Obama's apologies to the muslim community

[HappyTikiman]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

4. Would this help or hender the United States relations with the world community?

Debate Material

Obama's speech, scroll down on the webpage

[MagusYanam]

A counteroffensive against Muslim agression. I wish it had been more successful.

Not just against Muslims, and there can be no excuse for the 1099 massacre at Jerusalem.

A clash of civilizations. I'm glad the Spanish won, and put an end to the Axtec death-cult which cut the hearts out of hundreds of thousands of victims.

Another clash of civilizations I'm glad we won.

Cortes was just the tip of the iceberg. The Arawaks did not practice human sacrifice, nor did the Incas, nor did the Aztecs' cousins to the north (the Utes and the Puebloans). And nothing justifies the wholesale slaughter, rape and enslavement the Spaniards engaged in. 'Clash of civilisations' is the same kind of bulls**t justification the jihadis use for their barbarism - it is unbecoming us Christians to descend to their level.

This is tribalism. Some of the leaders on both sides are agnostic.

I don't disagree - but those same agnostics are using religious arguments to get people to hate each other.

Christianity is capable of being as broadly abused as Islam is being abused right now. To believe otherwise is the extreme of naivety.

I'm glad Franco won that conflict rather than the Stalinists he was opposing. Look at it in context.

Interesting how you can dismiss poor farmers with no better hope as 'Stalinists' who deserved to be killed and brutalised for over three decades by a dictatorial state power - particularly when that is perhaps the exact opposite of what Jesus would have done. That you are trying to excuse fascism when the Spaniards are the ones doing it speaks volumes about your standards.

So that somehow proves there is no threat from radical Islam? Of course your Muslim friends are harmless in the US. As a Sudanese Anglican bishop put it, where Muslims are in the minority (US) they are peaceful and hardworking. Where they have parity (Nigeria) they are aggressive. Where they are the majority (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) they will kill you.

You are equating 'radical Islam' with ALL of Islam, which would be just as wrong as equating the Spanish conquistadors with ALL of Christianity.

Kazakhstan is a majority (57%) Muslim country under a Muslim president (Nursultan Nazarbaev), and the Christians there (about 40% of the population) enjoy full freedom of religion - there has been no religiously-motivated violence of note since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Kazakhstan is a vital ally in our efforts to curb the influence of radical Islam in Central Asia.

[East of Eden]

Cortes was just the tip of the iceberg. The Arawaks did not practice human sacrifice, nor did the Incas, nor did the Aztecs' cousins to the north (the Utes and the Puebloans). And nothing justifies the wholesale slaughter, rape and enslavement the Spaniards engaged in. 'Clash of civilisations' is the same kind of bulls**t justification the jihadis use for their barbarism - it is unbecoming us Christians to descend to their level.

The native Americans did all the above things routinely to each other before the Spanish arrived, they just ran into a superior opponent in the Europeans. Here in New Mexico, after the Pueblo revolt of 1680 when the Spanish were temporarily driven out, the Pueblo Indians were later begging the Spanish to come back and protect them from the Apaches.

Christianity is capable of being as broadly abused as Islam is being abused right now. To believe otherwise is the extreme of naivety.

It may be 'capable' of abuses, but it isn't doing it save for your weak examples of centures ago. You or me are 'capable' of abuses. Since 9/11, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ documents 13,494 Jihadists deadly terror attacks as of today. If you had a remotely similar number from Christians, you might have a case for your attempted moral equivalency.

Interesting how you can dismiss poor farmers with no better hope as 'Stalinists' who deserved to be killed and brutalised for over three decades by a dictatorial state power - particularly when that is perhaps the exact opposite of what Jesus would have done. That you are trying to excuse fascism when the Spaniards are the ones doing it speaks volumes about your standards.

I prefer an authoritarian like Franco to the Stalinists who would have prevailed without him. An authoritarian government has a much better chance of evolving into a democracy, as Franco's Spain did.

My wife grew up in Franco's Spain and remembers it as a wonderful place.

You are equating 'radical Islam' with ALL of Islam, which would be just as wrong as equating the Spanish conquistadors with ALL of Christianity.

Islam is only radical where they have total power. I would much rather live under the conquistadores than under atheistic Communism.

Kazakhstan is a majority (57%) Muslim country under a Muslim president (Nursultan Nazarbaev), and the Christians there (about 40% of the population) enjoy full freedom of religion - there has been no religiously-motivated violence of note since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Kazakhstan is a vital ally in our efforts to curb the influence of radical Islam in Central Asia.

