arma virumque cano (et alia)
She's insane.Not a pejorative, a statement of fact. There's something really wrong with her.
Isn't the internet wonderful? In the olden days, one had to go down to the mental institution to be able to laugh at the feebleminded and mentally ill.Now, one has to log on and be bombarded with all sorts of weirdnesss.I hate to tell her that Islam is a Judaeo-Christian religion and believes that Jesus was one of its prophets. She may want to question her invisible friend while she's at it.Of course, she may just realise that she is God when she is praying and finds out she is just talking to herself.The fact that she is able to have an AR-15 varient makes we seriously worry about the USA.Arm the mentally Ill and Criminals, it's their Second Amendment right!The US, the world's largest insane asylum without walls!
LCC, Islam is in no way connected with Judaism or Christianity. Talk about someone escaping from the asylum...jeez.Mike G.
My, you are most certainly an ignorant individual on the subject of religion, Mike G if you believe that Islam is not one of the three Abrahamic religions, all three having a common root.Lets keep it simple for the simpleton, and use Wikipedia:Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham. They are one of the three major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions (Dharmic) and East Asian religions (Taoic).The three major Abrahamic religions are, in order of appearance, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism regards itself as the religion of the descendants of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism in the 1st century CE (known as Jewish Christianity) and evolved into a separate religion with distinctive beliefs and practices, notably its replacement of the Jewish idea of an exclusive ethnic religious community (a common notion which is not entirely correct, see Bnei Noah and Conversion to Judaism) with an inclusive, universal community of believers, the Christian Church. It replaced the idea of simple monotheism with a Triune God who is simultaneously one and three. Islam was founded by Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur'an. It retained the inclusiveness of Christianity, but reverted to simple monotheism with a central, but not divine, prophet. Outside of these three well known religions, there are a number of relatively minor ones such as the Bahá'í Faith.The three religions have certain similarities. They are considered inextricably linked to one another because of a 'family likeness' and a certain commonality in theology: all three are monotheistic, and conceive God to be a transcendent Creator-figure and the source of moral law. The sacred narratives of all three of these religions feature many of the same figures, histories and places in each, although they often present them with different roles, perspectives and meanings.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religionsApart from which Islam specifically recognizes the relatedness of 'the peoples of the book' referring to Judaism and Christianity, and definitely revers Christ as a prophet.Clearly you've never been to the middle east, or a local mosque; how about a synagogue? Or is that too tolerant for you Mike G?
In the few months that I've been following Ann's rantings, I believe there's a downward spiral happening right before our eyes. It's fascinating.Her three-point plan for dealing with the "inevitable" next Holocaust is beyond belief. It's got all the classic elements, paranoia, grandiose victimism, delusional self-judgment.The really amazing thing is some people go for this nonsense. Some folks are so bereft of intelligence and common sense that they latch onto someone like her as a sort-of leader.
I take it you failed your comparative religions class, thatmrgguy.It is indeed one of the Abrahamic religions. One of it's sacred sites, the Al-Aqsa Mosque (لمسجد الاقصى), is located in Jerusalem on top of the old Temple Complex. It is referred to al-Haram ash-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary," is the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the Temple is generally accepted to have stood. Muslims believe that Muhammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to al-Aqsa during the Night Journey. Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad led prayers towards this site until the seventeenth month after the emigration, when God directed him to turn towards the Ka'aba.BTW, The Arabic name for Jesus (a.s.) is Isa. He represents the pure Adamic man - Adam before the fall. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is that of Adam..." (Qur'an 3:59). The letters "(a.s.)" are an abbreviation for a term of respect "alai-is-salaam" which means (Peace be upon him/her). This term is used when the name of a prophet or a respected personality is mentioned. The term "Christ" is from the greek "Christos" (anointed). The Arabic and Qur'anic form of this word is "Masih" (Messiah) and this is the title used for Jesus in the Qur'an.You might want to learn about Islam before making comments in future, thatmrgguy.
Islam is a perverted religion invented by a perverted pedophile. For the life of me, I can't understand liberal women who are so adamant about Woman's rights, but when it comes to the way Women are treated in Islam, they're mute as "Dummies."In Islam's eyes, Jews and Christians as well as other religions, are considered infidels and are not good for anything but slavery or death. If you want to embrace that kind of religion, be my guest.Mike G.
