Tuesday, March 10, 2015

The Tolerance of the Intolerant: Tolerance or Submission?

Christianity has evolved in terms of its church doctrine and Christian theocracy is extinct. Witches no longer are burned at the stake nor does the Inquisition no longer exist. The general concept is to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who even stopped a stoning session against a woman accused of adultery. He did this not just on a humanitarian level, but to emphasize that it is better to change a person other ways than punishment by being stoned to death. He was more concerned about spirtuality than materialism. 

Islam evolved in some ways and a good example of such is the Republic of Turkey whose first Turkish president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938) modernized Turkey (Turkeii), separated religion from the affairs of the state, promoted tolerance, outlawed the wearing of the veil for women, instituted a Western government complete with a parliament, and modified the penal code after the Italian Penal Code, provided freedom for women, reformed the educational system that included changing written language from Arabic to a Latin alphabet. He also instituted the State Art and Sculpture Museum which highlighted sculpture, forbidden in Islamic traditions as idolatry. Atatürk used the advice of Dewey in teaching methods at primary educational levels, establishing gender equality and making it important for females to be educated. 
He also orchestrated the translation of scientific terminology into Turkish. It became a model of what an Islamic state could be with a much lower rate of illiteracy than other Islamic states. Even the Qur'an was published in the Turkish language, rather than Arabic; some editions having both like the Egyptian 1938 publication of Arabic and English Qur'an. The first Turkish operatic work was commissioned in 1934 and by in the same year granted full political rights to women, beyond the previous law that provided equal rights in marriage. Indeed, in the 1935 elections, there were 18 female MPs out of a total of 395 representatives – more than the nine in the British House of Commons and six in the US House of Representatives. Atatürk's foreign policy was “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”.
The point of all this is that Muslims CAN live in peace with its neighbors and as long as Islam is not a theocracy, separated from civic laws and state business. It can be a religion of tolerance, to a point. For example, there are Christians and Jews in Turkey – but no religion can publicly solicit – like passing out flyers to convert people, for example. Other than that, Christians and Jews are not harassed and being Turkish citizens they have all the rights of the Muslim majority.
Recent political pressures may change that, but Turkey is not part of what horrors are occurring elsewhere in Islamic nations.
In the United States and Europe, politicians insist that Islam is a religion of peace. It could be if the majority were not still insisting upon theocracy and a dogma/doctrine still in the 7th century. They have chosen not to go the way that Turkey had when it gained independence and the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
President Obama has told us and in foreign speeches that ISIS(Islamic State) “is not Islamic” because its “actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith”. He states that “we are not at war with Islam but with the people who have perverted Islam”.
Daniel Pipes provides a list of politicians side-stepping the issue from American leadership:
Secretary of State John Kerry echoes him: ISIS consists of "coldblooded killers masquerading as a religious movement" who promote a "hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam." His spokesperson, Jen Psaki, goes further: the terrorists "are enemies of Islam."
Jeh Johnson, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, assents: "ISIL is [not] Islamic." My favorite: Howard Dean, the former Democrat governor of Vermont, says of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, "They're about as Muslim as I am."
The same diatribe comes from our European counterparts of Western Civilization.
Summarizing these statements, which come straight out of the Islamist playbook: Islam is purely a religion of peace, so violence and barbarism categorically have nothing to do with it; indeed, these "masquerade" and "pervert" Islam. By implication, more Islam is needed to solve these "monstrous" and "barbaric" problems. But, of course, this interpretation neglects the scriptures of Islam and the history of Muslims, steeped in the assumption of superiority toward non-Muslims and the righteous violence of jihad. Ironically, ignoring the Islamic impulse means foregoing the best tool to defeat jihadism: for, if the problem results not from an interpretation of Islam, but from random evil and irrational impulses, how can one possibly counter it? Only acknowledging the legacy of Islamic imperialism opens ways to re-interpret the faith's scriptures in modern, moderate, and good-neighborly ways.
Simply put, it is because Islamic clerical leadership that is also part of the civic leadership refuse to move beyond the 7th century. The Christian clerical hierarchy went against what Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, had taught. He was a reformer, spiritual and doctrinal. He did not try to do away with the traditional holy days and feasts, but did away with the practice of sacrificing lambs and used words instead of stones to make a person see their sinful ways.
Daniel Pipes wrote that there are two major reasons why politicians refuse to accept or pretend something is that isn't when it comes to the subject of Islam:
First, they want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone to violence if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a "war on Islam." Second, they worry that focusing on Muslims means fundamental changes to the secular order, while denying an Islamic element permits avoid troubling issues. For example, it permits airplane security to look for passengers' weapons rather than engage in Israeli-style interrogations.
Pipes also predicts:
Denial will continue unless violence increases. In retrospect, the 3,000 victims of 9/11 did not shake non-Muslim complacency. The nearly 30,000 fatalities from Islamist terrorism since then also have not altered the official line. Perhaps 300,000 dead will cast aside worries about Islamist sensibilities and a reluctance to make profound social changes, replacing these with a determination to fight a radical utopian ideology; three million dead will surely suffice.
In other words, politicians tend to wait until the matter is so extreme it is hard to address and more costly if war is involved. Too often, as we can see in our own history, we have waited until the enemy has grown so strong no choice is given. In this case, the enemy is already here, (and in Europe) working its way into our system. Sharia law is not Turkish law, and for good reason.
Israel has a right to exist and our leadership or the leadership of Europe should not take the side of the enemy of free nations at the expense of Israel. One would think after World War II that anti-semitism would have become extinct. 
The United Nations is at fault, in part, in that respect – it is being overtaken by tyrants and Islamists whose goal is a global central government officiated by the United Nations, whose national representatives are not elected by the people. The UN has caused more harm that it has done good.

