Western Civilization on Trial | Why we should be watching Geert Wilders

>what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”<

OMG, Thought Crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What in Gods name are they thinking???

Maybe the US should invade Holland and root out the crypto-muslims who offer insult to the rest of us.

Maybe the US should root out it's own theofascist christians who are the biggest threat to US society today.

the biggest threat...hmmm.

“It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

when the truth is against the law, there is something wrong with the law. very wrong.

and reasons like this is why Islam needs to be eradicated. people in Europe who don't believe in it and don't subscribe to that terrorist minded way of life should go on a vigilante spree and get rid of all those who do.

Boy is that a scary comment. You speak of defending others by eradicating the religion of anyone.

We shouldn't be eradicating anyone, and that is the heart of the argument. Protect free speech and freedom of religion for everyone: Muslim, Jew, Christian, Athiest, or whatever.

Islam is not the problem. People who are intolerant of others is the problem. Too much hate on either side. The worst possible thing right now is anyone advocating the eradication of anyone else. That breeds more hate and more problems.

If you don't like the situation, be the bigger man and find a reasonable solution, don't go spouting off hate against either group.

Sir Thinks.... ,

Islam is not the problem. People who are intolerant of others is the problem.

Catchphrase of the decade. Like many such catchphrases it it ignores salient facts.

• Islam, in the Q'uran and the hadiths (traditional sayings of Mohammed), institutionalizes intolerance.
• So-called "moderate" Muslims are largely silent on the issues of terrorism, free speech, and human rights except as it suits them.
• "Liberal" Muslims are almost unheard of. Leading examples of Liberal Muslims, i.e. Benazir Bhutto, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, anti-gov't protesters in Iran, are either dead, in hiding, or imprisoned.
• Most damning, apostates, those Muslims who no longer practice Islam whether for the practice of another religion or none at all, are condemned and put to death IAW the Q'uran and the hadiths. If that isn't intolerant, what is?

This is all coming to a head, and damned soon. The fallout and mop up are going to be bloody bitches.

So eradicating an entire religion is the answer?

To me it sounds like fighting hate with even more hate, intolerance with even more intolerance.

So-called "moderate" Muslims are largely silent on the issues of terrorism, free speech, and human rights except as it suits them.

"Liberal" Muslims are almost unheard of. Leading examples of Liberal Muslims, i.e. Benazir Bhutto, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, anti-gov't protesters in Iran, are either dead, in hiding, or imprisoned.

So, because you've yet to hear about liberal Muslims, they don't exist? The issue with the moderate/extremist thing is almost similar to the Republican Party. The moderates are being pushed out by extremists.

Furthermore, I don't understand how you can think that Islam is the problem. You have a very small minority operating as many terrorist organizations before have, using religion as a crutch. They've pretty much just replaced the worship of nationalism that fueled terrorist action in past two centuries and replaced it with religion.

I think it's also worth noting that there are more Muslims than there are Chinese. If Islam was the problem, we'd be screwed.

This article and your comment are decidedly alarmist. But I tell you this: I will not stand by as other Americans and Europeans demonize a large segment of the world population.

When will people learn that religious intolerance breeds problems when nationalists start appealing to this sentiment in the name of gaining power. How soon we forget that demonizing entire populations leads to issues down the road...

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - MLK Jr.

Thinks(?),

So eradicating an entire religion is the answer?

Eradication of thought processes attitudes and behaviors which were better left in the Eighth Century? Why not? Of course, this would also encompass many other religions as well. you obviously know "sweet Fanny Adams" about Islam, so I will point you to a source for translation/interpretation of the Q'uran: http://www.tafsir.com/. This is not a propaganda site, this is the Q'uran, the Ayah, and the Haditha translated and interpreted by ibn Kathir. Mohammed had serious issues about Jews, but read and make your own conclusions.

So, because you've yet to hear about liberal Muslims, they don't exist?

Which part of

"Liberal" Muslims are almost unheard of. Leading examples of Liberal Muslims, i.e. Benazir Bhutto, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, anti-gov't protesters in Iran, are either dead, in hiding, or imprisoned.

did you fail to read/comprehend?

This article and your comment are decidedly alarmist.

You bet your ass! Alarms should be going off in the heads of every person who thinks for him/herself. the very fact that a man is being tried for telling the truth should be ringing bells in your head.