1. You are one of the most ignorant people on ths subject of religion that walks this earth, and one of the most bigoted.2. I don't personally 'embrace' Islam, but I do have respect for it as a world religion. In those parts of the world where women are treated badly under Islam, they are equally treated badly by other religions - like Hinduism, for an example, which also includes practices like honor killings.Your facts are wrong. (No surprise there)so here is a source other than taking my word for it, since I don't expect you to read any objective or scholarly books on the subject:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Muhammad_a_pedophileAnswer: Answer AThe simple answer is no. However the answer is more complex than it might look on the surface.One of Muhammad's wives was Ayesha or Aisha. Depending on what sources are used her age at marriage is sometimes put at 6 and consummation at 9. However there are a number of facts which need to be factored in.1: Not all sources agree with Bukhari about Ayesha's age, Bukhari's Hadith were not collated until 300-odd years after Muhammad's death. Other sources give Ayesha's age as being 16 at marriage and 19 at consummation.2: Even if her age were 6 / 9, the custom of taking child brides was a part of Middle-Eastern culture. The Jews practised it as well as many of the other nations in the Middle-East and remember too that Mary of Nazareth's age was probably around the 12-14 mark.3: Pedophilia is both a sexual dysfunction and a legal one. Muhammad's others wives were adult women with who he apparently had very good relations. This would not normally be the case for a pedophile.4: Customs and Traditions as well as laws were very different then from now. What is considered unacceptable now was not considered anything to comment about then. Answer BI wonder why some non Muslims falsify facts about prophet Muhammad (PBUH). If they don't believe in him as a prophet, then it is their choice and personal freedom. However, I don't understand why they strive to spread lies about the prophet. Why they bother themselves.Anyhow, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not pedophile. What said about his marriage from Aisha (God be pleased with her) at age 6 is not true. Aisha was 19 years old when she got married with prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who was at 54 years.Aisha was 19 years old when she got married. This was in the year 2 A.H. or around year 624 AD. Prophet Mohamed was around 54 years old when married with Aisha (he was born in year 570 AD). Refer to question below for more information.Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Muhammad_a_pedophile#ixzz1MltMBjMw
For issues like arranged marriages of female children, you might want to look at European CHRISTIAN history for examples, as well as some very early consumations of those marriages once the women were old enough - in their early to mid teens.For issues of how religion treats women, you might want to address the parts of the BIBLE which have almost identical provisions to Sharia law - they all derive mostly from Leviticus, which also applies to Judaism.The parts of the world where women are treated badly has those customs because they were customs there long before Islam became the predominant religion. The problem is not Islam, the problem is that women have been badly treated worldwide. If you don't believe that you might want to look at the trafficking of women and girls for the sex trade in the U.S. and Europe right now.And then you can address the issue of slavery being condoned in the Bible, including the parts about men selling their daughters into slavery, including sexual slavery.There are references in BOTH the old and new testament to it.Or don't you know your Bible? My religious training came from seminarians.I'm betting that on the subject of religion, I'm far better educated in both Christianity and comparative religion. I'd also bet that I know far more Muslims than you do, and that you have never set foot in any country in the Middle east, for example, and therefore that you have been relying for your information on some really poor second hand sources, probably right wing religoun nuts.
Lets keep it simple for you Mr.MikeG:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_BookDefinitionThe term "People of the Book" in the Qur'an refers to followers of monotheistic Abrahamic religions that are older than Islam. This includes all Christians, all Children of Israel (including Jews, Karaites and Samaritans), and Sabians.Many early Islamic scholars, such as Malik ibn Anas, agreed that Zoroastrians should also be included. Zoroastrianism is believed by scholars and historians to have been founded between 1000 BCE and 600 BCE, making it older than Christianity and Islam. It shares similar eschatological views with Christianity and Islam, and recognizes life after death, Satan (as Angra Mainyu), Heaven, and Hell.This definition is limited to those books that predate the Quran; they are seen as divine guidance from God to man that has been corrupted. This definition is not extended to followers of similar texts claiming divine guidance after the revelation of the Quran, as the Quran is seen as the final revelation and therefore any following are necessarily false.You appear MikeG, not to be aware that the term infidel is of European Christian origin, not a Muslim one.Let me direct you, dummy, to Wikipedia again as a source of fairly simple and straightforward information:The Arabic word kafir, literally the one who "covers", is usually translated as "disbeliever". For example, in English translations of the Quranic verse, 109:1, the Islamic term is commonly translated into English as infidel. In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize the one God (Allah) - atheists and polytheists. Because Islam sees Jews and Christians as fellow believers, they are called "People of the Book (Ahl-e-kitab)" instead.Kafir, like infidel, has also come to be regarded as offensive, thus some Muslim scholars discourage its use due to the Quran's command to use kind words.  It is even a punishable offense to use this term against a Jew or a Christian, under Islamic law. Some contemporary Muslim extremists, however, have applied the term to all non-Muslims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel
Mike G., Even if you can condemn the religion as a whole, which I don't agree with, do you think that applies to every single adherent? Ann seems to be preaching genocide, you couldn't be in agreement with that, could you? What about all the non-practicing Muslims or all the ones who don't subscribe to the extremist beliefs?
