The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Interesting ..the Islamic way of war.

  1. #1
    Senior Member K.Bullock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Coshocton, OH
    Posts
    545

    Default Interesting ..the Islamic way of war.

    I was interested lately when it came to my attention that in Dearborn Michigan, the rather large population of Muslims was trying to stop Christians from ringing church bells on Sunday.

    Why would they do that? Why are Muslims world wide trying to make their adopted homes conform to their religion and laws. The reason is that there is no separation between church and state in the Muslim world, they rule by theocracy. And to them any other belief system or form of government is unacceptable.

    There are two abodes to Islam the Abode of Islam and the Abode of war. The Abode of Islam is the territories that they have conquered and brought under the subjection of Islam, the abode of war is everywhere else.

    We live in the Abode of war as far as Islam is concerned. Our government needs to wake up to this fact before it gets out of hand.And so do we.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mFhZjg=&w=MA==

    In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis--vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.
    Last edited by K.Bullock; 11-06-2008 at 08:30 AM.
    Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Can anyone point to information concerning this alleged ban on church bells in Dearborn? I have found many references to efforts to ban mosques from broadcasting a call to prayer, and statements that it would be hard to ban the mosques without also banning church bells. However, I have found nothing about an actual ban on church bells.

  3. #3
    Senior Member K.Bullock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Coshocton, OH
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Can anyone point to information concerning this alleged ban on church bells in Dearborn? I have found many references to efforts to ban mosques from broadcasting a call to prayer, and statements that it would be hard to ban the mosques without also banning church bells. However, I have found nothing about an actual ban on church bells.
    Jeff they are not powerful enough to ask for an outright ban on bells just yet. They want to amplify their call to prayer 5 times a day over a loud speaker. Their position is if they cannot broadcast their call to prayer over loudspeakers Christians should not have the right to ring church bells.

    In Britain they are asking for an outright ban in some areas because they have become that prominent and the "pagan" bells offend their ears.
    Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Bullock View Post
    Jeff they are not powerful enough to ask for an outright ban on bells just yet. They want to amplify their call to prayer 5 times a day over a loud speaker. Their position is if they cannot broadcast their call to prayer over loudspeakers Christians should not have the right to ring church bells.

    In Britain they are asking for an outright ban in some areas because they have become that prominent and the "pagan" bells offend their ears.
    I guess that strikes me as completely reasonable assuming both are subject to similar time of day/noise level restrictions.

  5. #5
    Senior Member K.Bullock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Coshocton, OH
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I guess that strikes me as completely reasonable assuming both are subject to similar time of day/noise level restrictions.

    I disagree. Coming into a country and asking them to exchange their culture and religion for yours is not reasonable at all.

    And in any case that is not the situation in Britain. They are keeping their public calls and banning the church bells. The bells have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years.


    You don't strike me as one who would support a theocracy.
    Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

  6. #6
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K.Bullock View Post
    I disagree. Coming into a country and asking them to exchange their culture and religion for yours is not reasonable at all.

    And in any case that is not the situation in Britain. They are keeping their public calls and banning the church bells. The bells have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years.


    You don't strike me as one who would support a theocracy.
    I don't support a theocracy although I have lived or spent significant time in Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish theocracies. I chose to return to living in the United States which, by Constitutional guarantee, does not have a state religion. Because it does not, I do not see a basis for saying that bells that "have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years" should be permitted while Muslim calls to prayer should be banned (What the English do is up to them.).

    Happily, our culture and our "religion" have been evolving freely for centuries. My own religion, Unitarianism, only survived in Transylvania for a long time because both Christians and Muslims viewed us as heretics and neither was able to control Transylvania. The last person burned at the stake in Calvinist Geneva was actually a Unitarian. However, Unitarians were one of the most powerful religions during the Revolutionary War period in this country, controlling a large percentage of the churches in Massachusetts despite the fact that they were not Christians. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians. Jefferson never joined any formal church but described himself as a deist who hoped that all people would eventually become Unitarians. He also edited his own version of the bible reflecting his belief that Jesus was a great but very mortal man.