From the article:

In response to Wilders’s request to bring in witnesses to establish the veracity of the opinions that got him in trouble with the law, that body issued this statement on January 17: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

While The Netherlands does not enshrine free speech as we do in America, the standard for libel is virtually the same: if a statement is demonstrably true, there is no libel. Yet they deny this to appease a foreign national and a violence-prone immigrant minority at the expense of one of their own native citizens.

I am not demonizing any group of people , but I will logically thrash the hell out of anyone claiming to have the "Whole Truth, Straight From The Mouth Of The Almighty". Many religions claim this, Islam and Christianity among them, but the real truth is that no one religion/faith/belief system has more than just a small piece of that "Whole Truth". So you go on, and do your "I will not stand by" act. Let me know how that works out for ya. In the meantime, I will keep my eyes open, one ear to the ground, and my hands close by my weapons.

You're logic seems to go thus:

P is a subset of Q that espouses dangerous ideas and says them loudly.

P is so loud that it drowns out R, a moderate to liberal subset of Q that espouses tolerant views that do not endanger public safety.

Therefore Q should be eliminated.

The same logic could be applied to any group of people: Tea Partyers and the Republican Party as a whole, radical environmentalists and the Democratic Party, the KKK and white people, Fred Phelps and Christians.

The real trial here isn't between us and Islam, it is between reason and unreason. In the Western world where it is fashionable to repudiate the errors of the Christian Church, why should a separate standard be held up for Islam in the name of tolerance. What about tolerance for Wilders' speech?

However, to respond to such an egregious example of unreason by demonizing an entire faith, and all of its followers -- the vast majority of whom are not violent extremists -- is the wrong answer. It merely serves to continue the pattern of hatred, and in the end lend an air of legitimacy to those extremists who claim that the rest of the world is against them.

You seem to fail to understand the real problem which is that the extremest are right regarding the Koran. The problem for the rest of us is to convince the rest of the Muslims that this is not the case.

Read the Koran before discussing it. You might be amazed.

Holemanm, this particular subset does more than merely espouse such dangerous ideas, they act on them, inflicting hundreds and thousands of casualties with each act. My tolerance is limited by these actions. Their intolerance is limited only by their reach. If those moderate Muslims whose passivity has allowed these vermin to flourish in their midst do not clean their own house, the vermin will grow stronger and bolder to the point where the vermin take over the entire house. At that point, negotiations are useless.

You seem to fail to understand the real problem which is that the extremest are right regarding the Koran. The problem for the rest of us is to convince the rest of the Muslims that this is not the case.

Read the Koran before discussing it. You might be amazed.

I've read a whole lot of it. I didn't find it particularly different from the other Abrahamic holy books. But that's beside the point.

I could support whatever I wanted with the Bible. That's the nature of religion: it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways for a variety of goals. When you look at a book written in parables from 2000 years ago, you can make it support whatever the hell you want it to support.

Socrates, I fail to understand how there can be two interpretations of the Koran.

I looked at the link that alkimija provides below; it states an interpretation of, "..duty of all Muslims is to fight non-Muslims" ... "jihad" ... the Koran is a "book of war."

Are these a "Sunni" interpretation?"

I agree that reading the Koran would give insight; I am just wondering how one can interpret the ideology as a "utopia" and another can interpret a "book of war."

I agree that reading the Koran would give insight; I am just wondering how one can interpret the ideology as a "utopia" and another can interpret a "book of war."

It's actually pretty easy. Some see the references to killing in their context, which is, when under attack Muslims have the right to kill to defend themselves, even though the Koran otherwise forbids killing anybody. Some see jihad as the great jihad, which is a spiritual battle that Muslims undergo to remain good people, as opposed to the little jihad which, ultimately, is just a command to proselytize. Some read the references to desire for peace as exactly that. Some see the angry ranting parts as nothing more than angry ranting parts, and ignore them.

Others don't, and read the passages on defense either out of context or without understand that they're referring only to self defense. Some do not understand that the jihad is supposed to be spiritual and metaphorical, rather than a reference to violence.

It's open to a lot of interpretation, and many Muslims interpret them a wide number of ways but, more importantly, most Muslims aren't any different than most Christians, and haven't read the Koran any more closely than the average Christian has the bible, and are Muslim in a "sure, my mom and dad are" kind of way.

