It’s Ok For Muslim Violence Against Christians

Discussion in 'Masonic Blogs' started by Michael Neumann, May 27, 2013.

  1. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    The problem is not religious. The problem is economic. The Western Allies created this situation starting in 1920. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was taken as an opportunity for the UK and France, in particular, to re-assert their colonial practices (de facto if not dejure) in the Levant, North Africa, Central Asia, and other modern "Muslim hot spots". Just look at the history of these countries from 1920 to WWII. They were all dealing with powerful arbitrary and mercantilist colonialist French and British meddling. The French and the British propped up local strongmen. To make matters more tricky the foolish Balfour had released his "Declaration" in order to induce the USA to enter WWI. His tactic failed, but it did mean that the British Mandate for Palestine was saddled with a problematic policy that would make for later trouble.

    After WWII pretty much trash-canned overt Franco-British colonialism in the area (the real powers of the world--USA and USSR--didn't want to play that game), they and their successors (mostly the USA) still used the strongman approach to rule these areas by proxy. The British, especially, in the person of Lawrence, had made all kinds of promises regarding "independence" from the Ottomans. They were not interested in keeping these promises. Thus, the local dicatators were intimately associated with Europeans. Political opposition found shelter among the lower non-industrial economic classes, who are almost always more socially conservative than are the urban proletariat, bourgeoisie, or elite. Islam, like many religions, has some measure of social justice in its teachings. It is very easy to construct a form of Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, etc.) that casts the poor as the oppressed faithful and the rich as the servants of Satan. If these servants of Satan happen to be propped up by foreigners who practice a different religion, so much the better.

    This is why we see movements like Wahabbi arising in the 1920s. They are religious expressions of economic and political rebellion. Rather than live up to their own propaganda, the USA and UK (France quickly became a nonentity in the region) made matters worse by supporting the dictators against their own people. The USSR responded by pretending to adopt the cause of the dissidents. Simple geopolitics, no real doctrine behind it.

    In the present day, these dissident groups now find themselves riding the tiger. They have had decades of being sufficiently repressed to keep resentment alive but insufficiently repressed to be exterminated. Even if their leaders wanted to, they could not moderate their message. The tiger would turn on them. The best thing the USA can do is cut the ground out from under them.

    What does this has to do with blaming non-extremists for the acts of extremists? This is an economic issue. So long as the governments in these countries treat people as they do, so long as oil is sold and the people never see the benefits, so long as rich countries worry about an "obesity epidemic" and the people in these countries worry about starving, absolutely nothing that non-extremists do will change anything. The conditions have nothing to do with who "controls the conversation". The conditions are simply a response to underlying economic and political forces. In the West most people haven't a lick of sense, so they blindly believe that the entire rest of the world segregates and compartmentalizes religion like we do. This practice is actually abnormal. Even in our own history, compartmentalization of religion is unusual.

    The non-extremists could talk themselves blue in the face and be murdered by the thousands by extremists. It won't change anything until the conditions that convince young people that they will get a better deal with the extremists no longer exist.
     
  2. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    Bro. BryanMaloney The problem is not economics. Go look all over the internet on who the USA give foreign aid too. The list is all the people that don't like the US. The problem is envy and the need to have an enemy to defeat as a goal. When someone wants power over others they use politics, economy, and religious deferances to destabilize. This is why we as Freemasons have to meet on the level.

    Everyone can point at someone/something in the past that was done to them or against them in the name of religion. We have to get past the vengeance of humanity and back to law. The concept of law is to be made whole not vengeance and resaprosity. It is our religions that teach morals. If you look at the new testament of the bible you will see Grace, If you look at the bhagavad Gita you will also find Grace and many other of the newer writings. You will see God changing for a vengeance full god to a more benevolent god. This you do not see in Islam in writing or actions.
     
  3. Michael Hatley

    Michael Hatley Premium Member

    461
    49
    28
    The second highest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel. 1st and 3rd are Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. Folks who believe we can effectively occupy a country and then not lend a hand with roads, schools, and so forth as we extract ourselves I'm not sure what to tell them. It is one of the big reasons why in 2002 when we had a very large national discussion about going in.

