb, now isn’t it?
I’m just surprised the SP crowd out there isn’t sueing the Federal Government to force their God-less agenda upon eveyone else and not allow anyone to “swear in” at all – I mean, what about that bogus “Seperation of Church and State” that is not in the Constitution that SPs like to howl about?
Just to be clear on your logic, the Third Reich == Islam?
And what of the parts of The Bible that advocate murder, too? Do they matter less because you choose not to follow them? What of Muslims who likewise choose not to follow them?
“Reality check: The Islamic “holy” scriptures adovcate the murder ot “infidels”. Is is no wonder that followers of the Muslim faith are barbarically murdering innocent non-Muslims and Muslims that they disagree with – alike?”
This is such a tiresome old chestnut. All of the big three Abrahamic religions’ scriptures are full of exhortations to kill, rape, enslave, stone, etc all sorts of infidels, heretics, unbelievers, wearers of blended fabrics and eaters of shellfish, etc.
Painting Islam as more violent or more dastardly than the other two faiths that share the same origins is a red herring. It’s baloney. The middle east is experiencing a movement of extremist Islam or ‘jihadism’, certainly. But given that most of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims don’t even live in that region of the world and are generally pretty ordinary folk, I think it’s safe to say that there’s something else at play here other than the religion of Islam. Economics, politics, opportunity, tribalism that predates the emergence of Islam, etc. There are a lot of things to look at here. Must we always seize upon the most simplistic ‘answers’ when trying to analyze and understand a problem? The Koran, the Bible, the Torah…they’re all full of violence. If you’re trying to build an argument that Islam is a violent faith based upon their scriptures then you have to throw Christianity and Judaism in there too. Then you’re right back where you started.
Is Triscula implying that “jihadism” is a Middle East issue? If that was true, I doubt if few would care about the violence that parallels such a movement. Any observer of the news knows that jihad is a worldwide phenomenon and one that must be addressed at some point. Sure, the Christian faith has had its time of mass violence run amok (The Crusades, The Inquisition, Jewish pogroms in the Middle Ages). We are now in the 21st century; Christians and Jews, in general, do not resort to worldwide violence to reach an end.
Why should Isalmic extremism be tolerated in any corner of the world? Too bad that we have to be politically correct and allow the jihadists to continue to build networks of violence, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and America as well.
Tom:
Who is advocating tolerating religious extremism? My remarks were a response to assertion that Islam is somehow more ‘bad’ because of the violence in the Koran. I think it’s pretty obvious what I was saying and that I wasn’t implying anything.
How about responding to what someone actually says rather than constructing strawmen to argue with?
Jihadism *is* primarily a middle eastern/central Asian phenomenon. It has spread from there to other communities of ethnic Arabs, North Africans, Pakistanis in other parts of the world, primarily Europe, but its origins are Middle eastern and the Middle east is where you’ll find the most Jihadist activity and support.
Open your eyes! Your comparison between religions might have been more accurate 3 or 400 years ago. Please point to a reference in the New Testament of the Bible that advocates violence towards others. Did Jesus behead, stone, or dismember anyone? Does Mohammed have the same record?
My point is simply this: Most people don’t give a rip what religion their neighbor is involved with. Many people do have legitimate concerns about the spread of Islam- because there seems to be SOME extremely violent followers of Islam.
Maybe you should bolster your argument by giving some good examples of recent international terrorist acts propogated by Jews or Christians; that way we would have two more religions to be concerned about!
Just to be clear, then. You don’t think that the first 75% of the Bible should count against Christianity (and so consequently it must not be the word of God), but you do believe that the whole of the Koran should count against Islam?
Well, just to be absolutely correct, that 75% should also count against Jews and Christians alike, shouldn’t it?
We don’t need religion to provide our bloodthirstiness. We have all used religion to justify it, though. (I’m just saying — Masada, Crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, the West Bank — there ain’t nothing much to choose between “them” and “us” except your time period.)
Spend a bit of time looking at what Jesus said in the New Testament. While the Jewish faith adheres to the laws of the Old Testament, the New Testament (which the Christian faith recognizes as part of their canon) sets a new standard in regards to the laws of the Old Testament. Why do you think that the Pharisees (strictly following Old Testament law) wanted to destroy Jesus?
As TLPatten said, the time period is the issue. Should we just disregard Islamic extremism? We, as a society, make a great clamor when we sense that the “Christian Right” is making inroads into our political system; it only stands to reason that we should share an equal concern in regards to the implications of the spread of any other form of extremism. It seems as though no one is willing to address the fact the with the spread of Islam, there is also a growing number of Islamic extremists; they might be a minority, but they sure do make some noise.
Again, who is advocating ignoring extremism? The issue in this discussion is does Islamic scripture, as a faith, promote violence more so than any of the other 2 Abrahamic religions? And is examining the amount of violence in the scriptures of these faiths really tell us anything about what to expect from the faithful?