You found the exception. Kazakstan is about as representative of religious freedom in Muslim nations as the conquistadores were of Christians.

[MagusYanam]

The native Americans did all the above things routinely to each other before the Spanish arrived, they just ran into a superior opponent in the Europeans.

This is a myth. Warfare among Indian tribes could get quite brutal, but anthropological evidence suggests that wars of extermination were practically unknown among the Indians (of North America proper), at least not before the arrival of European technology. The Dine' and the Hopi were at war for generations before the Spanish came, but it was similar to the wars between nomadic tribes on the steppes of Central Asia - individual kidnappings and livestock rustling being more common than wholesale slaughter, rape and enslavement.

Since 9/11, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ documents 13,494 Jihadists deadly terror attacks as of today. If you had a remotely similar number from Christians, you might have a case for your attempted moral equivalency.

I am not attempting moral equivalency. I am saying that it is morally wrong to equate the worst and most barbaric aspects of a religion WITH THE RELIGION ITSELF.

You objected when I associated Christianity with Slobadan Milosevic and the fascists in Spain, Italy and France, and rightly so. I am Christian and I feel no need to answer for them (though at the same time I don't feel the need to whitewash our religion's history). The sad part is, you cannot see that you are doing exactly the same thing in your treatment of Islam.

Islam is only radical where they have total power.

There are only one or two places in the world where Islam 'has total power' (Saudi Arabia and Iran), and even then those are not brands of Islam that most Muslims accept (even within Saudi and Iran). Indeed, the people I've heard object to Iran's and Saudi Arabia's regimes most vehemently have been Muslims themselves.

I would much rather live under the conquistadores than under atheistic Communism.

... and this is relevant, how?

You found the exception. Kazakstan is about as representative of religious freedom in Muslim nations as the conquistadores were of Christians.

Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution in Turkey. Egypt and Morocco both are still problematic for the native Christian populations, but violence against Christians is rare. Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim nation) is actively combating al-Qaeda's influence within its borders, and the government is tolerant of Christianity and Hinduism. India still manages to hold together most Muslims and Hindus within its borders, save for some extremists on both sides - and Muslims were among the loudest voices condemning the Mumbai bombings.

[I AM ALL I AM]

Doesn't sound like they have much to do with Christianity. ..... Evern if they were Christian .....

May those who have Eyes, See; and those who have Ears, Hear.

[East of Eden]

This is a myth. Warfare among Indian tribes could get quite brutal, but anthropological evidence suggests that wars of extermination were practically unknown among the Indians (of North America proper), at least not before the arrival of European technology. The Dine' and the Hopi were at war for generations before the Spanish came, but it was similar to the wars between nomadic tribes on the steppes of Central Asia - individual kidnappings and livestock rustling being more common than wholesale slaughter, rape and enslavement.

The only reason the Spanish were successful is because of their Indian allies, who were motivated to stop the Aztecs, etc. The Coronado expedition of 1540 consisted of Indians by about 5 to 1 over the Spanish.

The historian Richard Flint said, "It is no exaggeration to say that the conquest of the Americas during the 16th century was principally the conquest of native groups by other American natives, at least nominally under the direction of Europeans." He also said "Nearly all Spanish expeditions of the 16th century were privately organized and financed, but required a license from the King." I can assure you these private expeditions were not primarily motivated by Christianity.

I am not attempting moral equivalency. I am saying that it is morally wrong to equate the worst and most barbaric aspects of a religion WITH THE RELIGION ITSELF.

The daily news tell us there are a whole lot of barbaric aspects of Islam as opposed to say, Seventh-Day Adventists. A recent poll found 25% of young American Muslims support suicide bombing. I challenge you to cite another religion that similarly agrees to this criminal activity.

There are only one or two places in the world where Islam 'has total power' (Saudi Arabia and Iran), and even then those are not brands of Islam that most Muslims accept (even within Saudi and Iran). Indeed, the people I've heard object to Iran's and Saudi Arabia's regimes most vehemently have been Muslims themselves.

Yes, the victims of radical Islam are most often other Muslims. I support these people in their struggle against their government's oppression.

... and this is relevant, how?

About as relevant as the conquistadores are to the thread topic.

Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution in Turkey. Egypt and Morocco both are still problematic for the native Christian populations, but violence against Christians is rare.