    But, anyhow - for me, I've met many Muslim men. Worked with them. Broke bread with them. Most of them have seen their religion the same way most American Christians do, when you get right down to it. Lots of metaphor, allegory, and general principals that are worthwhile. Lots of peculiar things (stoning your kids and so forth, plenty of odd things in most major religions if you focus on those things) that aren't of a terrible amount of value.

    And, lots of folks who use religion as a tool to lead desperate, weak minded, illiterate or near illiterate people to do the things they want them to do, pay them money, anoint political leaders and so on and so forth. Both Christianity and Islam have countless examples of this.

    Where the rubber meets the road, in my view, is tolerance. When a person's religion causes them to become intolerant, it has been bent. When it causes them to be more charitable, conscientious, tolerant people who are at peace with themselves and their neighbor it is working as intended. There are loads of good examples of all the major religions doing this.

    This is why Freemasonry does not exclude a man because of his religion. And why a man who has convinced himself that Islam is inherently evil should really consider their views. It is difficult to practice tolerance when you come from there.

    Just my point of view.
     
  4. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    Really? I didn't realize that Israel hated the USA so much!!!!! They're the second largest recipient of foreign aid. Wow! I never knew that Israel was an enemy of the USA! AMAZING! My source: American Fact-Finder. Ireland also get foreign aid from the USA. Likewise, the poorer a country is, the less of that aid will get to the people who need it. This is very well documented. Instead, this "aid" is really just payoffs to the strongmen and crime bosses we prop up or wish to prop up. The silly little fairy tale about how we distribute food and are hated for it is just that--a silly little fairy tale. The reality is that the majority of US aid goes to people in the respective countries who already have power. They use it to prop up the power structure and then do whatever they want. In any case, that still says nothing at all about the historical situation between the World Wars, which is the origin of our problems. The USA essentially didn't have any foreign aid to speak of during that period. Of course, you chose to not address that period.

    So, then, when will you stand by your anti-Islam pot-banging and demand that Muslims be expelled from Freemasonry? If Islam is inherently violent and inherently antithetical to universal fraternity, who could not demand its expulsion?


    This has nothing at all to do with the economic and political issues. This is not a religious problem. It is a geopolitical problem that is using religious rhetoric. Sir Francis Drake was not given letters of marque in order to bring about the downfall of the Papacy. He was given them to make money for the English throne. That Spain happened to be Catholic and England Protestant merely made it easier to do.

    Again, if Islam is devoid of mercy, devoid of brotherhood, why have you not demanded that all Muslims be expelled from Freemasonry or required to abandon Islam?
     
  5. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    It’s Ok For Muslim Violence Against Christians

    "What can one man do? Hmmm let me see, this one man - me - has started a FB page, called lodges, set up over 20 different petition forms, and paid for lots and lots of advertising on FB for the cause of visitation. I have targeted the UGLE in advertisements, I have targeted lodges in the Philippines, I have targeted lodges all over the world.... this one little old man.

    What can one man do? That is a silly question, ask Brother Blake about this website connected FB page that brings together +10,000 masons (granted he now has help but he was/is the 'master mind')"

    • My brother, in no way did I mean any disrespect with my comments. To see that you are a "one man wrecking crew" is awesome. I wish i knew more people who do what you do. I've even questioned myself as to what I'm doing about this situation, considering I'm putting on my two cents on this issue.

    I commend you for believing and defending in what your country was built on.

    "Sure they are. When did either of them commit or foment physical violence?"

    • Verbal violence can be just a damaging as physical abuse and can lead to physical violence. What if when Westboro was protesting the funerals of the kids from the sandy brook shooting, the families decided the had enough, and a riot broke out. Who would be to blame for the violence? The victims families who have the right to peaceful bury their children, or the idiots who think they're are doing "Gods work?"
    http://www.masonicinfo.com/robertson.htm

    Also there is this too.
    http://www.masonicinfo.com/bibledef.htm

    "The problem is not religious. The problem is economic. The Western Allies created this situation starting in 1920. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was taken as an opportunity for the UK and France, in particular, to re-assert their colonial practices (de facto if not dejure) in the Levant, North Africa, Central Asia, and other modern "Muslim hot spots". Just look at the history of these countries from 1920 to WWII. They were all dealing with powerful arbitrary and mercantilist colonialist French and British meddling. The French and the British propped up local strongmen. To make matters more tricky the foolish Balfour had released his "Declaration" in order to induce the USA to enter WWI. His tactic failed, but it did mean that the British Mandate for Palestine was saddled with a problematic policy that would make for later trouble.

