I agree and disagree. Of course, not all muslims are terrorist supporters but some unknown percentage are. The larger the muslim population, the larger that number is. I think that is all Pete King is saying. It is troubling that a lot of mosques, funded largely by our "ally" Saudi Arabia, promote radical jihadist theology. It is not true that no american muslims have been convicted of terrorism. Quite a few have been caught, thnakfully before they could kill large numbers of people. There have been attacks, such as on the Jewsih community center in Seattle, at LAX and the guy at UNC who tried to run people down in his jeep. Now I have to disagree when you say a person's allegiance to their country must come before their religious convictions. I would think most Christians would say it is the other way around. Luckily, our Founders set up a government designed to avoid such conflicts, but their idea of religion was vastly different than radical islam. A secular government can hardly avoid infringing on islam, because islam itself is so all-encompassing.
In all fairness, these numbers would probably be equally bad among the nonmuslim populations in Asia and Africa (with the exception of perhaps Japan and South Korea) - just look at local media coverages in Beijing, Taipei, Manila or Bangkok. The universal sympathy and solidarity towards the US right after 9/11 have all but dissipated. It says more about our foreign policy failures than the radicalism of their populations. I completely agree with this but the poll was not about their sentiments towards the US, it was about the support of suicide bombings and the favorability of Al-Qaeda and I doubt that the numbers would be the same in non-muslim parts of the world. A majority of them do know the right from the wrong. Absolutely, probably an overwhelming majority do. My concern is though they they are not even trying to clean up their house, their deafening silence on terrorism, Al-Qaeda, fundamentalism and muslim extremism is disturbing and quite a significant number of these "moderate" muslims do provide tacit or even explicit support to their extremist brethren.
Again, does the Bible really represent Christianity? What passes for Christianity is a thought system patched together by Saul who ceased attacking the Way only after marrying it with sacrificial folklore. By marrying sacrifice, guilt and specialness with the Way, Saul never really stopped attacking the Son of God. The Koran is nearly a mirror image of that thought system. It reveals what is really is simmering deep within Saul's thought system so that those who believe in it can look out and see it for what it is. Saul's version is a hybrid of things he had heard from those he was hunting, and concepts found in Isaiah 51. But despite that Mel Gibson opened his film with it, Isaiah 51 is not about me. No one can die for anyone else. So death accomplishes nothing. Saul taught that death accomplishes something. Mohammed learned this well, and taught it also. Both thought systems thrive on specialness, dividing the world between two camps, friends within and enemies without. Now there are two world leaders, both very special, each infected with one or the other thought system. Each has nuclear capabilities, or will soon. Each are at each other's throats. And there are many, even evidenced in this thread, who are jeering one of them to toss nuclear devices on the head of the other. Hmmm.... Isn't it time to reconsider what is Christianity? Originally, it was simply called "the way". Jesus
I find this alarming too. I would seriously question someone's patriotism if they pledge allegiance to the Vatican instead of the USA (not that I'm picking on the Catholics, the same would go for any other religion).
JonnyK: >Again, does the Bible really represent Christianity? The christians universally say so -- and I believe in their right to decide for themselves. JB
I'm not saying loyalty to the Vatican versus loyalty to the ocuntry. I agree with you on that. The history of Christianity is filled with conflicts between church and state that caused believers to have to make a choice, often resulting in their martyrdom.
The point you miss is that Christian leaders were not advocating a religious war against muslims in the name of their religion. That is exactly what a significant percentage of muslim religious leaders advocate. The scary part is that they have a solid foundation in the koran and other sources of muslim law to advocate violent jihad.
There is of course a lot of violence in the Old Testament, but it was for a specific purpose, namely getting the Israelites to the Promised Land. The New Testament imposes a duty to go forth and spread the faith, but there is no authoprization to use violence, and in fact, the entire thrust of it is not to use violence. There is no eternal call for believers to go and try to expand their empire through war and conquest. Clearly that is exactly what muslims are under an obligation to do. It's not even debatable. Of course, a lot of them pay lip service to parts of islam, but a significant and growing percentage do not.
In the risk of spreading bigotry, here is a joke that I heard describing three of the major religions: Buddhism: I go to hell so others can be saved. Christianity: Believe so you be saved; Otherwise go to hell. Islam: Kill nonbelievers so you go to heaven. I'm not sure which one is better
Another Christian who believes they know what Islam is really saying... Yet, when it comes to the fact that in America we see no American Muslims starting wars, blowing themselves up in the name of Allah or Muslim leaders telling their followers to engage in terrorism, etc. what obviously remains from the right is nothing but the perpetual ignorance and Pavlovian fear mechanism, religious bigotry and hatred spewing forth from the right wing Christians who are still on their crusade horse. Nobody, but nobody preaches fear and hatred like self righteous right wing fundamentalists, be they Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.