Ask Newt why he thinks atheists want Muslim terrorists to win.

[daredelvis]

P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?"

Is it OK if I find a Burlington Coat Factory two city blocks away from the attack offensive?

Daredelvis

 

[mikeyx]

Back a bit Newt gave a talk where he alleged that secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA. At the time he wasn't even running for President so no one much took it up with him at the time.


But now he is running for President and since the Republicans seem to be running their primary on the idea that they will have debate after debate until everyone is just sick of them someone should take the opportunity to ask him why he thinks this is so?

I mean under what strain of logic do you think Atheists want a radical religious sect to win control of America?

yes they do, and you should be ashamed.

 

[gnome]

The line of argument here by Gingrich that is closest to comprehensible, is that atheists/liberals are so eager to display multicultural "tolerance" that they will reflexively defend something Islamic against any objection, while at the same time so hostile to Christianity that they will reflexively attack anything involving Christianity.

The conclusion is then that atheists will push this so hard they will let Islam incrementally change our society into Sharia law, until it is too late to realize they don't want what they got.

IMO this is an argument based on either a poor understanding of atheist behavior, or a craven effort to find a plausible sounding argument that atheists are dangerous to freedom, without regard to whether it is true.

 

[mhaze]

The line of argument here by Gingrich that is closest to comprehensible, is that atheists/liberals are so eager to display multicultural "tolerance" that they will reflexively defend something Islamic against any objection, while at the same time so hostile to Christianity that they will reflexively attack anything involving Christianity......

Lotta truth in that.

But it's not saying they are consciously and knowingly assisting Islam, only that they are fools.

 

[DC]

poor christians, so prosecuted in their own country that was founded on christianity so much, poor christians

 

[Bri]

Lotta truth in that.

So far you've presented no evidence of a significant number of secularists giving any preferential treatment to Islam over Christianity, much less anything that would lead to the result you are agreeing with.

Can you at least give some examples of the type of discrimination against Christianity you're referring to? You mentioned something about mosques near Ground Zero, but there are already churches and synagogues in the same area. You mentioned suppression of any evidence of Christianity in the winter holidays, but I haven't heard of anyone being prevented from celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, or any other religious holiday as they want as long as it's not government sponsored. You mentioned quashing "every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere," but I haven't seen anyone quash anyone's right to prayer, just that it not be required in public schools (and of course, that goes for Muslim prayers as well as Christian prayers). You said something about having "a blind eye to muslims [sic] on their little prayer rug five times a day" but I have no idea what that refers to.

As far as I know, most secularists believe in equal freedom for all religions as long as they are kept separate from government.

-Bri

 

[gnome]

Lotta truth in that.

But it's not saying they are consciously and knowingly assisting Islam, only that they are fools.

Are you willing to examine whether this is an accurate characterization, or only wanting to run with it because it sounds mildly plausible?

 

[mhaze]

Are you willing to examine whether this is an accurate characterization, or only wanting to run with it because it sounds mildly plausible?

I'm okay with asserting that people who do not see why and how athiests (actively or inactively) support muslims and Islam agendas, while acting in the opposite fashion with christians, are fools.

Of course, there exists a subset - something like 20% - of athiests who are not pushing the latest liberal progressive narrative.

And one could question whether the support of muslims by athiests is not a function of their being atheists but simply liberal fools per se, and thus that Newt was technically wrong in using the word "athiest".

Your problem, not mine.

 

[Bri]

I'm okay with asserting that people who do not see why and how athiests (actively or inactively) support muslims and Islam agendas, while acting in the opposite fashion with christians, are fools.

Of course, there exists a subset - something like 20% - of athiests who are not pushing the latest liberal progressive narrative.

So you're OK with asserting that anyone who disagrees that 80% of atheists support Muslims and suppress Christians is a fool, even though you can't provide any evidence of it or even explain what you mean?

I'd argue that anyone who agrees without any evidence is a fool, not the other way around.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again we're on the business of referring to anything you disapprove of as "narrative".

 

[gnome]

I'm okay with asserting that people who do not see why and how athiests (actively or inactively) support muslims and Islam agendas, while acting in the opposite fashion with christians, are fools.

Of course, there exists a subset - something like 20% - of athiests who are not pushing the latest liberal progressive narrative.