How about Christians who interpret the Bible as saying that they should go to war for god vs those who just want to go door to door and annoy people vs those who really don't care if other people are christian? Or Christians who favor same-sex marriage vs those who don't. Or Jews who keep kosher vs those who don't.

The list goes on and on. No religion has one single interpretation. That's the fun of it. People internalize it and believe whatever they want to believe. By virtue of being ridiculously vague, religious texts often allow room for interpretation. That's how they appeal to a wide audience.

ZZ - makes sense that there is always room for interpretation; and very probable that many Muslims have 'pieces' of info from the Koran, just as true for many Christians with the Bible. What I find odd, and my original point, is how it could be interpreted at both ends of the spectrum. Self-defense could easily be interpreted to coincide with killing, but I don't see that as an extreme view as " Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war" as quoted from alk's link. Just seems a bit extreme from what is supposed to be a book of "utopia."

Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war" as quoted from alk's link. Just seems a bit extreme from what is supposed to be a book of "utopia."

I'm not sure it is supposed to be a book that illustrates a utopia. It just talks about the religious practices of a group of desert nomads that were unified after centuries of being warring tribes. I freely admit it's not very pleasant. But neither is Leviticus (which recommends slaughtering your children if they disobey you, and killing all homosexuals, and gives specific rules about animal sacrifice).

It can be interpreted at extremes because the people doing the interpreting want to interpret it that way. Which is the real problem. Not the book--the reason that people are wanting to interpret it in violent, evil ways. And those reasons aren't about the religion--they're about the people.

Think about the Koran like our constitution. Is it legal to have gun control, under the constitution? The words can be argued a whole lot of ways, and are taken to absurd extremes by the people arguing the topic. Ultimately, each side comes away with the interpretation they already wanted they started trying to pick it apart.

Same for a religious text.

Thanks, ZZ. Comparing the Koran to the Constitution puts this into perspective. An article about the new, extreme interpretation of the SC recent rulings on "political speech and spending" is coming to mind right now... definitely 'extremist' interpretation.

Thanks for replying! Gotta go for now.

Correction to #7.5:

http://www.tafsir.com/. ...Q'uran, the Ayah, and the Haditha translated and interpreted by ibn Kathir.

This should read as follows: ...the Q'uran, the Ayah, and the Haditha as interpreted by ibn Kathir and translated.

I looked at the link that alkimija provides below; it states an interpretation of, "..duty of all Muslims is to fight non-Muslims" ... "jihad" ... the Koran is a "book of war."

I only provided a link to one of Geert Wilders' speechs, just to clarify.

alkimija - I thought it was a good clarification, too.

>To me it sounds like fighting hate with even more hate, intolerance with even more intolerance.<

Well, golly!! I guess that from what you advocate, all us ungodly infidels should just say yes to islam? Maybe send them flowers and chocolates and shine their shoes for a week.

Myself, I'm on board with the knowing gentleman who tossed a severed pigs head into a mosque!!

Great post, Dawn.

1) adoption of a resolution at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly to proscribe defamation of religions and religious symbols, blasphemy, denigration of all prophets, and the prevention in the future of other defamatory actions; and 2) planning a global strategy to prevent the defamation of religions with the implementation of effective and appropriate measures.

Ahh, those first steps to a global theocracy.

DAR63, great seed, keep 'em coming!

They did this because some of the words weren't in "The Correct-Speak Dictionary Ver.11" (for all you 1984 fans)

Here's an example.

Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad.

I'm not familiar with local laws, but it doesn't seem like that great a stretch to imagine that such speech violates anti-defamation laws. It's pretty clear incitement. I'd hope they likewise prosecute any Muslims that as-clearly call for the religious persecution of anybody else, as well.

Kinda a fan of free speech, so it's depressing to see people prosecuted for simply saying something. But when you're openly calling on others to persecute a religious minority? Not sure it really matters whether that minority is Islam, Judaism or Hindu. Kinda makes you a dick-head, at the very least.

Yeah, after reading some of his speeches, it appears that he crossed the line. I can understand concern over unchecked immigration, or radical religious organisations of any sort, but calling for the outright banning of the Koran (and some other comments he's made) is just ridiculously extreme.

Kinda ironic that someone calling on books to be banned is crying foul over an impingement on his freedom of speech.

