I'm not saying don't talk about religion, I'm saying to please tie it into the topic. The thread title is "NY gov says Islamic group won't relocate mosque", not "Are Islams bad?" or "How do you compare Islam with Christianity?". The last several posts have been about comparing and stated passages in religious documentation, which is not about a mosque in NY or the governor of NY's religious beliefs.
what strikes me is that youre calling them "islams" and you've previously said they practice "muslim". they are muslims. they practice islam. they dont practice extremism and they dont want to bomb you.
It's still a very hardheaded approach to me. A building is nothing more than a pile of bricks. They can preach wherever they want and wherever they want sure, but a religious building is symbolism which ties directly to the affair of 9 years ago.
But it's a question of proximity. Also, there are those who I would say have a valid argument in having reservations over a mosque so close to a site which has become symbolic for international terrorism.
Which is fair enough. I hadn't suggested what they were doing was illegal but perhaps a tad bit derespectful, symbolically speaking of course, to some locals who would have reservations on the idea.
Wrong when referencing the constitution? The same constitution that allows America to go to war with whomever they please? I don't mean for this to be an attack, but people call religion arbitrary...
A church is wherever two Christians convene to discuss the Bible. If you're referring to the building, it's just materials. If you're referring to a hierarchy, no such thing exists on Earth unless you're speaking of Catholicism.
"Caesar's," They replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, And to God what is God's" - Matthew 22:21
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27
Christian's are not exempt from the law unless it collides with the values of the Bible. If a Church 'leader' breaks the law imprison him.
The problem is some are misinterpreted while others could well be genuine. By saying all religions have to be fall under the same scrutiny of their referencing is fine, but many people hide behind the argument of pointing to what they believe to be another religion's faults once they believe their own has been exposed. The same would apply to socially conscious Agnostics/Atheists who ironically enough will make a sweeping generalisation on every religion to spare one from scrutiny and seem 'fair', as it were. I'm not accusing you of this btw, only that it happens. Often.
They were muslims. Whether you believe they were adhering to the moral code of Islam is different to what they were. They believed Allah was the only God and Muhammed was his messenger.
Ask any islamic leader who does send people on such missions and see what they say.
But the belief does. If you've accepted Jesus as the Son of God you have submitted yourself to his judgement, free will would allow you to do whatever you wanted (rape, murder, etc) and only the state (Caesar) and God could judge you.
And the same to those who would suggest Islam is a peaceful religion. If you want to make an informed opinion on Islam you need only read the Quran or obtain several translated copies and see how they compare to one another. Of course someone of a given religion would advertise their religion in the most appealing manner, we can't take that attitude as a given just because it's what we'd like to believe.
Assumptions are the bane of this society. We assume too much and no one actually wants to learn. No one actually wants to broaden their horizons.
In school we are rarely taught to think independently, we're taught to behave, to fit in. Assumption breeds ignorance and bigotry.
I've heard verses from the Qu'ran that preach subjugation and violence from muslims. I've heard these verses have been taken out of context from what people would call 'normal' muslims. The difference? The former makes a much more incisive argument than the latter, who in my experiences at least makes no argument whatsoever other than 'they've been taken out of context'.
i'll ignore cali. and most of your multiquotes. since youre both christian i wouldnt expect you to have a good word to say about any other religion, let alone respect anyone's right to it.
on one hand we have cali quoting all the bad passages from the qu'ran (at least those that google will let her lay her hands on). and you counter quoting all jesse's passages from the bible. we're not allowed to quote anything bad from the bible because jesus says its all wrong, but we'll continue to slate islam because we're all ignorant christians?
yes, they were muslim. they might also have been builders or plumbers, but i dont see anyone hating tradesmen because a few arabic builders or plumbers crashed a plane into a building.
you're blind to the evils of your own faith, so it would be sensible to stay out of debates like this. or at least not try to make it a competition about who's the lesser evil, because theyre all as bad as each other.