Mike G can't fairly condemn that about which he is so palpably ignorant and misinformed.He will happily espouse condemning people wholesale, no matter how fairly, and think himself a fine follower of Christianity while doing so, no doubt.That is the definition of him as a bigot.
Mike G was asleep in history as well.Child marriage was practised in England, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother and Henry VIII's Gran, was 12 when she married 24-year old Edmund Tudor on 1 November 1455.I take it you're not a Catholic, Mr G. Wee bit of a kerfuffle the papists hae wi' their priests and their bairns.
Mike B, I don't agree with Ann Barnhardt. But I also don't agree with the Muslim religion either. I'll be more inclined to forebear Muslims when they publicly speak out against and show by their actions that they have come into the twenty-first century about the treatment of women and girls in their culture.Also, I just give my opinion on subjects you post on your blog. I don't and have never denigrated any of your other commenters by calling them dummies or idiots, but if that's the kind of discourse you permit on this blog, I'll just have to change from mild mannered Mike G into something I'm not. I can sling derogatory remarks with the best of them, but then they probably wouldn't get published and I will have sunk to the level of some of your other commenters.Nah, I don't want to go there.Mike G.
Let us review, Mike G., your comments and contribution here shall we?"Talk about someone escaping from the asylum...jeez."You don't find that insulting to another commenter here? Look again!"Islam is a perverted religion invented by a perverted pedophile."And do tell me Mike G, how it is you are so very certain that none of our readers or commenters might be Muslim? I don't ask the religion of our readers, but I at least consider that given the number of people in the world - including in the U.S. - who are Muslim, this is a possibility for at least some of our readers and commenters.You Mike G are factually inaccurate, and incredibly insulting to and intolerant of the followers of one of the worlds greatest religions. One which has made an enormous contribution to the arts, science, and history of western culture."In Islam's eyes, Jews and Christians as well as other religions, are considered infidels and are not good for anything but slavery or death."Another facutally inaccurte statement; this doesn't even reflect the views of the extremists in Islam, much less the mainstream. You, Mike G clearly follow the Islamophobe hatred and bigotry version of Christianity. I'm fairly sure you have never for example bothered to acquaint yourself with stories like this one: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspxThen, Mike G, not willing to admit the error of your ways, you come back with this:"I'll be more inclined to forebear Muslims when they publicly speak out against and show by their actions that they have come into the twenty-first century about the treatment of women and girls in their culture."I'll believe Mike G that you have a fair standard instead of your offensive double standard for judging people's conduct towards women when I see you object to statements like the one recently made on this blog that referred to a woman as 'a bit o trim'. I don't believe that you are as objectively critical Mike G of how women are treated here in the 21st century.You Mike G clearly do not know any - or at least very many - actual real live breathing human beings who are muslim. You take your information 2nd hand, and uncritically; apparently from badly flawed sources.I do speak from first hand knowledge. I have been in muslim countries, and been treated exquisitely well, by simply demonstrating the most minimal cultural awareness of courtesy, and by being adept at learning languages, making an attempt while there to learn at least a small amount of the language of the country, instead of expecting the whole damn world to speak English - and American English at that.Your basis for making claims about Islam are as flawed as if I were to assert that this guy was representative of Christianity - since you bring up religious pedophiles:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358845,00.htmlYou were not gratuitously insulted Mike G. You were addressed in a very negative and critical way for the very poor quality and reprehensible content of your comments.Mike G, when you write I can sling derogatory remarks with the best of them, but then they probably wouldn't get published and I will have sunk to the level of some of your other commenters.You can sling bigotry and hatred very well. Substantive, well researched, and informed comments seem less within your reach.As to what gets published, I'm not 'just another commenter' here, I'm one of the admins and a contributing author. I am the very person who has been publishing your comments to date, Mike G.
