StephanusCA wrote: John Ransom: "What it means, rather, is that no one, but mostly including Muslims, can’t afford to tolerate Islamists.” So apparently Ransom distinguishes between Muslims and Islamists. I am not sure how he would define Islamist. But most of the comments here seem to lump all Muslims together, even to the point of arguing that Islam is not a genuine religion and those who follow it are not entitled to the same rights of religious freedom as others in our society.- in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”
Dear Comrade Stephen,
An Islamist is a person who advocates Islam as a contained religious, social and political system that is destined to take over the world. Generally speaking, Islamists reject the materialism of the two previous dominant Western philosophies of Communism and Capitalism- along with liberty in the case of Capitalism- as unable to satisfy man’s longing to know God, live for God and fulfill God’s will. Islamists believe that by forcing people, even against their will, into the Islamic system that they are acting in behalf of God.
Personally, I think that Islamists under the above definition are mostly sexually frustrated, intellectual dwarfs. I would include in that group every ayatollah who has ruled Iran, but most especially, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I think there is a legitimate question of whether Khomeini’s version of Islam even qualifies as Islam.
Only God can know for sure what’s in the heart of any man. It’s not the popular version that most people are taught about Catholicism, but as a Catholic I was taught to respect all religions, including Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
I believe that there is a Divine plan, and I am content to let God sort it all out without me interposing. In other words, I think God can handle every person’s salvation without me having to butt in.
Friday Document Dump: State Department Releases First Round of Clinton Emails (All 298 Of Them) | Katie Pavlich