    After WWII pretty much trash-canned overt Franco-British colonialism in the area (the real powers of the world--USA and USSR--didn't want to play that game), they and their successors (mostly the USA) still used the strongman approach to rule these areas by proxy. The British, especially, in the person of Lawrence, had made all kinds of promises regarding "independence" from the Ottomans. They were not interested in keeping these promises. Thus, the local dicatators were intimately associated with Europeans. Political opposition found shelter among the lower non-industrial economic classes, who are almost always more socially conservative than are the urban proletariat, bourgeoisie, or elite. Islam, like many religions, has some measure of social justice in its teachings. It is very easy to construct a form of Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, etc.) that casts the poor as the oppressed faithful and the rich as the servants of Satan. If these servants of Satan happen to be propped up by foreigners who practice a different religion, so much the better.

    This is why we see movements like Wahabbi arising in the 1920s. They are religious expressions of economic and political rebellion. Rather than live up to their own propaganda, the USA and UK (France quickly became a nonentity in the region) made matters worse by supporting the dictators against their own people. The USSR responded by pretending to adopt the cause of the dissidents. Simple geopolitics, no real doctrine behind it.

    In the present day, these dissident groups now find themselves riding the tiger. They have had decades of being sufficiently repressed to keep resentment alive but insufficiently repressed to be exterminated. Even if their leaders wanted to, they could not moderate their message. The tiger would turn on them. The best thing the USA can do is cut the ground out from under them.

    What does this has to do with blaming non-extremists for the acts of extremists? This is an economic issue. So long as the governments in these countries treat people as they do, so long as oil is sold and the people never see the benefits, so long as rich countries worry about an "obesity epidemic" and the people in these countries worry about starving, absolutely nothing that non-extremists do will change anything. The conditions have nothing to do with who "controls the conversation". The conditions are simply a response to underlying economic and political forces. In the West most people haven't a lick of sense, so they blindly believe that the entire rest of the world segregates and compartmentalizes religion like we do. This practice is actually abnormal. Even in our own history, compartmentalization of religion is unusual.

    The non-extremists could talk themselves blue in the face and be murdered by the thousands by extremists. It won't change anything until the conditions that convince young people that they will get a better deal with the extremists no longer exist.

    • My brother, I wholly agree.
     
  6. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I guess I should have said where most of the money is going and that is not Israel. And no one will ever if everyone looks at my finger instead of what I am pointing at.
     
  7. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I have no anti-Islam bone in my body. I think being a Freemason brings us together, but I am having trouble getting over an Islamic friend I THOUGHT was a friend telling me he was lieing to me the years I were friend's because the Quran told him to so he could convert me. This statement show me that you don't think someone can be torn between two thoughts and wishes for discussion of the subject. All the answers I get back are non-answers "look at my finger pointing at the moon" Confucius. Also just because a Religion tell you to do something you don't have to do it but you do have to ask your self if you are really of that religion.
     
  8. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    Thank you for the fact check brother.
     
  9. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    I could find Christians in my own town who would claim that the Bible justifies some outright atavistic attitudes regarding race. Heck, the Westboro Baptist Church uses the Bible to justify all manner of un-Christian behavior. Does that mean that Christians are racists or we all agree with Westboro Baptist? While Islam authorizes "taqqiya" it is only under circumstances of persecution and oppression. That is, Islam does not demand martyrdom. It permits Muslims to, if local authorities run around saying "You have to burn a Koran or the police will shoot you." to burn a Koran while the police watch. God will understand and forgive. Taqqiya does NOT permit lying for personal gain nor for the purpose of converting someone else. It is only for the purpose of preservation of life in the face of immanent threat.