Here is a not uncommon story of an Egyption whose family has been tortured for refusing to convert to Islam. http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim062107.html

Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim nation) is actively combating al-Qaeda's influence within its borders, and the government is tolerant of Christianity and Hinduism.

Indonesians are considered not the most serious Muslims, and are consequently less dangerous.

India still manages to hold together most Muslims and Hindus within its borders, save for some extremists on both sides -

Most of the violence comes from the Muslims.

and Muslims were among the loudest voices condemning the Mumbai bombings.

Muslims were the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime.

Did you notice the number of Muslims that applauded 9/11? I just wish crimes from their co-religionists got Muslims agitated as much as a Danish cartoon does.

[MagusYanam]

The only reason the Spanish were successful is because of their Indian allies, who were motivated to stop the Aztecs, etc. The Coronado expedition of 1540 consisted of Indians by about 5 to 1 over the Spanish.

The brutality of the Aztec Empire is well-documented.

That is no excuse for genocide.

]The daily news tell us there are a whole lot of barbaric aspects of Islam as opposed to say, Seventh-Day Adventists. A recent poll found 25% of young American Muslims support suicide bombing. I challenge you to cite another religion that similarly agrees to this criminal activity.

I challenge you to provide a.) the source of this statistic, b.) the exact polling question asked, c.) the sample size and method and d.) the criterion for 'young'. Otherwise your 'statistic' is little more than flatulence.

Yes, the victims of radical Islam are most often other Muslims. I support these people in their struggle against their government's oppression.

You have a damn funny way of showing it, taking a dump all over these people's religion and telling them that the exact same people who are oppressing them are the only 'true' or 'serious' Muslims, which you then use as an excuse to support bombing them.

About as relevant as the conquistadores are to the thread topic.

An example of Christian extremism and how it should not be taken as representative of most of Christianity.

]Here is a not uncommon story of an Egyption whose family has been tortured for refusing to convert to Islam. http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim062107.html

Don't spew Hanson's neopagan rubbish at me. As I said, I am well aware that Egypt's government is problematic - but I have had Christian friends who went to Egypt, to do missionary and human rights work as well as study - who returned unharmed.

Indonesians are considered not the most serious Muslims, and are consequently less dangerous.

See above. Indonesians, Kazakhs and Turks are no less 'serious' about their way of life than the Iranians who support Moussavi.

Most of the violence comes from the Muslims.

Wrong.

Did you notice the number of Muslims that applauded 9/11? I just wish crimes from their co-religionists got Muslims agitated as much as a Danish cartoon does.

Wait, there was applause? I was just distracted by all these candle-light vigils, mourning rituals and prayers that were actually going on in the Muslim world after 9/11.

[East of Eden]

I challenge you to provide a.) the source of this statistic, b.) the exact polling question asked, c.) the sample size and method and d.) the criterion for 'young'. Otherwise your 'statistic' is little more than flatulence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 3620070522

I guess we should count ourselves lucky; 42% of young French Muslims support suicide bombing.

You have a damn funny way of showing it, taking a dump all over these people's religion

Dhimmis often react this way when I present facts on Islam. Apparently you've bought into the PC myth that all religions and cultures are the same.

An example of Christian extremism and how it should not be taken as representative of most of Christianity.

Except as I've already demonstrated, most of the Spanish expeditions were private, for-profit affairs.

Don't spew Hanson's neopagan rubbish at me.

Care to tell us which facts posted are wrong or do you just want to make an ad hominem attack?

As I said, I am well aware that Egypt's government is problematic - but I have had Christian friends who went to Egypt, to do missionary and human rights work as well as study - who returned unharmed.

Tell it to the unfortunate Egyptian Christians I posted about. Your friends must not have tried to build a church.

[MagusYanam]

I guess we should count ourselves lucky; 42% of young French Muslims support suicide bombing.

Interesting. The article makes particular note of the fact that the question is not personal - and that the question makes it sound theoretical. It would be interesting to see the results if the same question was asked of Christians, whether military attacks against civilian targets were sometimes justified or never justified.

Dhimmis often react this way when I present facts on Islam. Apparently you've bought into the PC myth that all religions and cultures are the same.

A.) This is a personal attack and against forum rules.

B.) It is not true. I simply take seriously the mandate from Christ to love my neighbour, no matter what his or her religion is. I consider Muslims among my friends; I will not sit idly by while they are being maligned for it or dismissed on account of it.

Except as I've already demonstrated, most of the Spanish expeditions were private, for-profit affairs.

And they believed they were acting under licence from the Pope.