    At various times in our history our culture has promoted many things that today we find abhorrent, whether it be slavery, burning of alleged "witches", incarceration of Japanese citizens during WWII, or discrimination against each new wave of immigrants as they arrived. Each of those waves of immigrants has been changed by our culture and has left its own mark on our culture. Some have been fully assimilated into the American melting pot, adding new flavors to the resulting brew. Others have preserved a more separate identity whether voluntarily or as a result of prejudice in the society at large or because they simply haven't been here long enough for the assimilation to happen (I estimate 2-3 generations).

    Personally, I believe this dynamic, more than any other, has been the source of our strength as a nation. I hope that we remain open and accommodating for all the pioneers that will come to our shores in the future as we were to my Dutch ancestors who were welcomed by the Indians in 1674, to my Scottish ancestors who came in the 1840's, to my father-in-law's family arriving from Sweden in 1905, and to my daughter-in-law's Korean parents who came in the 1970's, and to the many other members of my extended family that have come to America from Italy, Iraq, England, China, etc.

  7. #7
    Senior Member K.Bullock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Coshocton, OH
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I don't support a theocracy although I have lived or spent significant time in Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish theocracies. I chose to return to living in the United States which, by Constitutional guarantee, does not have a state religion. .
    this is debatable but not important to this discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Because it does not, I do not see a basis for saying that bells that "have been calling Christians to worship for 500 years" should be permitted while Muslim calls to prayer should be banned (What the English do is up to them.).

    Happily, our culture and our "religion" have been evolving freely for centuries. My own religion, Unitarianism, only survived in Transylvania for a long time because both Christians and Muslims viewed us as heretics and neither was able to control Transylvania. The last person burned at the stake in Calvinist Geneva was actually a Unitarian.
    Another interesting topic for another time.
    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    However, Unitarians were one of the most powerful religions during the Revolutionary War period in this country, controlling a large percentage of the churches in Massachusetts despite the fact that they were not Christians. John Adams and his wife Abigail were Unitarians. Jefferson never joined any formal church but described himself as a deist who hoped that all people would eventually become Unitarians. He also edited his own version of the bible reflecting his belief that Jesus was a great but very mortal man.

    At various times in our history our culture has promoted many things that today we find abhorrent, whether it be slavery, burning of alleged "witches", incarceration of Japanese citizens during WWII, or discrimination against each new wave of immigrants as they arrived. Each of those waves of immigrants has been changed by our culture and has left its own mark on our culture. Some have been fully assimilated into the American melting pot, adding new flavors to the resulting brew. Others have preserved a more separate identity whether voluntarily or as a result of prejudice in the society at large or because they simply haven't been here long enough for the assimilation to happen (I estimate 2-3 generations).

    Personally, I believe this dynamic, more than any other, has been the source of our strength as a nation. I hope that we remain open and accommodating for all the pioneers that will come to our shores in the future as we were to my Dutch ancestors who were welcomed by the Indians in 1674, to my Scottish ancestors who came in the 1840's, to my father-in-law's family arriving from Sweden in 1905, and to my daughter-in-law's Korean parents who came in the 1970's, and to the many other members of my extended family that have come to America from Italy, Iraq, England, China, etc.
    I agree with the last paragraph absolutely. This is the first time though that newcomers to our shores are interested not in a new beginning so much as expanding their theocracy.