Back to the pedophile religion founder, shall we consider Joseph Smith and the Mormons as a perverted religion, Mike G?He took a cihld bride, Helen Mar Kimball. Were you planning on trashing equally all of the subsequent mormons, including those who post 1890 repudiated polygamy so thoroughly that many of them are not accurately aware of their own history in this regard?Or would you believe that whatever Joseph Smith did, there are numerous followers of that faith who lead exemplary lives and are very good people?My problem with you Mike G is that you use a very biased and inconsistent standard for people you identify as 'other' than yourself, one which often appears to rely on factually inaccurate and derogatory information. People with whom you appear not to have first hand knowledge OR experience.I don't think that is proper Mike G. I think it is hateful and horribly wrong and bigoted.And then you use an equally factually inaccurate, but incorrectly more flattering set of inaccurate information to make claims about people who you perceive as 'like yourself'.So now I'm waiting to see if you have the intellectual integrity to address this.
Mike G., I agree with you about the name-calling. I don't condone it, yet I do allow it unless and until it goes way overboard. I can honestly say I don't favor my co-bloggers over the other commenters in this - I apply the same treatment to all. Mainly I try to avoid the name-calling and other unnecessary nastiness myself, although I have slipped into it from time to time.My advice to you, unsolicited though it is, is don't retaliate in kind. Overlook the nasty bits and continue to try to address whatever points are there.And thanks for saying clearly that you don't agree with Ann Barnhardt.
Wish you had a specific reply to button on this blog.DG; You're still slinging derogatory insults around. Surely someone who is so well educated, (in your own words), can come up with other ways to tell someone they are ill informed. I too have visited other countries. Lived in Germany for over two years and learned enough of their language to get around and converse with the "natives." I also visited Italy and a few other European countries. While I never made it to the Middle East, I did go to college with some young Iranian women. They hated their Muslim religion and what I know of it, I got from them. Perhaps they had a skewed opinion of their own religion?I don't condone what early Christians or Jews did either as far as arranged marriages and marrying young kids off. And I sure as hell don't agree with most of the tenets of the Mormon religion. (I got all I can do to keep up with one wife, let alone four or five.) And when I went to Italy, I went with a group of Mormons to see the "Shroud of Turin" in it's last public showing. I quit going to their church shortly after that because of the way they did their services. Kind of like Muslims where the men and women are separated during "worship."I'm not a bigoted person. Maybe I just see the stories that put these people in a negative light just like millions of other American citizens. Also DG, I didn't read the particular article or comment where the remark was made about women being " a bit o' trim" because if I had, I would have set the commenter right. I respect all women unless they give me reason not to.Mike B.I'm just a Conservative. I don't condone any of the fringe groups on either side of the aisle. I don't even give them my valuable time as far as watching any of their videos or reading their vitriolic articles. The only time I hear about them is when I come over here to your blog to see how the left is spinning the news today. And there's spin on both sides.DG; The thing is, we just see the extremists on both sides, both on the news and over the internet. So perhaps that's where most people get their views and their slanted opinions from, myself included. I will apologize for the remark made against a religion and for the "asylum" remark, but would expect that you will be big enough to tender an apology for your remarks against my intelligence. And I'll try to refrain from making any more ill informed remarks.Mike G.
Apology extended to you Mr. G., and your apology accepted, although I suppose that really needs to come from Laci.Those Iranian women were presumably old enough to decide their religion for themselves Mike G? Or, more precisely what version of it they chose to follow? Put it this way - would you advocate someone take their view of Christianity solely on the basis of the views of people who HATED it?I would suggest MikeB that the stories that put Muslims in a negative light come far more frequently and more virulently from the right wing propaganda media. They are not fair, objective, factually accurate, or balanced, and pretty much NEVER present positive sides. THAT should be a red flag in and of itself. There are plenty of other sources for more balance, if you choose to avail yourself of them - the story about Egyptian Muslims and Christians, pre-'Arab Spring', that I provided was just one example.MikeG, while you don't condone the marrying of young children off in arranged marriage, please would you instead be more aware of this as a common practice among all three of the Abrahamic religions? It is just one of the many things they hold in common, and why I was so irritated at the accusation that Mohammed was a pedophile taken out of the context of the common religious practices both before AND after.It is precisely THAT kind of slur, that kind of selective information / accusation, which promotes hatred, fear, suspicion and division between religions rather than a mutual respect and finding common ground. Presenting it as fact, as a justification for condemnation of an entire world religion is so very frustrating to me.Let me refer you to this for some interesting reading MikeG as a better example of what religion CAN and SHOULD be:http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/12/light-of-world-and-insight-of-chief.html