There are 'radicals' who call themselves 'Christian' – individuals and small sects; however Christianity does not promote genocide and while they may tell someone that a certain action is 'sinful', they do not rape, torture, and murder that person or persons that commits sin (Ten Commandments). Yet, Christians are constantly rebuked and persecuted (certainly not tolerant); and our leadership here in a nation that is supposed to be a role model for freedom and the “land of the free and home of the brave” are groveling to a religious group whose actions constantly seen in the news to be evil beyond imagination. 
That religious group uses its doctrine of Jihad, which is nothing but a religious excuse for conquest, to justify those evil actions. Christians and Jews are being murdered in horrific ways in other places, but our leadership has turned its head when terrorist cells, Jihad training camps, and subversive institutions that are allowed to operate in our country. It is delusional and cowardice not to prevent the enemy of free nations to be allowed to build up strength and political clout here in our homeland.

The United States was the first nation that provided the right of religious freedom in our First Amendment. But those rights are only valid for tolerant and non-violent religions. If a religion has practices or doctrine that counters another liberty, then it is null and void. For example, if an organization or group decides that their religion calls for the sacrifice of virgins. Should that be tolerated? No. Religion does not give anyone the right to murder.
So why is our government putting up with what is happening here?
Why are they not in outrage over what is happening to Christians in other places, occurring in nations that are part of the United Nations membership?
It is time for strong, sensible leadership that if war is the only answer to eradicate such evil, et it be waged swiftly and with the intent to end it in victory. War should be the last action after all possible methods have been tried; but in this case national leadership here in Europe falsely think that pacifism is going to provide incentive. When it comes to evil, it only strengthens their resolve and determination to eradicate everything that represents good.

President Obama, in one of his most insane remarks, stated that Islam was fundamental from the beginning of our nation's creation. It is an example how progressives rewrite history, like all despotic political factions, to match their political and social ideology. I am sure I was not alone when my stomach turned when watching and hearing our president state such an untruth.
Our nation was conceived under Christian-Judaic principles, but the Founders knew the dangers of a theocracy or anything resembling it. Thus the words in the First Amendment concerning religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Ronald Reagan, Temple Hillel speech, 1984:
We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief.
Any religion, religious people, or religious entities who are intolerant cannot expect tolerance in return. Any religion that promotes violence in the name of that religion cannot be tolerated in a free society, especially in the United States that has constitutional law.
What part of this cannot be understood by the apologetics within our federal government?
veritas vos liberabit -- the truth shall make you free.

No comments:

Post a Comment