As has already been pointed out, there’s quite a bit of violence and intolerance in the Torah and in the Christian Bible too, yet there is not a great deal of extremist violence coming from the Jewish or Christian communities. There’s also much more extremist activity and rhetoric from Muslims living in the middle east, central Asia, and those communities of ethnically middle eastern and central Asians living in Europe, than in other parts of the world where Muslims live. Doesn’t this suggest that there’s more at play here than the faith of Islam, and, as has happened so often throughout history, faith is being used as justification and an exhortation to reach ends that are actually political in nature?
And really, time period is irrelevant when making this sort of comparison with Christianity and Judaism. Both of those faiths have been used in the same manner at various points in history.
Religion, ethnicity, national origin, economic status, these have all been used by people who seek power to whip up the masses, or to deflect the frustrations of the people toward some designated enemy. There’s nothing particularly special about Islam. The more interesting question would be, why is it so effective in that region, among those people, at this time?
Scripture seems fairly irrelevant. I have been told that suicide and the killing of women and children is forbidden in the Koran, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping people from blowing themselves up on crowded buses, or market places, now does it?
This is really funny!
Who is advocating tolerating religious extremism? My remarks were a response to assertion that Islam is somehow more ‘bad’ because of the violence in the Koran. I think it’s pretty obvious what I was saying and that I wasn’t implying anything.
How about responding to what someone actually says rather than constructing strawmen to argue with?
I stated that the islamic holy scriptures advocate/teach the murder of “infidels”. No where did I state that Islam was “more bad” than some other faith.
Talk about arguing about strawmen, LOL!
Here is exactly what I wrote:
Reality check: The Islamic “holy” scriptures adovcate the murder ot “infidels”. Is is no wonder that followers of the Muslim faith are barbarically murdering innocent non-Muslims and Muslims that they disagree with – alike?
But hey … it’s not the Muslim faith’s fault – naw … Islam is the religion of Peace, don’tcha know?
Sheesh!
Triscula, please be kind enough to show WHERE in what I wrote I mentioned that “Islam is somehow more ‘bad’ because of the violence in the Koran.” More bad than – – -what?
Tom does make several valid points regarding the reality of Islamic Jihad – and the differences in the teaching of Jesus when compared to the teachings of Mohammed (Peace be upon him).
Please show me where in the Bible Jesus teaches Christians to murder non-Christians should they reject the teaching of Christ and his followers.
I must have missed that part.
Reid:
If you didn’t intend to make the point that Islam is a more destructive and violent faith because of the violence advocated in its scriptures then why did you single it out from the other two (Christianity and Judaism)which also follow scripture in which God instructs the believers to kill, rape, enslave, stone etc all manner of unbelievers, idol worshipers, adulterers, etc?
You are the one who is making this assertion.
And as for your other points, are you saying that Christians don’t consider the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments to be the sacred word of God? The Old Testament gets a pass because Jesus was such a swell guy in the New Testament? C’mon. Let’s be consistent here.
The truth is that all three of the big Abrahamic religions follow scripture that instructs believers to kill and hurt people who don’t toe the line. That’s a fact.
When you examine episodes of religiously motivated violence from Christians do you point at the Bible and then say, “Well, it’s no wonder! Look at all of the passages from the Bible that advocates and encourages killing non-believers!”?
Well Triscula, to be fair, lets go on ahead and give Radical Islam a chance; I guess we only have a couple hundred years of mass barbarism left!
You are showing just how little you really know about the differences between Judaisim and Christianity. It is a waste of time to try to compare the three Abrahamic religions and make a point about the violence of one compared to another.
Yes time is important- or do you not believe in humanities ability to evolve beyond the point of the barbaric times in the middle of the last millenium?
Lastly, “episodes of religiously motivated violence from Christians” have been confined to individual instances such as an attack on an abortionist; while not giving credence to this isidiousness, it has yet to spark fear into the hearts of many around the world as does the Muslim Extremists have. Maybe you don’t travel much, but if you do, is it the Jewish or Christian extremist that you are concerned about?
Tom:
Christian expansion into Europe with forced conversions, Crusades, The Inquisition, etc, these were not small incidents. There’s been violence aplenty committed in the name of the Christian faith. Was that violence predictable due to the violent nature of their scriptures?
Again, do you look at those events and say, “Oh, well no wonder. Look at the violence in their scriptures.”? Or do you look deeper and realize that while religion can be a powerful tool for despots, con artists, and opportunists, it’s not the only thing at play in religious extremist movements.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and most of them don’t even live in the region where most extremist rhetoric and activity occurs. The overwhelming majority are ordinary people who go to work, cook their dinner, clean their house, take care of their kids, etc. That being the case, isn’t something else going on other than the religion of Islam itself?
Let’s not wander off topic here. I’m not endorsing any sort of extremism.
It’s been asserted that Islam is violent faith and that it’s due to the violence in its scriptures. I just think that’s a lame argument, for reasons I’ve already asserted and don’t care to repeat.
I sure do wish people could respond to my statements with something other than the strawman that I support or tolerate violent religious extremism though. :/
If we were still having widespread inquisitions and “Christian” crusades, your argument would be more plausible, but this isn’t true. Yes, the downtrodden and marginalized Muslims in Europe will tend to respond as downtrodden and marginalized peoples around the world, no matter what their faith.
