Religion of Conquest

I'm not sure what you're point is here TomD. Have you forgotten centuries of Christian aggression? What about the Inquisition in Europe by which hundreds were killed because they "didn't believe what the Roman Catholic Church believed?" What about conquests undertaken in the name of other religions? Is there any religion that has not undertaken conquest in the name of its cause? Why are you singling out Islam?

In addition, I would argue that is you who is ignorant about the state of Islamic contributions. Many medical advancements, for instance, owe their existence to Islamic doctors. It is ALWAYS dangerous to make blanket, generalized, statements about an entire people.

When was the last time you were witness to widespread Christian preaching that the infidels must convert or die, that you were once a Christian but have converted to Islam, and now you must die. Even "moderate" Imans have, just this past year, preached that a Muslim that converted to Christianity must die. There WAS certainly Christian aggression, but the key word in that sentance is "WAS". There are undoubtedly isolated instances of Christian agression up to and including today, but it has never been the a part of the teachings of Jesus that you must conquer your neighbor and convert them to Christianity. Muhammad, himself, led his people on conquest, beginning with the conquest of Mecca right up to the time of his death in 632. It is also a rather blanket statement to say, Is there any religion that has not undertaken conquest in the name of its cause?" This appears to be a rhetorical question from you. There are a number of religions that have not engaged in conquest...Baha'i Faith, Zoroastrianism, I'm sure there are many other smaller faiths, but the point is that Islam is the only religion that I am aware, and please not others, where spreading by conquest is part of the accepted doctrine.

As to your second point, certainly there are individual Muslims that have contributed a great deal to World Civilization in the past 300 years or more, but Islam as a culture has stagnated. There has not been a "Golden Age" of Islam in several hundred years. The rest of the world has seen the Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, The Age of Enlightenment, World changing discoveries in Biology, Astronomy, Physics. Islam maitains an 8th Century attitude even in a 21st Century World, even the Roman Catholic Church has progressed well beyond that (Disclosure: I am Roman Catholic).

"There WAS Christian aggression?" Christians fought with other religions, and not only in self defense, in the Balkans in the 1990s and in Lebanon in the '80s, just to name a couple recent occurrences. Christians are involved in aggression all the time. Germany was a Christian country during both world wars - not that long ago in the grand scheme of things. The U.S., a mostly Christian country, has been involved in many acts of aggression in Korea, Vietnam, etc. not because it was in any imminent danger.

If you're going to use Muhammad to illustrate your point that Islam is an aggressive and, thus, bad religion, why aren't the popes and saints of Christianity's past who led armies into battle also fair game? I know, you're point is that Christianity has progressed to a more peaceful existence, but my point was to ask why you're picking on Islam when so many other religions, including Christianity, are also aggressive?

"The rest of the world has seen the Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, The Age of Enlightenment, World changing discoveries in Biology, Astronomy, Physics. Islam maitains an 8th Century attitude even in a 21st Century World, even the Roman Catholic Church has progressed well beyond that (Disclosure: I am Roman Catholic)." The Roman Catholic Church was dragged kicking and screaming into all these so-called advances and fought all of them with the possible exception of the agricultural revolution, so that's maybe not the best example.

My overarching point is that your post is just another example of arrogant Western/Christian value judgements on other cultures. Yours are the same types of arguments made three centuries ago that brought on colonization by Europeans. "We're better than they are; our ideas are more progressive; we need to bring them into the 21st century." All battle cries of jingoist westerners. The reason the U. S. is being attacked by Islam is that they don't want to be like us. They don't like where Western Civilization is or is going. They prefer a more communal, less individualistic society. Whatever you may think of their tactics (I personally find them deplorable), their goal can't be questioned. You and anyone outside of Islamic culture, cannot place your values on them and try to force them to be like you.

By the way, the irony of a Republican carrying on about Islam's backwardness in the area of science is so delicious given your party's official position of stopping scientific progression on stem-cell research on moral/religious grounds - I love it!