I agree - quite an appalling hypocrisy. You can't rationally claim that you have some special right to free speech while attempting to deny others the same right.

So, what is to be done when an "intolerant" man speaks out against an intolerant group?

Which is the unstoppable object, and which is the immovable object, and what happens when they collide?

So, what is to be done when an "intolerant" man speaks out against an intolerant group?

Which is the unstoppable object, and which is the immovable object, and what happens when they collide?

I don't like intolerant speech, but don't think it should be prosecuted. But there's a fine line between intolerance and incitement. He's calling on people to persecute, shun and criminalize Islam and Muslims.

That's quite a bit different than saying "I think Islam is dangerous and evil, and this is why."

If the link alkimija posted is any indication of the sort of thing he's being prosecuted for, I can absolutely understand why he would be.

It seems that we in the U.S. are a bit more lax in this area, no?

I'm not sure. Again, I'd like to see what he said that the actual complaint is over.

I think he's a jerk, but he shouldn't be put on trial. It would be better to make sure that what he wants doesn't become the law.

So, what is to be done when an "intolerant" man speaks out against an intolerant group?

It's more than that. He's not just against radical Islam, he's against Muslims, in general. No need to put intolerant in quotes when describing him.

So, what is to be done when an "intolerant" man speaks out against an intolerant group?

There's nothing wrong with speaking out against intolerance. Nothing wrong with speaking out against unchecked immigration etc.

But when someone starts equating a religious text with "Main Kampf" then it crosses the line. What next? The Old Testament doesn't exactly shine forth as a bastion of tolerance and love, either. Should it be banned as well?

Geert Wilders shoved his foot solidly in his mouth. I'll defend his right to criticise others, but to hate them? No.

He's an elected official.

THAT'S the rub.

If he was just a regular Geert, he could just be written off as some firebrand commentator. It's the elected post that brings the extra responsibilty.

Perhaps he is on trial because of rules that elected officials must follow, over and above the regular citizenry.

happen to agree with the comparison. And I happen to agree that Islam teaches and preaches anti-semitism, and the result is pretty clear, and traceable.

Being the expert that you are on both books I suppose.

That's really all the matters in the idea of free speech

Yes.

I don't have to back it up here, and it would be off topic to do so.

You don't have to do anything. Free country.

The thing is, there are Muslims who don't take their holy book as literally as do the violent fundamentalists, and they're perfectly peaceful. Anyone who takes their religious texts literally is going to be a problem. It wouldn't only be the Koran getting banned if we banned religious texts with violent and intolerant content.

You're right: Muslims do indeed seem to take their religious texts literally in far greater numbers than that of any other religion. However, considering that there are billions of Muslims on the planet, even if most of them are taking their religious text literally, means that there are at least millions that are tolerant and don't view their religious texts as the literal word of God (etc.).

The book itself, like Mein Kampf, shouldn't be banned. It's not really the book that's causing the problem, after all. It's the people.

It occurs to me that this discussion is very much like gun prohibition. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Similarly religious texts don't kill people, crazy intolerant religious fundamentalists kill people.

So what's the solution? I'd say it would be to disallow such intolerant religious fundamentalists of any kind to immigrate into our countries. And return those intolerant religious fundamentalists who are already within our borders to their homelands where they can intermingle happily with the rest of the majority of their fellow fundies (if that is indeed the case).

Enough to say that most do

What constitutes "taking the book literally". Like all the book or is it parts of the book?

I do agree.

If Wilders had his way, the book itself would be banned and then I imagine the situation would indeed become dangerous. If it were banned, any conversation about the book would have to (at least legally) take place without the text in question. You can't legitimately criticise a book that you're not legally allowed to have taken a glance inside in the first place.

Meanwhile, Wilder's crying about his free speech rights. Well, heck, then with the same breath he really shouldn't be demanding that books that he doesn't like be banned. He's claiming a rather exclusive right to free speech etc. which doesn't quite sit well with me.

Wouldn't be considered as a question to be decided individually, would it?

What question are you referring to?

They are quoted, not questioned.

That's your perception.

If you are in Pakistan, it is up to the religous leader since the book is written in Arabic. If he says go to war, it is required, that's the interpretation. But why would an ordinary Arab question a respected scholar or his teacher either? They are quoted, not questioned.