    Unless you count the Puritans as newcomers ..then this will be the second time. The same puritans BTW who gave us the Salem witch trials. Who also believed that they carried God's mandate to bring this country under submission. Except this time we are the savage heathens who need proselytized.
    Last edited by K.Bullock; 11-06-2008 at 02:33 PM. Reason: spelling
    Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

  8. #8
    Senior Member K.Bullock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Coshocton, OH
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blakegober View Post
    I agree that we have to allow all bells or no bells. As long as the standard is applied the same to both. I would much rather hear the bells of the church personally, but that is me. I am sure there are just as many that would like to hear something else. If they are both violating a noise law than neither should be allowed, if they are not than they both should be allowed. I agree that there is no "state sponsored religion". I am a Methodist and choose to attend church accordingly, but there is nothing that says we have an official religion or that the majority religion is the official religion. To me it is no different than if there were a rock concert and a rap concert that wanted to perform simultaneously and you allowed one and not the other. Either allow The Rolling Stones and Lil Wayne to perform at the same time, or don't allow either.

    Except this time we are the savage heathens who need proselytized.

    to this point I am pretty sure that most churches in the USA have a missionary program that at this very minute are out settling in Korea, Vietnam, and many many other countries trying to convert Muslims, Hinduists, Buddists, and whatever else to Christianity, what is the difference?
    What you are talking about is evangelism. The difference is between proselytizing and evangelism.

    Evangelism is sharing your faith in a way that respects and individuals intellectual choice. Note Jesus says " Who do you think I am?" Granted a number of Christian's have gone overboard and we do have a very violent history. But it is not because the Christian religion demands violent conquest of non-believers..

    Proselytizing demands subservience to God whether you want to or not.

    Islam means submission literally and actually.
    Last edited by K.Bullock; 11-06-2008 at 04:23 PM.
    Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Jeff Just curious
    You mentioned the fact that the uniterian church was dispised by christians and muslims alike. Since I mess around with quite a bit of biblical research stuff I was wondering why this sect was considered non christian. Did they simply deny the existance JC? Or deny the trinity? I'm also a uniterian but JC is more our hero,messiah, the main man the son of God but not God it self.

    Just curious no biggy,,,no arguement. Just peaked my interest.
    Thanks
    Pete

  10. #10
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Proselytizing is routinely done by many of our religions. When I was a kid, both Baptists and Methodists competed in their efforts to save my sister and me. People came often to ask my parents if they could take us to sunday school or to revival meetings. My fifth grade teacher, Miss Gee, had us read out loud from the bible every day. Jews were required to select readings from the New Testament so that they could find Jesus (We are talking about a public school, not a private one. I was ecstatic when such activities were outlawed in public schools.). I would call all of these activities proselytizing.

    In a prior life, I was liaison between City Hall and a devout religious group in New York City. They were working hard to build their community and pooled funds for economic development. They would buy the corner buildings on each block in the area they lived because, as one of the leaders explained to me, the person who controls the corners controls the block. The religious/economic council would make loans to members of the community to start businesses as long as they employed others from the community. When young adults married, the economic council helped them to secure their first aprtments. When they were ready, they would be lent money to buy an apartment building in the community where they would live and rent out space to new members of the community. In this manner, they expanded their religious community, stabilized an otherwise dangerous area of the city, and grew politically and financially stronger. Their culture was insular but they formed a valuable -- and sometimes controversial -- element in the City's cultural landscape. They were in no way a threat.

    Although not as organized, similar patterns were used by some of the Italian communities where I lived in Brooklyn, with social clubs (e.g., Citadini di Pozzallo) that were based on ties from the villages where immigrants had originated. Korean communities have also been very effective in building on ties within their communities to help the communities grow stronger. When my niece wanted to connect with her own Chinese roots, she became part of a neighborhood Chinese cultural organization in St. Paul where she learned the language, learned traditional dances and celebrations, and connected with other Chinese and Chinese American youth.

    What you are describing in Dearborn is very much in the tradition of American immigration over the last 100+ years. I do not believe it represents any kind of threat.

Similar Threads

  1. The War on Faux
    By Buzz in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-31-2009, 12:19 AM
  2. Tug of War
    By CBeaty in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 03:52 PM
  3. War on Terror over
    By Steve Amrein in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 04:26 PM
  4. The new Obama war...
    By Keith Farmer in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 02:33 PM
  5. Gas War....what do you think?
    By ramblinmaxx in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •