1
   

Conversion from Islam = Death penalty?

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 09:51 pm
I am glad this man was released, it would have been an embarrassment to Islam if it had turned out any other way...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:16 pm
He would have been a Christian martyr. At least he didn't see the need to blow up anyone else.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 03:55 am
Tony Blair addressed the Australian parliament yesterday. He could not have been more explicit that there is a battle for "global values" against Islamic fundamentalism. He was very careful a few years ago to say the battle against terrorism had nothing to do with religion. Now he says in effect we are at war with Islam.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 09:50 am
I wish he could run for U.S. president.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:25 pm
really cj?

just suppose for sake of argument that TB "retired" to the US. He's still fairly young. If he took out US citzenship straight away, are you actually suggesting he could win the presidency before he was too old?

Or do all US presidents have to be born in the US?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:28 pm
Born in USA, to the dismay of Arnold.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:30 pm
thanks Rog

thought I heard that somewhere.

arnold who?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:33 pm
Republican governor of California. Naturalized Austrian.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:41 pm
ahhh...have heard of the same..

late here, g'night

I'll be back
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:06 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Tony Blair addressed the Australian parliament yesterday. He could not have been more explicit that there is a battle for "global values" against Islamic fundamentalism. He was very careful a few years ago to say the battle against terrorism had nothing to do with religion. Now he says in effect we are at war with Islam.


I would like to see a link for this statement? Smile

I don't think Tony Blair would use those words or anything quite similar.

How about an actual transcript?

...considering the Muslims use the same book of law that the Jews and Christians use, that would seem rather contradictory...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:07 am
I cant find a transcript of the speech found this though

From

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aPx3p.V3Rxzk&refer=uk

Foreign Policy

The speech is the second of three foreign policy addresses from Blair. The first, delivered in London on March 21, argued that the world needed to confront Islamic extremism. Today's set out a possible method for doing so. The third, to be given in the U.S., will look at how global institutions need to be reformed to take on the problem.

Blair cited Australia's alliance with Britain during the Second World War. ``When Britain declared war on the Nazi tyranny, that same day your prime minister announced you were at war too,'' he said. ``No ifs, no buts, just solidly with the world. We needed you then. We need you now.''

``To win, we have to win the battle of ideas as much as arms,'' Blair said. ``If we want to secure our way of life, there's no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values, not just in our country but the world over.''

Blair will travel on to New Zealand and then Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, where he wants to lend support to the government's battle against Muslim separatists plotting with al-Qaeda terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:48 pm
Blair takes on Islamic extremism

By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 21, 2005

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who yesterday called for an international conference on Islamic extremism, is proving far more willing than President Bush to demand that Muslim leaders confront their own failings in the global war on terror.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:52 pm
The death penalty for religious autonomy? That's the biggest condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism. Notice I said "fundamentalism." I'm confident that not all Muslims are so extremist. What if our Christian fundamentalists should ever achieve political hegemony in this country? Theocracy is Hell from the perspective of the secular humanist.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 04:14 pm
JLNobody wrote:
The death penalty for religious autonomy? That's the biggest condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism. Notice I said "fundamentalism." I'm confident that not all Muslims are so extremist. What if our Christian fundamentalists should ever achieve political hegemony in this country? Theocracy is Hell from the perspective of the secular humanist.



As a Christian I seem to uncannily agree...

Either way, if the atheists take over we are in a mess and if the Christians or as you call them fundamentalists take over we would be in an equally great mess...

My political persuasion is exactly in the center such that neither right or left are able to EVER "take over"... Smile
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 04:47 pm
If the atheists ever took over, Rex, you would still have the constitution, and JL did not equate Christians with fundamentalists. That was your paraphrase, which clearly changed the meaning of the post.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:44 pm
Thanks, Roger.
Rex, we should keep in mind that while "atheists" are not a political block and do not condemn the practice of religion FOR OTHERS, our society does have a secular (not an athiest) government--hence the separation of Church and State. This in no way injures the private practice of religious practice and belief. It means merely that government cannot regulate religion and religion cannot regulate government...give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's....
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 07:02 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Thanks, Roger.
Rex, we should keep in mind that while "atheists" are not a political block and do not condemn the practice of religion FOR OTHERS, our society does have a secular (not an athiest) government--hence the separation of Church and State. This in no way injures the private practice of religious practice and belief. It means merely that government cannot regulate religion and religion cannot regulate government...give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's....


I am implying that the people in the middle or moderates control religion and agnostics not government...

Though government cannot/should not have a blind eye to religion.

When the government turns a blind eye to God they become God. This is why the government and the people are "under" God... This should never be forgotten no matter your belief otherwise...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 07:03 pm
roger wrote:
If the atheists ever took over, Rex, you would still have the constitution, and JL did not equate Christians with fundamentalists. That was your paraphrase, which clearly changed the meaning of the post.


If atheists took over we would have pagan Rome all over again (but much worse)... Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 07:07 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I cant find a transcript of the speech found this though

From

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aPx3p.V3Rxzk&refer=uk

Foreign Policy

The speech is the second of three foreign policy addresses from Blair. The first, delivered in London on March 21, argued that the world needed to confront Islamic extremism. Today's set out a possible method for doing so. The third, to be given in the U.S., will look at how global institutions need to be reformed to take on the problem.

Blair cited Australia's alliance with Britain during the Second World War. ``When Britain declared war on the Nazi tyranny, that same day your prime minister announced you were at war too,'' he said. ``No ifs, no buts, just solidly with the world. We needed you then. We need you now.''

``To win, we have to win the battle of ideas as much as arms,'' Blair said. ``If we want to secure our way of life, there's no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values, not just in our country but the world over.''

Blair will travel on to New Zealand and then Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, where he wants to lend support to the government's battle against Muslim separatists plotting with al-Qaeda terrorists.


Do you imply that Blair is saying that moderate Muslims don't have moral values?
0 Replies
 
Tico
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 07:09 pm
"Pagan" Rome was actually a very religious place. The proportion of atheists were probably the same as current Western cultures.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 06:22:19