With the possible exception of the Balkans in the 1990's, nowhere do I see examples of aggression in the name of Christianity as an attempt to convert or destroy the other religion. Your examples show nations or races attempting to conquer another, but their actions were hardly carried out in the name of Christianity. I only need point you to Kathleen Parker's column today (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2006/09/01/the_religion_of_peace_--_at_gunpoint) as an example of this twisted mind set that is still persistent in the brains of a large portion of the Muslim population.
You will notice I said "even the Roman Catholic Church", whether they came kicking and screaming, or with bells on their toes, the fact is that they are there and have left Islam far behind. I also believe that you will find a great many people that condemn the Popes and saints for their actions. Julius II is considered one of the men most responsible for the Protestant Reformation, Joan of Arc is considered a lunatic in many circles.
I think you are missing my point, which is that throughout its history, Islam has had a calculated doctrine of aggression as a means of spreading and resistance to that aggression can only lead to death. I also point to that fact that Crusades, certainly the first five, were called to open up the Holy Lands, that had been closed off to pilgrims by the naked aggression of the Muslims in their quest for conquest.

You're gonna compare followers of Christ who go against His teachings with followers of Mohammed(cbuh) who do exactly as he taught?

No comment on the stem cells, huh? I'd leave that one alone if I were you too.

"I think you are missing my point, which is that throughout its history, Islam has had a calculated doctrine of aggression as a means of spreading and resistance to that aggression can only lead to death." No, I understand your point, I simply don't understand why you're making it. Additionally, your semantic argument that the current and historical Christian aggressions aren't carried out in the name of religions irrelevant. What good is it to call a religion peaceful when its members carry out horrific acts of aggression despite membership in the religion?

" I only need point you to Kathleen Parker's column today (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2006/09/01/the_religion_of_peace_--_at_gunpoint) as an example of this twisted mind set that is still persistent in the brains of a large portion of the Muslim population." Again, it shows a dangerous lack of intellectual rigor, whether yours or hers, to make blanket statements about the people of a religion - even with your disclaimer of "a large portion." You have no idea how many followers of Islam "have a twisted mind set." There are MANY very peaceful followers of Islam. You certainly are offended when people around the world call all Americans imperialist war mongers; you're treading down the same track.

" the Roman Catholic Church", whether they came kicking and screaming, or with bells on their toes, the fact is that they are there and have left Islam far behind." They wouldn't have if they'd have had their say. I'm not sure why you think that's better than Islam. Apparently it just shows that the Islamic religion is better at keeping its adherents' attention. Further, you again show your Western/Christian bias for what is good and bad.

"I also point to that fact that Crusades, certainly the first five, were called to open up the Holy Lands, that had been closed off to pilgrims by the naked aggression of the Muslims in their quest for conquest." As if the holy lands belonged to Christianity. The crusades were nothing more than the epitome of an example of unfounded aggression in the name of Christianity with one purpose of the crusades being to extermination of Islam. Christianity tried for hundreds of years to get rid of Islam they just weren't strong enough to do it; don't talk about good peaceful Christianity vs. bad aggressive Islam using the crusades as an example of the good side.

Yes Pants, I am going to compare them. Based on the acts of Christians world-wide over time one would be hard pressed to say that its teachings are peaceful. As I said in my previous post, many followers of Muhammad are very peaceful while many followers of Christianity are not (and vice-versa) . Further, I'm curious where you and TomD get the idea that the teachings of the Koran advocate violence. I am no expert in the Islamic religion but I'm not aware of systematic teaching therein that advocates violence toward others. There certainly are examples of individuals in the religion doing so, but on its basis?

How can you untangle the acts of a religion's followers from the teachings? The members are the outward manifestation of the religion and they are still individuals. Thus, both Islam and Christianity are guilty of being highly violent religions.

TomD, let me take a different approach to your original post on this topic to try to sharpen your reason for the post and my objection.

Let's say that Islam is the evil, aggressive, culturally (in the broadest sense of the word) irrelevant religion that you say it is. So what would you do about it?

I realized afterwards that I had not responded to this.
First of all, you have no idea what my beliefs are on the matter, unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is willing to accept differeing views, so it is entirely possible I support stem cell research (as Bill Frist does).
I fail to see what your point is. A person can be against stem cell research and not be against scientific discovery. By your way of thinking, it must be perfectly acceptable to conduct experiments on humans and animals. Dr. Mengele was simply trying to advance science and was not doing anything wrong. You had better go back to the drawing board, in trying to argue that one.

