uh...it seems to me there is an obvious reason...the United States doesn't have a monopoly on truth. When another entire culture believes something differently than we do, it would be the epitome of ego-centricity to lable them bigotted. Within our own culture, we have an established standard, and can judge people accordingly..When we automatically assume that standard is THE standard, or worse yet, try to export our standards to other, 'less developed' areas, we are conducting our own version of a Crusade...
Hey JAG, do you think you can stop bolding everything and maybe just bold the message you're replying to? It only takes an additional 10 seconds and makes your posts much much easier to follow. As it is I have to read every one of your posts wondering whether each line is from you or the previous poster...
i feel that we always see externals as perilously close to rising, en masse, just as many of them see us. the Yellow Peril and Red Menace of days gone by have been replaced with the threat of a massive Islamic Jihad...completely ignoring the fact that these fanatics proclaiming jihad are now more prepresentative of Islam as a whole than any North American cult leader would be representative of Western culture...
yes, sorry, i don't know how to answer within the text of another and not do it in bold, and am computarily illiterate. How do I do it, if you don't mind?
Ok, I am going to print the above message in the BBS script: (QUOTE)(i)Originally posted by JAG (/i) (B) yes, sorry, i don't know how to answer within the text of another and not do it in bold, and am computarily illiterate. How do I do it, if you don't mind?(/B)(/QUOTE) All I have done in the above message is replaced brackets "[]" with paranthesis "()". The "quote" message is what puts the lines above and below the text you are replying to. The "b" is what makes things bold. So to make this bold I insert (b) in front of the word "this" and insert (/b) after the word "bold". The "i" above is what makes things (such as "Originally posted by JAG" in italics. Just remember that you need to close whatever you're doing with the (/) command. Hopefully that makes some sense, and just remember that you use [] instead of () when doing this for real...
The problem with the quote is not that it's bigoted, but it is over simplistic and looks like something drafted for a good "sound bite". You have to admit, it's a nice quote for Christian readership, however, the part that "Islam is a religion in which God<b>requires</b> you to send your son to die for him" isn't true, at least as far as I know. I suspect that Ashcroft can explain what he meant, but it wouldn't be as succinct. To summarize: - I am Christian - I have no problems with Ashcroft - I have no problems with other religions - The quote is simplistic, inaccurate - The quote is clerverly worded and intended towards a Christian readership (for what that's worth) - It would be interesting to read Cal Thomas' entire piece once it's published - Regardless of Ashcroft's personal feelings/beliefs, he is a representative of our government and he should not make <i>inaccurate</i> statements. Perhaps it would have been better had he said "Bin Laden professes you need to die in a blaze of glory for his God...", or even better..."I am a Christian, my God loves me so much, He sent His son to die for me, NOT me for Him" and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
SO! You DENY it is all about Booty?!?!? Correct me if I'm wrong but we had a war with the 'Yellow Peril' (WWII) and with the Red Menace (the Cold War), so its not like we made those threats up. Does casting them in the role possibly contribute to conflict? Its possible. But arguing it CREATES those threats, or that they wouldn't exist ABSENT our representations is silly. Are you going to say there really isn't a threat from an Islamic Jihad? The WTC towers NO LONGER EXIST. Prepresentative is not a word. I assume you mean the Islamic extremists are as representative of Islam as Koresh or his ilk are of Christianity? I would disagree. None of the western cultists have done anything on the scale of the Islamic extremists (the FIRST WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the SECOND WTC attack), and none of it in an international effort to dictate foreign policy to nation-states. And I would add that (1) a large portion of the Islamic population - possibly not a majority but still a large number - support the Jihad and (2) Islamic governments - like our good friends the Saudis - support the Jihad.
I find this comment very offensive. Had he only said "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him," it would not be derogatory. But because it is followed by the Christianity statement, Ashcroft's true intention is revealed. The two statements are positioned together as an antithesis to show contrast. I don't care if he's Christian or who the audience was, as Attorney General he should not be making derogatory comments about any religion.
There is a saying attributed to a couple of scholars of Islam which goes along the lines of "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of a marytr." It is also a tradition of the Prophet which says "Scholars are the heirs of the Prophet" The argument that one who dies for God in Islam is higher ranking than the Prophet is hogwash.