I never made an assertion that Islam is violent- I have simply noted that in these modern times, violence DOES appear to run through the Islamic branch of the three big Abrahamic religions.
You are exactly right when you say that religion can be a powerful tool for despots- and it seems obvious to many that Islam happens to be a better “platform” for this than does Judaisim or Christianity.
Back to the beginning of this string, I think that Goode was errant in his comment, but I think that he, like many others, is concerned about the violence that seems to follow the spread of Islam.
So you think he’s right to believe that Rep. Ellison is violent?
I didn’t imply that he is right. I said that I thought the comment was errant. I don’t know Rep. Ellison, and I wouldn’t even consider saying that he was violent. So we can agree that Goode’s statement was innapropriate- but maybe it represents a prevailing sense of concern for the violence inflicted by Muslim extremists seen around the world (and not of Rep. Ellison). Unfortunately, the issue of protecting America from the kind of extremism that we see around the world (and I think that the Sept. 11 attacks were just a taste of what others around the world experience) is a much bigger problem than what one Congressman can say about immigration or about his colleague.
Triscula,
My teachings/study have shown that Christains are to take the bible in context of OT and NT. In the lod testiment God used the humans he created to carry our his will. God did not decree that his folloowers murder all non-believers. He taught us that God would one day judge us – and individuals are not to act will violence in our hearts, but with love towards one another.
The Jewish tribes failed to grasp God’s teachings – over and over – in the OT lessons documented within the bible. Just recall the sinful behavior of the Jews after their exodus from Egypt. But God’s consequences did not always include murder, rape, stoning. In the case of Moses, he was doomed never to set foot in the promised land – and a whole generation had to sit in the deseret for 40 years and a consequence of their failure to obey God – or have faith in God’s promises.
Remember the context of the OT – the Jews following Moses witness first hand God’s miracles (manna, quail, parting of waters, pillars of fire, God speaking with Moses and others).
Finally God sent his Son to Earth to serve as a living example for Christians to follow. So the NT revealed that much of the OT was misguided, especially Jewish “law” that evolved out of the OT/10 Commandments.
So, Jesus was a NT that showed Christains that some of their beliefs in the OT were misguided. Further, the OT requirement of sacrifice of live animals was no longer required, because Jesus made his sacrifice – and Jesus death removed the OT “requirement” for killing lams, doves, ox, etc.
So, yes, some of the OT killing was shown to be worng headed by the example Jesus taught in the OT.
Take stoning the adulterer/prostitute. Jesus stopped her stoning – and he preached that we act from love for one another, not hate.
All of this not withstanding, Islam holy books do peach the killing of “infidels”. Jesus, on the other hand, tasked his followers to go forth and spread the Word; yet, he teraches them that if the Word is rejected, leave the city and wipe the dust of yourr feet – move on to where your seed can take root and bear fruit.
Jesus did not teach his followers to lay waste to the cities or to kill the non-believers.
In context, the teachings of Jesus the OT for Christains.
So what does the profit Mohammed teach regarding the duty of Muslims to “Infidels”???
And … as others have pointed out; Islam today is religion that has a great many religious leaders that are preaching to their followers a message of hate, bigotry, violence, facisim, and barbarism.
The Liberal mantra of “tolerance” needs a reality check – it needs to understand that “tolerance” does not extend to tolerating evil.
Sorry, but the truth is clear – compare the teaching of Jesus Christ to Mohammed. Which one preaches HUMANS killing non-believers.
Even the OT spoke of God using nations to do his bidding, and that the Kings/rulers of these nations were granted that Authroity – by God – not by man.
Is “Islam” a “nation”? Or are indivuduals within the Islamic religion instructing their bretheren to commit acts of death or brutality upon non-believers?
But even that is a selective reading. Matthew 10:34:
This is perhaps the most controversial statement in all of Matthew, but it’s also a sort of a litmus test on Christianity, as Mohammed’s similar statements are a litmus test on Islam.
Waldo,
Where does Matthew 10:34 instruct his followers to kill non-believers?
That passage does not negate Jesus message to humans to love one another.
Jesus was God in flesh. He was quite clear that his Kingdom was not of this Earth and that Satan ruled Earth.
The bible is also clear that Jesus came to Earth to destroy the works of Satan.
Peace on Earth was not Jesus’s mission. But, as the angel’s proclaimed at his birth – Jesus would bring pease to those that God found favor with.
Jesus chose to offer us a path to salvation.
It was an act of God’s grace.
I hope this helps you to better understand the context in which Matthew 10:34 was stated.
So, repeating my question:
Sorry, but the truth is clear – compare the teaching of Jesus Christ to Mohammed. Which one preaches HUMANS killing non-believers?
So, Waldo, just so I am clear on your last post, is it your assertion that Mohammed is the moral equivolent of Jesus Christ, based on Matthew 10:34?
Well … okay, so the angel’s didn’t proclaim:
– Jesus would bring pease to those that God found favor with.
Er-um, I meant ‘peace’, mot ‘pease’.
Doh!
Well he could, I suppose, bring “peas” since they would go well with loaves and fishes . . .