The official plank of the Republican platform (I said nothing about your personal views) is that stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government because it is immoral (based on its use of unborn fetuses). Mengele's research was not widely considered useful or progressive in any sense. Stem cell research is- there is a huge difference. Stem cell research is mainstream - Mengele never was. Your analogy is not even close to valid.

As for the Republican party accepting differing views, that's laughable. The Republican party is far more intolerant than the Democratic party. Republicans: No, to gays. Democrats: We'll accept their life style. Republicans: No to gay marriage. Democrats: We'll accept them. Republicans: No to a people who believe in pro-choice. Democrats: We'll accept both views. Apparently, according to you, Republicans don't want any Islamic people either. Being gay, being pro-choice, being Islamic, has nothing to do with politics. Republicans have these political issues. Republicans have decided that their business is legislating the morality of United States. If the founding fathers could see the Republican party now they'd start another revolution to get rid of them.

Just ask Joe Lieberman how tolerant the Democratic Party is.

I don't see your point of saying that Mengele's research was not widely considered useful or progressive. It is still the same basic concept. Almost all people consider experimenting with humans to be immoral, regardless of the purpose, just as many people consider experimenting with embryonic stem cells to be immoral. To say that Mengele was a lousy doctor doesn't change the fact that there was a large segment of the German population that thought what he was doing was not immoral. Just because what he was doing was stupid, doesn't change the facts about what he was doing.
I still don't see where, by any stretch of the imagination, any of this means that Republicans are against scientific progress.

As to Democrats being more tolerant, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Let's look at important issues:
There are countless Republicans that are Pro-choice (McCain, Guiliani, Specter, Chaffee). Please name we one prominent Democrat that is not Pro-Choice? Democrats will not tolerate anybody that supports the President in Iraq. A successful African-American that is Conservative is automatically an Uncle Tom. Anybody that disagrees with you is either ignorant or stupid, or both. I saw it continually after the elections of 2004, the problem wasn't with our platform, it was that we just couldn't get the message out to enough people, or the people that we did get it to were just too stupid to understand. The probbaly obviously is not that our platform was wrong, becasue we are so much smarter than them. you guys make me sick. That is honestly my biggest issue with Democrats, your arrogance.
To say that the Republican Party is out to legislate morality and the Democratic Party is not is laughable. Liberals are constantly trying to outlaw people's thoughts and actions; no smoking, no speaking bad about anybody, except Conservatives, no tolerance of other people's thoughts or beliefs, if we believe people should have to work for a living, that we're bigots and we have to outlaw that.

Lieberman? What's that about? He just got voted out. Not sure what that has to do with tolerance.

You're on drugs. Comparing Mengele to stem-cell research isn't equivalent at all. "...a large segment of the German population... thought what he was doing was not immoral." Hardly anyone in Germany at the time knew what he was doing.

You don't see how being against scientific research that may cure several currently incurable diseases is the same as being against scientific progress? Wow, that is just unimaginably closed-minded.

"Almost all people consider experimenting with humans to be immoral, regardless of the purpose, just as many people consider experimenting with embryonic stem cells to be immoral." I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here and believe that you just didn't put this sentence together properly. The way it's worded you seem to be saying that just as many people think stem-cell research is as immoral as Mengele's research. I can assure that such is not the case. I assume you meant that many people believe it is immoral. Here we'll have to agree to disagree. To my view and many others' the cells being used do not constitute a human being. And given that those cells are going to be disposed of anyway, I'm not sure why the Christian right opposes their use. I guess you're just against scientific progress.

You are correct, I did mean to say many people, not "just as many". I stand corrected

Lieberman voted with Democrats on 90% of the issues (According to the ACU 92%) but was run out of the party because of his support for the war in Iraq.

Why do you say he was "run out of the party?" He lost a primary vote. His constituents no longer thought he was a good match for them. So everyone who loses in a primary has been "run out of [their] party?" Someone has to lose every time there is a contested election.

Whoa there cowboy. You have no idea what my political affiliation is so don't go saying that I make you sick or that I'm arrogant because I'm a Democrat. In fact, I'm not a Democrat.

Many Democrats are arrogant and your statement that they think people who vote Republican often do so because they're stupid is on the mark. I had a hard time following the rest of that paragraph. I think you're getting too worked up :) Although I will say that it isn't Democrats per se who think a successful Republican African-American is an "Uncle Tom." It is usually African-American Democrats who say that.

