Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?
They may, as a group, be closest to classical liberals. But there are different kinds of Libertarians. That's why I like the Classical Liberal label. It is more specific and identifiable.
How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.
Islam is not just a religion. It is a system of government. A form of theocracy. Christianity does not have a secular component. Some actual forms of government may make Christianity its government accepted and controlled religion. But make no mistake, the actual civil government will not be the church. And, as you say, secular leaders may twist or usurp a religion for their own ends. But Christianity, as exemplified by Christ, is not connected to earthly governments. (The current Catholic Pope may be a bit of an exception. He has that South American Liberation theology streak in him). Islam, as exemplified by Mohammad, and by its scriptures in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, is not only a religion, it is the earthly government. By its own code and teaching and example of its founder, Islam cannot be subservient to a secular constitution other than its own koranic and Mohammadin system. It must rule everybody, Muslim or otherwise. And the "otherwise" is allowed only in limited circumstances. And that is not twisting the Koran to fit a view. It would be twisting the Koran (as some try to do) to make it say otherwise.
Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
|
Christ did not fight the Crusades. Early Christianity spread not by power, but by preaching and sacrifice, and was purely voluntary, as well as being a great danger for converts. Islam, in Mohammad's beginning Mecca phase, is where he tried for years the peaceful preaching method, but had managed to convert only about 150 people. In Medina, he changed to his warrior phase. Under conquest, Jihad of the Sword, he imposed Islam on a vast empire of people. And the messages he received from God created a system that was not only religious, but was a code for secular rule as well.
So the foundation and precepts of each religion is different. Christ founded a religion based on voluntary faith, Mohammad founded a theocracy founded on force. That is the fundamental difference and foundation of each. That is why Christianity is not incompatible with our Constitution, and Islam is.
The crusades were not about an establishment of actual Christianity, but of returning the lands which were originally Christian but conquered by Muslims back into the hands of Christians. In that force rather than preaching was used, it was a corruption and not really Christian. But Christianity went through a great period of reformation to restore it back to true Christian roots. And that is, in essence (though corrupted by some) the Christianity of today. And why it is a religion, not a theocracy.
We have, for whatever reasons, been fed the line that Islam is just another religion. It is so very, very, and as you mentioned in an earlier post, easy to verify that it is not. That it is a very strict and harsh theocracy. Very few serious and honest Muslim clerics/scholars would admit to some Islamic compatibility with western democracy, much less to the American Constitution.