    If you are going to trash talk a religion, it behooves you to actually know something about that religion.
     
  10. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I was told of the meaning of Taqiyya and kitman as he knew it and it is exactly as I have said. I did some research and this is some of the stuff I found on a Islamic website.

    " Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.' "

    It was the last line he was pointing to, you may not understand it the way he does. You believe the way you want and I think that is a better way to believe but there are others that I have been exposed to that don't see quit the way you do.

    I was only answering what I know about the thread title. I don't talk trash I talk about things I have seen and learned. Please help the people of the Islamic faith that do see it the way you do that they are wrong should listen to you.
     
  11. Blake Bowden

    Blake Bowden Administrator Staff Member

    5,682
    1,014
    113
    Keep it civil....
     
  12. lharoldo

    lharoldo Registered User

    4
    0
    0
    Are we discussing violence among religions or religions itself? As somebody pointed before, the topic is if it's ok to muslims use violence against christians. I think it's not, and even vice-versa.


    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  13. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    When you separate state and religion as The US and Masons do you will see no organized Christian army. As long as there is a state religion of a country the two can get confused. The US army is not a Christian army but has Christians in it and is a defensive organization to defend it countrymen and allies.
     
  14. lharoldo

    lharoldo Registered User

    4
    0
    0
    Well, I agree. So are many other armies around the world. But, again, is it ok violence among religions? We see here in Brazil some attempts to demoralize christian faith, somebody could call that a violence, but that is as far as it goes here. Physical violence among religions in democracies, however, I think is unacceptable.


    Freemason Connect Mobile
     
  15. Michael Neumann

    Michael Neumann Premium Member

    199
    8
    0
    Several brethren have stated it best, respect and tolerance for each other is the only way forward. The media in no way helps the situation by sensationalizing the news. The fact remains that our nation is facing a threat, not from any religion but from politicians infringing upon our rights, that was the primary reason for my posting the article. When judges pass laws that make it ok for some groups to do 'x' while banning others from doing the same it splits the ranks. Much like our goverment passing laws that only apply to you and I.

    Here is a newspaper article and link saying the same thing but I have yet to confirm it. Apparently they are pressing to see it as a civil rights violation to insult Islam on Facebook, Twitter, Email, or Blogs. Nobody should be insulted for ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, or really for any other reason but it happens every day. I think this treads a little too deep into free speech... flag burning would be ok but do not insult a religion?

    Newspaper article - http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360

    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/06/01/doj-slam-muslims-on-facebook-face-feds/
     
  16. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    On the thread title it should have had a ? at the end. At least that is how I read it.

    I as a Christian feel a push against me every day by more than other religions but people that read the old testament more than the new testament and think they are pointing at ideals but they are point at dogma. The people that put down the faith for some reason don't understand that, that is a communistic ideal to remove all religion. The state is the religion and only point of control.
     
  17. Michael Hatley

    Michael Hatley Premium Member

    461
    49
    28
    I don't feel this push, but then again, I am a Deist and not a Christian. It is why I am a Unitarian Universalist, which holds very similar views as Freemasonry itself does - equality of all religions.

    For me, personally, God takes no special favorites and there is no one chosen people.

    So at the end of the day the only thing that Christianity has going for it is that I am familiar with it. I feel no special need to defend it.

    And when someone delineates between the Old and New Testament as one being dogma based and the other not, well - with respect, it is by definition all dogma. As is our ritual and history as Freemasons. Heck one of our more famous texts is even named "Morals and Dogma".

    Does that mean it is without value? No. Is it worth committing violence over? Not to me.

    For me the only worthwhile use of physical violence is to prevent physical violence done to those who cannot defend themselves.

    As for stamping out of religion being a communistic value, I reckon that one of the earliest occurrences of it was actually Plato. In his Republic, he envisioned getting rid of Homer, Hesiod, and so forth. Now its true that Plato influenced the Communists, but he also put a strong mark on most Western Philosophers (including Locke and our Founding Fathers). And of course the Third Reich was Fascist and not Communist. But, anyway.