As for legislating morality: smoking isn't a moral issue; it's a health issue. I dare you to show me legislation that says someone can't speak badly of another person. And I'm not sure what you're saying in that last sentence.

Sorry about the last rant. You are correct, I do not know your political affiliation, and I apologize for the tone of that post.
My point with the smoking is that many Democrats do view it as a moral issue, and that is where I see the problem. As for the speaking badly about somebody, every hate crime bill on the books is legislating morality. It is an attempt to legislate the way people think. What reasoning can justify giving more weight to a murder because the person is gay, or black. The motive doesn't matter, all murder is a crime, and to say that the person who is killed while being robbed is less important than the gay man that is killed, is an insult to the victim's family and should not be tolerated. Though not law, the speech codes at a large number of Colleges and Universities (bastions of liberalism) is full of wording meant to legislate the thinking of people and what they have the ability to say and do. I don't know if we're viewing "morlaity" in the same light, but my point is that Liberals are continually trying to legislate the way people think and speak, and that, in my opinion, is attempting to legislate morality.

Apology accepted. This is really all in good fun and no one's dying because of what we say here.

I think you're right in that we aren't viewing "moral" in the same way. Technically, morality is something tied to a religious belief system. That's not to say that some of the arguments you have against Democrats is untrue. To say, however, that it is only Democrats legislating hate crimes is just not true. Republicans have voted such measures frequently. I happen to agree with your reasoning against them, but they don't actually constitute moral issues and they aren't simply the purview of Democrats.

Despite having spent more time than I'd care to admit at universities, I'm unfamiliar with these "speech codes." I know that if someone writes things that are hateful and threatening, especially in a racial sense, but in other ways as well, college officials will take action against a student, but I'm not aware that these are codified. I guess really though, why should there have to be a code against saying/writing hateful/threatening things? Wouldn't you agree?

Still, I am anxious to bring this back on subject. I'm not sure if you missed it in the flurry of posts or are ignoring it but would you care to respond to the post earlier entitled "Different Approach?"

I agree that we got pretty far off topic. I will only add one thing, adn that is to read the columns by Mike Adams about the issues on College campuses.
Back to the topic. I don't neccessarily know if there is a right answer for waht we need to do, but I do firmly believe that appeasement is not it. The point of my post was that acting unilaterally will not work, in my opinion. Israel has proven that. Israel has bent over backwards to try to gain peace, but can never give enough, their concessions are always mnet with more demands. The only way to "negotiate" is from a position of strength. As much as I hate to quote the TV show West Wing, they do have a good line when it comes to dealing with Muslims, "They'll love us when we win". It seems somewhat strange, but the answer could possibly be to attack as ruthlessly as possible to destroy our enemies (ala WWII), and THEN show them how compassionate we can be. I know that there is no easy answer, but I think that a great many people are ignorant of the people and places that wew're dealing with, and are being far to idealistic. I am open to all ideas, but I think that the history has shown that appeasement never works (yes I know a blanket statement and probably disputable).

Since most fighters in the Islamic jihad believe they were the ones attacked by the west and they are simply fighting back, should the U.S. and its allies actually attack (which it seems we're already doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) who then would be the aggressor? Now, we believe we're just fighting back, but aren't you advocating just the sort of thing you say they're guilty of?

I am curious about this appeasement of which you speak? How do you figure we're appeasing them? Haven't we invaded their country, overthrown their government, imprisoned their people?

Wouldn't it be better just to give them what they want? They want to be left alone; to be left without incursions of western civilization. Let's do it. Pull out all our technology. Tear down the oil pipelines and refineries that we built. Take their electrical grids, their televisions and appliances. If they want to live in the middle ages, why don't we let them? We have no right to impose our values and culture on them. We won't do that because there's too much money to be made there. Even if thousands of Americans have to die, American governments (Democrat and Republican) will continue to fight for the right of American business to make money in the Middle East. My guess is, if we actually did what I propose, then we'd get the revolution that overthrows radical Islam. The more moderate Arabs would want their western goodies back and would finally take care of the radicals, and we wouldn't have to spill American blood to do it.