Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:17:08 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Mark & Juanita (in ) said:
| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| ...
Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.
You realize that it not the Saudis that we are fighting, right? Those
Saudis who flew the planes into the towers were not acting at the behest of
the Saudi government. The Saudis do contribute to the problem through
their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful not to do so within their
own boundaries.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "The Saudis do contribute to the
problem through their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful
not to do so within their own boundaries." The Saudi contribution
to the problem OUTSIDE of their boundaries (borders?) is exactly
the part of the problem that affects us the most.
It is 'a' Saudi who leads the second most dangerous clandestine
paramilitary organization (al Queda) though the most dangersous,
Hezbollah, is primarily supported by Iran. He is 'persona non grata'
In Saudia Arabia today, that may be what you mean.
Now, if you were a Saudi citizen, how would you have been treated had you
openly attended Sunday School or other "Fellowship Services"? Also, how
would the Saudis have treated you had you offered to share details of your
faith? Not in a pushy way, but just sharing?
An American would probably at worse be deported. A Saudi Sufi might
be in bigger trouble.
Indonesia has laws that prohibit Christians from openly evangelizing or
sharing their faith. The converse is not true.
Back to the point, it's not the Saudis, or the Kuwaities, or the UAE
citizens that are the issue and they aren't the ones openly and actively
pushing the concept of jihad on the west (they may be quietly supporting
and abetting, but that's a different issue).
FWIW:
http://www.altavista.com/web/results...&kgs=1&kls =0
And it is my understanding that North America's largest Iman has
denounced violent jihad in general. At least I read that on UseNet,
as far as I can tell the Mainstream Media (MSM--thanks) is not
particularly inclined to report such things.
They aren't the ones who are
going to be issuing the ultimatums --- it's those who are pursuing the
radical agenda that are going to be making those offers.
Yes, the rank and file of Muslims world-wide just want to get along.
Consider that if only one tenth of one person of Muslims were to
volunteer to fight pursuant to bin Laden's Fatwa he would
have a million man army. Instead, has never had more than,
what, a thousand or so?
As for the financial support, it appears that much of that is '
fraudulently obtained by misdirecting charitiable contributions or
outright fraud like credit card and demand draft fraud.
For nearly two millenia every major city of the Middle East
had its Jewish Quarter, not a ghetto where the local authorities
segregatted them, but peaceful and prosperous enclaves
voluntarily created by their inhabitants. Judaism and Islam
peacfully coexisted, along with the Coptic Christians
and, most of the time, the Orthodox as well.
It was not until the creation of the State of Israel, when there
was a new power in the civil political theater, that Muslim
leaders became openly anti-Jewish. It was a corruption of
religion, and a fostering of religious intollerance for purely
political purposes, just as we saw in Europe both befor
and after.
As Americans, we msut not allow our 'mullahs' and politicians
to do the same.
You are aware of the riots in France, the push for allowing various
communities in London and areas in Canada to be ruled by sharia? Those
folks aren't playing "good and happy people" nor are they assimilating into
the countries into which they have emigrated -- they are attempting to get
those countries to conform to *their* culture.
It was approximately a week into the riots in France when the
news services reported an grim development. Someone
had been killed the night before. As bad as any riot is, when
it comes to violence, the French Muslims don't hold a candle
to good old American Christians who killed more than 40 in
three days of rioting in Los Angeles.
I have heard on PRI, NPR, or C-Span that there is a movement in
Canada to allow the litigants in certain civil issues, like shild
custody and shild support, to voluntarily submit thier claims to
sharia court for legally binding arbitration. I do not know if
Canadian Law permits any other relgious organization to
act as arbiters in such matters, but if it does, then surely
sharia courts sould be considered as well.
Do you know of any movement to give original jurisdiction to
sharia courts anywhere in Canada or Europe? If so, please
let me know.
BTW, have you by any chance heard of "The Moral Majority" or
"The Christian Coalition"? Those are two lobbying organizations
that openly lobby to incorporate their own religious beliefs into
the civil and criminal laws of the United States of AMerica, where
they would be binding on everyone.
You have got to be kidding.
We have Time magazine fabricate a story about desecrating the Koran and
the muslims seethe, rage, riot and burn churches and kill people.
We have somebody draw cartoons and the muslim world seethes, burns
churches and kills people.
A pope makes a statement referencing an 13'th century pope's comments
13th century patriarch, actually
regarding how islam tends to be violent and we get muslims seething,
rioting, burning churches, and killing people. Then they make the
statement that anyone calling their religion violent should have their head
cut off.
Is rioting and burning a Korean-American grocery because a jury
with no Korean Americans on it aquitted four officers in the Rodney
King beating trial any better?
--
FF