    I know a lot of folks despise the ACLU and other groups like them. They get on my nerves too. But stamping out religion isn't most of their goal, not really.

    Think on it, if your children attended a school funded by your tax dollars where all the prayers were Islamic, and you didn't have options to send them somewhere else - would it be about stamping out religion that you might prefer that these prayers not take place at school? After all, everyone is free to worship in their leisure time as they wish. You just would want your kiddo to not have to feel uncomfortable during a prayer every day, and feel the need to conform. It isn't like 99.999% of people in this world are against people being able to say a prayer silently to themselves over their food to any manifestation of God they wish to.

    But pointing that out almost always gets me "we are a Christian nation", which, as a Deist, I could argue pretty strongly - as most of our founding documents, many of the founding fathers, and indeed Freemasonry itself is, in actuality, a fair bit more Deist than Christian.

    No matter your view on that, what I think we can agree on is that the United States was based on religious freedom. When our public institutions leverage Christianity as opposed to another religion, that is not freedom, it is perpetuating one religion at the expense of the views of others.

    For what purpose? I see little, personally.

    And, also my opinion here, I think that the incursions people feel upon their own religions are often exaggerated. Noone is preventing anyone in this country from worshiping how they wish. We don't need Christian mottos engraved on our capitol buildings or Christian prayers over the meal at our public schools, those are distracting and needlessly divisive small things. What matters is that our religious institutions are free, that people may worship how they choose, and that people do not discriminate against a person based on their religious affiliation.

    We don't even need "under God" in our national or Texas pledge of allegiance. And in fact, it wasn't added to our national pledge until 1954, almost 200 years after the formation of this great nation. The "under God" bit to our Texas pledge wasn't added until 5 years ago. We got along fine without it in either for many, many generations.

    Even our national motto "In God We Trust" wasn't changed to that until 1956.

    Familiar with McCarthyism? Its height was 1950-1956. The anti-communist bent was going on big guns back then.

    And really, things like "In God We Trust", no matter how true or good a motto - really eclipses our original motto:

    E pluribus unum

    Out of many, one.

    That, Brethren, is what out nation is founded on. No ambiguity, no polarization. Unity.

    /ramble
     
  18. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    I see the defrances of the new and old testament and it is a change in covenant. We must respect the old covenant and look to the new covenant for our actions. The old covenant tell us that God is going to strike us down right now for our sinful ways. The new covenant say spread the word to all nations tell them of there sinful ways and through grace you can be saved from the striking. There is grace of the almighty.

    Look at the definition of dogma, Morals, ideology and religion. Ideology is what makes religion a religion. Morals and Dogma are what makes rules for religion and they are written by man to explain the religion. They may be divinely defined but we as humans have to figure that out. The bases of Islam or Christianity go back to there ideology and if the only path to God in that religion is works and not grace you see God as vengeful like to old testament and must do the same to get to heaven/nirvana/and so on.

    And I can't say anything about the rest of what you said this is not the thread for that topic.
     
  19. Michael Hatley

    Michael Hatley Premium Member

    461
    49
    28
    Thats probably true. I was just hoping to come at the undercurrent that Islam is an inherently negative religion in some posts here from other tangents, but I agree I was all over the place.

    So to focus - do you believe a man can become a good man through Islam? Salvation is something else, but is it possible for Islam to make a man "good"?

    Or does it corrupt a man?

    Or is it a wash, and merely to be tolerated?

    I come down on the first of the three.

    Where do you, Brother?
     
  20. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    753
    26
    48
    It depends on others belief in the Quran and how you read it. I can not say because I have seen how someone else reads it and have been told by a Muslim to my face they can lie to me it is hard to believe anything. "do you believe a man can become a good man through Islam?" Yes if he only reads the part that leaves out Mohammad's dark time. But I still will say Mohammad is not a profit and if I was a part of his army in 635ad I would have been beheaded for stating that. but that is my belief. The dark times or "satanic verses" of the Quran I do not believe will make a good man good. It is in that mans hart on what they except and reject.

    It is between he and God.
     

Share My Freemasonry