Wednesday, August 25, 2010

My Liberal Friend Rain - Again

Hi Rain . . . Just read your blog "Answering some questions with my opinions" and found it as thought provoking your thoughts usually are.   We agree on who carried out the 9/11 attack.  We agree that we have a pretty good reason to go after the "terrorist group within Islam", and we agree that President Bush made several elementary mistakes in his decision to make war on blustering Iraq. We agree that Iraq did not attack America and if it had any part in the 9/11 disaster, it was certainly (and well known at the time) a very, very small part. They may (or may not) have had one or more of the terrorist plotters as a guest for a temporary and insignificant short time living on Iraqi soil. That was Iraq's one and only connection to 9/11, and to this day we are not certain about it.

Hindsight proves that President Bush never should have attacked a nation (Iraq) that had not attacked us. The notion of beginning a preemptive war is non-sense . . . but if we are going to start one it should be against a REAL ENEMY. Iraq was not.

My memory is slipping but I honestly don't remember anyone saying that we wanted to go to war in Iraq TO PROTECT Muslims. I do remember hearing that we were "going to war to protect Israel and to stabilize the middle east". I also remember reading in several places that the war in Iraq was really about oil and protecting Americas supply.

Shortly AFTER our preemptive strike President Bush said (in so many words) that this war was an opportunity to depose a brutal dictator and rebuild the country and it's government in a democratic style that allowed citizens a voice. This statement was pure P.T.Barnum.

You are absolutely right when you question America's military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen. You MIGHT be very wrong when you claim that Muslims (Radical, Moderate, or just Stupid) do not want to take over the United States and install SHARIA LAW. That is EXACTLY what the Desert Arab Radical Islamists have been SCREAMING at America for decades. That is EXACTLY what all Muslims are directed to do by the Qu'ran . . . and I didn't get this from anybody named Breitbart. It is common knowledge available from almost any reliable source.

Reading Lolita in Tehran was a terrific and very instructive book.

Of course ALL Muslims do not want to live under Sharia Law . . . but do they have a voice?

I am firmly behind religious tolerance . . . but I do draw lines. Jim Jones was not a religious leader and he caused many people to die. Rev. Jesse  Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton are rather pathetic charlatans, and despite his awful rhetoric, Rev. Louis Farakhan is the religious leader of the Black Islamic Church In America. I don't think he does his flock much good,  but I have not read or heard that he (or his church) advocates the overthrow of our government or murdering people that won't join up. So it's at least possible that he (and his church) are legit.  I think common sense can usually figure out what is or is not a real religion. 

BUT THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER WE SHOULD SUBMIT TO AN ENEMY WHO HAPPENS TO BE HIDDEN IN THE FOLDS OF ISLAM AND CLAIMS TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE QU'RAN.  
I doubt that I even mentioned Mr. Obama.

Regarding your questions about the early versus the later passages in the Qu'ran. The first part of the Qu'ran pre-dates the latter part, and is referred to as generally moderate, peace loving, and beautiful. The second and last part of the Qu'ran does indeed rule over the first. In other words, a passage in the second part can and does change, modify, reverse or erase the passage in the first part. The last time the subject is addressed in the Qu'ran is the correct passage.

Even more interesting, ALL Muslims are required to follow the Qu'ran exactly. They are not permitted to interpret - nor are they permitted to disregard - the passages they don't agree with. 

Somewhere in your blog you infer "that I don't want to answer your questions about Islam". I'm pretty sure you have me mixed up with someone else. I study more and more about Islam every day . . .  and I'm usually not hesitant to answer questions.

Back to FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  I guess we disagree on what this statement means. The old saw "my freedom extends only as far as your nose" comes to mind. I do not believe in UNLIMITED freedom of any kind - including unlimited freedom of religion.

And lastly, I am not "turning" on all Muslims living in America. Their failure to purge these radical terrorists or otherwise disassociate themselves from them is a clear indication that they have "turned" on us.

Whew!

Bump

4 comments:

Rain said...

Well if you look at those questions, they were all in purple when they were from someone else. I have never said anybody avoids questions but I get told I do often. Anyway I appreciate you taking the time with the questions. They came from one of my readers and I do think our country needs to think about this a lot. We have never had freedom of religion if the religion harms others although we seem to have more 'tolerance' for those who claim a religion as an excuse ie the parents who let their child die rather than get medical care because prayer can heal.

I think we find that each religion protects its own but it should not. We should all turn on those who do violent acts whether we are in their 'religion' or not.

Anyway we know we don't all agree in our country but what is important is we look at things in a way that is not destructive and builds. It's our only real hope as a people.

Did you read about the cab driver stabbed just because he was a Muslim? That is what we don't want started here. It happens though when hate is stirred up.

Greybeard said...

Strong misleading inference here...
Be sure you're aware who actually stabbed that cabbie!

Things are coming off the hinges. This nation needs leadership in the worst way.
In November, REMEMBER!

Rain said...

The stabbing of the cabbie is very weird and the more we learn about it, the odder it gets. It does not matter whether fiery rhetoric leads a rightie or a leftie to use violence, but the question here is what the heck was that guy all about? He supposedly worked for the cause of 'tolerance' and a person wonders if he thought he could do this and stir up a backlash against the right as though one of them did it. Whatever the case, he sounds as nutty as the guy who shot Reagan which doesn't excuse anything.

cj said...

Hey Bumps, those were my questions Rain supposedly answered in her blog. I posted them as a comment to one of her blog posts on the Ground Zero mosque.

Her answers were about what I expected.

cjh