And one could question whether the support of muslims by athiests is not a function of their being atheists but simply liberal fools per se, and thus that Newt was technically wrong in using the word "athiest".

Your problem, not mine.

So, that's a NO on being willing to examine your opinion for accuracy?

 

[A'isha]

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

Yes, but they're also only the subject of the last verse you mangled. The first verses you mangled are referring to idolators, the polytheists of Mecca who followed the pre-Islamic religions of the Arabian peninsula (مشركون, or mushrikun).

The second two verses you mangled are talking about hypocrites, (منافق, or munafiqun), those who pretended to convert to Islam, but were still secretly mushrikun.

Only the last verse you mangled is talking about those who actually reject God, كفّار or kuffar.

And if anyone cares about just how badly mhaze (or the source he cribbed from) mangled the translation of those verses, there are a number of side-by-side translations available at the University of Southern California's Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement website.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, but they're also only the subject of the last verse you mangled. The first verses you mangled are referring to idolators, the polytheists of Mecca who followed the pre-Islamic religions of the Arabian peninsula (مشركون, or mushrikun).

The second two verses you mangled are talking about hypocrites, (منافق, or munafiqun), those who pretended to convert to Islam, but were still secretly mushrikun.

Only the last verse you mangled is talking about those who actually reject God, كفّار or kuffar.

And if anyone cares about just how badly mhaze (or the source he cribbed from) mangled the translation of those verses, there are a number of side-by-side translations available at the University of Southern California's Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement website.

And I think there are any number of other verses that can be quoted that clearly show that the athiests are to be converted or killed, while the people of the book are to be protected if they submit.

And yes, I quoted a number of slightly divergent verses.

And yes, I'm talking about us "coffee drinkers".

 

[Cleon]

And I think there are any number of other verses that can be quoted that clearly show that the athiests are to be converted or killed, while the people of the book are to be protected if they submit.

And yes, I quoted a number of slightly divergent verses.

And yes, I'm talking about us "coffee drinkers".

And no, it doesn't concern you in the least whether they are accurate or in context.

 

[A'isha]

And I think there are any number of other verses that can be quoted that clearly show that the athiests are to be converted or killed, while the people of the book are to be protected if they submit.

If you're going to argue, you could at least get what you're arguing right.

And frankly, it doesn't matter what you think you can quote the Qur'an to mean. Your credentials as a mufassir are rather lacking.

EDIT:

And yes, I quoted a number of slightly divergent verses.

"Slightly divergent"? They weren't even talking about the same thing!

And you didn't "quote" them, you mangled them like you ran them through a woodchipper.

 

[mhaze]

If you're going to argue, you could at least get what you're arguing right.

And frankly, it doesn't matter what you think you can quote the Qur'an to mean. Your credentials as a mufassir are rather lacking.

Frankly, you've now gone off the deep end.

You are claiming that an atheist cannot interpret the Koran, that one (among other attributes) must be a Muslim to do so.

To which the response of this coffee drinker and owner of 4 dogs is:

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Cleon]

Frankly, you've now gone off the deep end.

You are claiming that an atheist cannot interpret the Koran, that one (among other attributes) must be a Muslim to do so.

ANTPogo claimed no such thing.

 

[A'isha]

You are claiming that an atheist cannot interpret the Koran, that one (among other attributes) must be a Muslim to do so.

No, you're more than welcome to interpret the Qur'an for yourself.

However, if you want to interpret the Qur'an for Muslims (ie, what it says regarding what Muslims should believe and what Muslims should do, such that your interpretation can be used as a guide for their behavior and beliefs), then there are a few teeny-tiny prerequisites you haven't met yet...

 

[Trakar]

No, Christians have a mandate to kill homosexuals, 'witches', and not to work on Sunday or where blended cloth.

not to mention the strictures against the accumulation of wealth, the admonition to turn the other cheek, and the command to judge not.

Romans 14:1-23 ESV
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

Mark 10:17-22
"...sell everything you have and give to the poor..."

Matthew 6:24
"...You cannot serve both God and Money..."

Luke 6:24
"...woe to you who are rich..."

Matthew 5:39-40
"...But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well..."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So, that's a NO on being willing to examine your opinion for accuracy[, mhaze]?

Easy on the boy. There's only so many hours in a day.