I really think that you need exposure to some of the people you're trying to pass judgment on. Spent three years in college with a Pakistani roommate. It is true that many poor, uneducated people exist in the world, and that many such people follow religious leaders blindly. It's true all over the world, including in rural, poor parts of the USA.

It's not a problem of Islam. It's a problem of poverty and poor education being used as a lever to control populations. These countries wouldn't be different if their leaders were Christians instead of Muslims. The people in control of the countries are bad and evil, and they use the tools at hand to control others. And it produces citizens that do and believe terrible things. But the enemy isn't a religion. It's ignorance, and poverty, and what those do to a society.

Well, it's a little bit the religion, too. But the only reason that the religion can even become a problem is because of the poverty and poor education.

Were you born in the US?

Nope.

Do you speak Arabic, and speak it so that you could fit in without it being detected as a second language if you were in an Arabic country?

Nope.

There is no equality of status or influence between the student and the teacher.

This seems to be the case in general about all situations. People believe experts. So if an Islamic scholar says suicide bombing are wrong, that matters.

And you present a person who you describe as non-typical, representing a tiny minority of Muslims, yet he, to you, represents the more valid Islam?

I give him as an example of any of the many Muslims I've known. What is your anecdotal conclusion based on, exactly? Something you read online?

What part of life does Islam exclude from its guidance? Home? Family? Government? Leaders? Education? A single thing?

What religion isn't that true of? Heck, what world-view even among non-religious people isn't that true of?

Since it applies to nearly anyone, not just Muslims, there is no insult intended in saying that studying Islam by talking to a Muslim on an island of Christians is like studying a bird's habitat by watching the bird in a cage.

My cage is pretty big, and there are a lot of birds in here. Since it's where we all live, how we'd live outside sorta seems like a moot point.

Well here's another guess. Muslims take the book literally, at MUCH higher numbers than Christians. Enough to say that most do. The small percentage we hear about would apply to Muslims who see religion like a Christmas Christian sees religion.

Actually there's a majort difference between the two religions.

Within Christianity, there are different opiniosn as to whether or not the Bible must be taken literally. Different denominations have different views-- in some cases even different opinions between ministers within the same denomination.

However, no such differences are allowed in Islam. It is an inherent part of the religion that the Koran is the literal and unaltered exact word of God. To put it another way-- if you do not accept that, then you are not a Muslim. Its just that simple.

Where do you get the ridiculous notion that all Muslims believe what you've just attributed to them? Or even that most do?

The Arabic question was related to literal interpretations. The impact and influence of Arabic language and culture on Islam. Maybe for another time and another discussion.

Thanks.

No prob. I'm sure we'll get to it sometime in the future. But you're right, not particularly relevant to this thread.

Anyways, to reiterate up my opinion on the linked article, he shouldn't be put on trial. Unless it can be proven that it's actually incitement, as in, it actually led to violence, he should be free to speak. Muslims in Holland should be accorded the same rights.

Also, I find Europe interesting. In the case of Holland, there are the super multi-culturalists and then the super Dutch heritage lovers. Is there a middle? Do we not hear of it?

I just wanted to re-state a quote from Judge. I believe it's important enough a point to look at one more time. He's right in his assertion that any state that acknowledges any religious text as "indisputable" it basicly is saying that this is what we should all be doing, and the laws to enforce that are shortly to be here. In this case: Sharia Law.

>In the course of prohibition of criticism, the state acknowledges that the Koran IS too sacred to be criticized, and more important than our silly little inconsequential ideals.<

except that there is no excuse for viiolence "because you were incited."

I agree. What I was saying was that if it can be proven that Geert incited people to violence, then it would be much more reasonable to put him on trial. At this point, the trial seems to make the extremists of both sides more stubborn. It's stupid.

He finds the stupidest infidels and puts them in charge of Western countries.

Just a point, among the three most popular translations of the Quran into English, the word infidel is never mentioned. There is the word infidelity, but not the word infidel. Yeah, you're right, the West completely misunderstands the Orient. It's been like that for a long, long time.

To prove their understanding, they will give away our values by the bushel. Not only are they cluesless about other cultures, they are clueless about their own.

Oh bologna. That's such a load of crap.

Not hating people because of their religious beliefs does not mean one supports Sharia Law, or any of the rest of the violent, insane crap that radical Muslims partake in. It just means you don't care what someone's religious beliefs are.