While the jihad is not one of the 5 pillars of Islam, it does play an integral role. "The primary meaning of jihad is armed struggle against non-Muslims for the purpose of expanding or defending the territory under Muslim rule" (Cleveland). And as I said before, it also applies to internal struggles against sin. And the prayers are done 5 times a day. boy-where did you come up with that??? More often today, the jihad has been used for political protest, not as a true religious doctrine. However, Ashcroft STILL did not say anything wrong other than the word require. And I love how you are generalizing all Muslims. They are not violent people. They have the most tolerant religion in the world. And Ashcroft did not say they were not tolerant and he did not say they were violent and he didn't discriminate against all or any Muslims. He made a true statement for the most part (again, the only wrong word was require). Ashcroft did not even make this generalization. He simply said Islam's God wants you to die for him (as in martyrdom). I don't like the guy and I have a great appreciation for Islam and I have no problem with what he said. So much shouldn't be read into one statement. I love how this got twisted to mean he's bigoted. Sure, he may be, but this doesn't prove it.
The most essential part of that sentence is require. A pretty big word to mess up. That's like me saying that Major is a horrible boss, but he's not he's a great boss, but I wasn't that wrong since he is a boss.
To some Islamic people, I would bet they feel it's required. It's the highest form of praise. Most Islamic people don't feel that way though. I don't think the word required makes the sentence wrong. He could have said "The Islamic God wants you to die for him" and you would still jump all over him saying he's a bigot. You can't argue with word choice on this one. The point is that you don't like Ashcroft so anything he says will be bigotted. You're example with Major wasn't even correct. It's more like the difference between a good boss and a great one. Both words are on the same side of the fence. Your's were not; they were opposites. Until I pointed out that this was the only incorrect part of his statement, nobody cared about that word. It was all about calling their God "bloodthirsty and violent" which he never said. Now that maybe you see that he could be right, it's about word choice. Nice.
I really haven't cared that much about this thread or what Ashcroft said actually. To me, the only questionable part to his statement was the use of the word "require", so when you said what you did, I responded for the first time in this entire thread. Nice try though.
Sorry about that. It just didn't fit with the rest of them. And I still don't think the word is that big of a deal.
At the base of it, I don't either since I don't really think what he said was that big a deal. Now go vote for me!!
It wasn't a big deal. Like someone said, if you don't like him, he could say anything and it'll piss you off. It's nice to know there are actually some other sane people out there.... campaigning I see....nice
The tradition about the scholars is well known. And the ink of the scholar being more holy, I believe, is attributed to either Hassan al Basri or the "5th Rightly Guided Khalifah" Umar bin Abdul Aziz. If you want real references I can look them up for you.
uh... 1) Never had any opinion about Ashcroft before this, and what he said was innacurate, innapropriate, and biased. It seems to me that you are being a tad dismissive of others' point of view re: Ashcroft's statement. To state that the only motivation for feeling about it as I and others do is not only presumptious, it's downright insulting. I have factual, thought out, SANE reasons for my opinion about Ashcroft's statement, and they have nothing to do with anything he has ever said or done before. For you to assume that your way is the only real, sane way of looking at it, and to make snide remarks dennouncing the opposing view as without objective foundation is extremely....oh...I see why you like Ashcroft.... 2) Would it be an accurate statement that if you like Ashcroft, you're going to like/support everything he says no matter what, or is it only those of differing opinions who are so biased? 3) I don't agree that the word required is the only offensive or 'wrong' part of the statemtn, but for arguments sake, let's say that's true....and your point is? One word changes the entire connotation and meaning of a sentance, and the statement can only be evaluated as a whole...Think about these statements, and see if they seem to be just a tad affected by the alteration of one word... " Give me liberty, or give me pizza.!" " We find the defendant, Mr. Simpson, very guilty." " It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a blond man to enter the kingdom of heaven." " Will no one rid me of this meddlesome tailor!?" " John Ashcroft has his head up his collar."
My comments were not directed at you personally. And I don't like Ashcroft, as I said earlier, but he still didn't say anything wrong. In general, I would think it's safe to say, if you like him, you'll probably agree with him. If you don't like him, you'll probably disagree. As far as the word choice goes, you give no comparable examples. As I pointed out to RM95, "God required" and "God wanted" are two degrees on the same side. They do not oppose each other. In your example, collar and ass are not on the same side, ie, they don't share a similar meaning. Everyone in the world is biased. He has a Christian bias. But what is said is still not bad. Allah does say you can die for him and that that is a good thing. The jihad is in the Quran and the Quran is the word of Allah. Tell me how this is offensive and wrong. In a writting article such as the one in question, there is no way anyone should try and figure out the connotation. The article did not even contain the context in which the statement was said. How can you take it at anything other than face value, especially when he has said befor that Islam is peaceful?