Care to tell us which facts posted are wrong or do you just want to make an ad hominem attack?

Khouzam's case is outrageous and the United States oughtn't extradite him (any more than we should extradite any of our prisoners to torture regimes), but the Monophysite Christians in Egypt are better off than the Christians in any of the neighbouring countries save Israel. My objection is to Hanson - who is comfortable advocating war and sending young Americans to die safely from his academic tenure post for the sake of his political 'theories'.

Also, you don't do the Copts any favours by refusing to discern between peaceful, law-abiding Muslims (the vast majority), and the tiny but high-profile minority who are willing to kill massive numbers of people to get what they want.

[East of Eden]

Interesting. The article makes particular note of the fact that the question is not personal - and that the question makes it sound theoretical. It would be interesting to see the results if the same question was asked of Christians, whether military attacks against civilian targets were sometimes justified or never justified.

Go ahead and ask as many Christians as you want if they support suicide bombing, you wouldn't get one.

A.) This is a personal attack and against forum rules.

OK, I apologize for my first sentance.

B.) It is not true. I simply take seriously the mandate from Christ to love my neighbour, no matter what his or her religion is. I consider Muslims among my friends; I will not sit idly by while they are being maligned for it or dismissed on account of it.

Christ died on the cross for the salvation of Muslims just as much as He did you and I. I pray for Christian revival in that part of the world. There are indications it is happening. I think with all the murder and mayhem in the Islamic world it turns many off to that religion. But that is a completely different matter than US foreign policy and how we treat our self-proclaimed enemies.

And they believed they were acting under licence from the Pope.

Actually, from the King of Spain. Their motivation was fame and glory, not to serve the Pope.

Khouzam's case is outrageous and the United States oughtn't extradite him (any more than we should extradite any of our prisoners to torture regimes), but the Monophysite Christians in Egypt are better off than the Christians in any of the neighbouring countries save Israel. My objection is to Hanson - who is comfortable advocating war and sending young Americans to die safely from his academic tenure post for the sake of his political 'theories'.

Also, you don't do the Copts any favours by refusing to discern between peaceful, law-abiding Muslims (the vast majority), and the tiny but high-profile minority who are willing to kill massive numbers of people to get what they want.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali (friend of the murdered Dutchman Van Gogh) said, "Islamic terrorism, both in the Netherlands and abroad, is able to thrive because it is embedded in a wider circle of fellow Muslims."

From Barnabas Aid, another story from Egypt:

"Emmanuel Samuel (aged 4) and his younger brother Carlos (aged 2) witnessed their mother, an Egyptian Christian from a Muslim background, being stripped and kicked at Cairo airport in December 2008 as the family were leaving Egypt to settle in Russia in the hopes of escaping the persecution they were enduring from the police and Martha's Muslim relatives. During their detention at the airport, the children were reportedly deprived of food to increase the pressure on their mother to return to Islam.

Following her detention at the airport, Martha was arrested, charged and imprisoned for a month. She was released on bail but not before the judge hearing her case told her is he had a knife he would kill her for leaving Islam."

Here's one from the allegedly 'moderate' Indonesia:

"The Christian village of Horale, on Seram Island in the Indonesian province of Maluku (Molucca), was largely destroyed last year when a mob from Saleman, a mainly Muslim neighboring village, attacked Horale, killing four people including an 84-year-old man and a six-year-old girl. They also set fire to 120 houses, all three churches and the school. The people of Horale are in double shock as they had been in the habit of assisting the people of Saleman, a poor village, with food, and now found their love was answered with violence."

[MagusYanam]

Go ahead and ask as many Christians as you want if they support suicide bombing, you wouldn't get one.

The question wasn't about suicide bombing, the question was about violence against civilian targets. And since the war in Iraq depended so heavily upon the opinions of those who call themselves 'Christian', again I'd say it would be interesting to see how they would respond to the question of the permissibility of violence against civilian targets.

But that is a completely different matter than US foreign policy and how we treat our self-proclaimed enemies.

Indeed. It's not our place to force an ideology upon the world.

Actually, from the King of Spain. Their motivation was fame and glory, not to serve the Pope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali (friend of the murdered Dutchman Van Gogh) said, "Islamic terrorism, both in the Netherlands and abroad, is able to thrive because it is embedded in a wider circle of fellow Muslims."

... and?

You go after the terrorists by winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim moderates. Framing it as a 'clash of civilisations' and the Islamic religion as inherently violent is self-defeating.