The same group of us that think there's nothing worse about being a Muslim than being a Christian are the ones that cry foul and file lawsuits at the very first mention of "god" in a public school. We don't want any religions in our governments. And we don't want any discrimination against religions in our governments, either.

Which, again, is more accurately and commonly described in phrases like..."Christians are worse," or "just as bad."

Which isn't something I did or have ever said. So feel free to express your own views if you like, but please don't attribute nonsense to other people based on your belief that they must think it's true.

What is your favorite Muslim country, Zom Zom, which would indicate to you and would show me that democratic values and equal rights come just as naturally within majority Muslim countries?

None. Theocracies are always evil.

Nothing else. And Episcopalians, Muslims, they're is really no difference. "We're all the same, really."

We're all human beings and, yes, therefore, it is my opinion that we deserve equal rights and recognition. What a terrible person that makes me, huh? It's almost like I'm an American that believes in our bill of rights, or something.

They're not all theocracies.

Alright, then Turkey. They've got god food. What's your point? Is that supposed to prove that Muslims are evil?

The basic question here is; Does culture matter or not?

No, it isn't.

Shallow understanding of others' culture and of their own.

Which is where you're wrong.

It's not about a shallow understanding. It's about having priorities that are more important than whether or not I like what happens in other countries where I have no participation or control.

There are probably not too many influential jihadist groups using English translations of the Koran

Well, yeah.

But that's not my point. It's not a major point, anyways. I just wanted to mention it.

"Europe thinks it is above all that." --- I was trying to put that statement into a Muslim perspective; bear in mind I know little about Europe or the Muslims. It seems with the immigration of Muslims into Europe, there would be many incompatibilities with everyone and not just other minorities, due to Sharia Law, no?

I agree, "culture" matters...and sorry to say, but I don't think it is 'natural' for all cultures to blend; there is going to be conflict, atleast for awhile. If your individual culture is what you have come to enjoy and appreciate, of course one is going to fight to preserve it, not because of resisting change, but because they see it as their "right."

It seems that we in the U.S. are a bit more lax in this area, no?

Definitely.

"Free Speech" is not an "either or"-- there are degrees. Generally, the U.S. permits a lot more than most countries. We permit more than most European countries would (although there are exceptions-- for instance Denmark permits a lot more things than much of Europe-- its closer to the US position).

There was a famous Supreme Court case a while back-- the American Nazi Party wanted to hold a march. The court said that they had a right to do it. (I belieeve they would also have that right in Denmark). But they would not be allowed to do that in many other European countries.

Eh. I like wine, cheese, cigarettes and people that wear all black. Leave France alone, please.

I am sure France could be great....if the women would just SHAVE!

Can't argue with that. I'd say the men, too, though. Body hair's biological purpose is to collect your sweat and make ya stink. Free body hair removal surgery for all, please.

Free body hair removal surgery for all, please.

I'm voting for you, ZZ. ;D

While we're being all theoretical, and in some cases, holier than thou, this man is worried about the survival of his country.

Reminds me of how critical people were regarding Israel's attempts to curb terrorism and how they affected human rights...of course we're all getting naked to get on a plane now....

Socrates and Judge - it's insane, isn't it? I keep wondering what they will come up with next now that we know about their bogus "scanners" ... if you see the HS agents putting on plastic gloves ... uh, ruuuuuun!

LOL!

Oh, is that what the current administration meant by "government option?"

Exactly...now read the Koran.

btw...as you may know most Arabs supported Germany and many the elimination of the Jews. The Koran, at that time, had no problem being associated with the author of MK.

Socs- Dude, link me to the Koran, K?

Not really down with Islam right now due to poor and misguided leadership. The kids are running the store along with many other religious sects. Having issues and conflicts in a way shows me where Islam and Christianity have common ground. In the back of my mind I think "We have at one time or another worshipped all of the elements."

Physical violence of the Earth in the form of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Floods, Fires, "Tornadoes and Hurricanes from God is clear and present danger is and to be respected individually and collectively from one society and Millenia to the next so why now does the Koran, the Bible have relevance other than to give the world a specific set of guidelines for behavior and theology other than those that are foundational to the success of man.

USA...feel free to read my article on Why I Defend Christianity.