QuoteOriginally posted by: AminIt may be a bit off topic but Muslims were mostly very tolerant towards towards minorities especially jews. Muslim Jewish conflict is something that took place only in recent history. In fact Ottoman sultans always encouraged jews to settle in Ottoman lands. While jews were persecuted in Europe they were very welcome in Muslim lands.Again these observations are a bit off topic but may be informative for some when they talk about tolerance in Islam.Amin's information is spot on, as usual. Islam has always been extremely tolerant of minorities who don't accept Islam. Jews and Christians in the Middle East have always been treated as equals. A good book to read about this is:Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under IslamQuoteHere we learn of the religiously sanctioned forced conversions, daily humiliations, massacres, oppression, inequitable taxation, and the like, which eventually led to the near disappearance of the extensive Christian and Jewish communities which had flourished throughout the Near East and North Africa prior to the advent of Islam. As "dhimmi" (people of the contract) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others of the accepted religions had no rights of citizenship within a Muslim state. As "protected peoples" they had no right to self-defense. They were at best tolerated and at all times living without security - subject to the law but not protected by it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteI used to find it funny that when Taliban destroyed those thousand year old budha statues, people who were in uproar were the same people who wanted to place ten commandments everywhere in schools and public places. I must be crazy to think there was a moral equivalence there.Not crazy, just not very smart. Lets see: Person A performs an act (destroying statues) which I think is morally reprehensible. Person B is in uproar over the morally reprehensible act. Therefore, I must think that person A and person B are morally on the same page. Hmmmm....Gardner, if you re-read your own words, the logic of your above line should be closer to Person B who is the very same person responsible for act C is in uproar over the morally reprehensible act. Now why mention act C at all if you don't find anything parallel to the act that Person B was upset about? Of what relevance was the Christian Right's wish to teach people about the ten commandments to the destruction of the statues of Buddha if you were not drawing a moral conclusion?

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3I used to find it funny that when Taliban destroyed those thousand year old budha statues, people who were in uproar were the same people who wanted to place ten commandments everywhere in schools and public places. Thou shalt not make idols, comes way before thou shalt not kill.and of course to your mind, the "thou" in "thou shalt not make idols" means not just you personally but rather that you should stop anyone else from doing so and should destroy the ones they have already built.

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteOriginally posted by: AminIt may be a bit off topic but Muslims were mostly very tolerant towards towards minorities especially jews. Muslim Jewish conflict is something that took place only in recent history. In fact Ottoman sultans always encouraged jews to settle in Ottoman lands. While jews were persecuted in Europe they were very welcome in Muslim lands.Again these observations are a bit off topic but may be informative for some when they talk about tolerance in Islam.Amin's information is spot on, as usual. Islam has always been extremely tolerant of minorities who don't accept Islam. Jews and Christians in the Middle East have always been treated as equals. A good book to read about this is:Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under IslamQuoteHere we learn of the religiously sanctioned forced conversions, daily humiliations, massacres, oppression, inequitable taxation, and the like, which eventually led to the near disappearance of the extensive Christian and Jewish communities which had flourished throughout the Near East and North Africa prior to the advent of Islam. As "dhimmi" (people of the contract) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others of the accepted religions had no rights of citizenship within a Muslim state. As "protected peoples" they had no right to self-defense. They were at best tolerated and at all times living without security - subject to the law but not protected by it. If we werent treated unequaly both you and me today would have been Ottoman citizens.

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteOriginally posted by: AminIt may be a bit off topic but Muslims were mostly very tolerant towards towards minorities especially jews. Muslim Jewish conflict is something that took place only in recent history. In fact Ottoman sultans always encouraged jews to settle in Ottoman lands. While jews were persecuted in Europe they were very welcome in Muslim lands.Again these observations are a bit off topic but may be informative for some when they talk about tolerance in Islam.Amin's information is spot on, as usual. Islam has always been extremely tolerant of minorities who don't accept Islam. Jews and Christians in the Middle East have always been treated as equals. A good book to read about this is:Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under IslamQuoteHere we learn of the religiously sanctioned forced conversions, daily humiliations, massacres, oppression, inequitable taxation, and the like, which eventually led to the near disappearance of the extensive Christian and Jewish communities which had flourished throughout the Near East and North Africa prior to the advent of Islam. As "dhimmi" (people of the contract) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others of the accepted religions had no rights of citizenship within a Muslim state. As "protected peoples" they had no right to self-defense. They were at best tolerated and at all times living without security - subject to the law but not protected by it. I never said that non-muslims were treated perfectly equally. Of course they were not. But still Muslims were very tolerant and it seems to me that many jews admit that. These were not the times of modern civilization and if you expect the same equality that is written in many constitutions today, you will not be able to find that. But Muslims still protected jews and they flourished under Muslim rule.Turkish Jews: Brief historyAn excerpt of what an Israeli jew of Turkish descent says.QuoteMy own personal appreciation of Turkish attitude to Jews was shaped slowly. Like any minority in any country, sometimes isolated events of differential treatment are raised. Yet, as I became more knowledgeable and could compare cultures and countries around the globe with the passing of age and experience, we became much more appreciative of the benevolence of the Turkish people who harbored the Jewish people through incredibly barbaric times in the annals of European history. In retrospect of what we know of European history today, we owe Turkish people a great debt of gratitude for saving the lives of thousands of Jews. As Turkish-Jews we preserved our national identity as the descendants of the Biblical Israelites, yet to this day we also feel ourselves as Turkish and identify with the Turkish People.History of jews in TurkeyQuoteThe greatest influx of Jews into Asia Minor and the Ottoman Empire, occurred during the reign of Mehmed the Conquerors's successor, Beyazid II (1481-1512), after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. The Sultan issued a formal invitation to Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal and they started arriving in the empire in great numbers. The Sultan is said to have exclaimed thus at the Spanish monarch's lack of wisdom: "Ye call Ferdinand a wise king he who makes his land poor and ours rich!".Brief history of Turkish jewsJews in Islamic SpainPlease if Muslims protected the jews do not say otherwise because you want to spite Islam

A brief back-to-Beck moment:We now return to our usual "Us vs. Islam" thread...

LOL. What a crook!!!

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisLOL. What a crook!!!what do you expect from a right wing christian reactionary ?

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnthisLOL. What a crook!!!what do you expect from a right wing christian reactionary ?To be a good christian...but it seems rather naive..It seems Bakounin was right about hanging the last cop with last priest's bowels...

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaFor example, separation of Church and State. It is something that has uniquely Christian roots. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" . There is nothing like that in other religions. Islam for example is diametrically opposite -- it's a system of belief where state and religion come from the same root and have the same authority.This is absolute nonsense. All religions advocate separation of church and state when they are not the orthodoxy. Once they become the orthodoxy, it's the other way round. Christianity (represented by Rome) was the orthodoxy for centuries in Europe and all the major European states were subservient to its doctrine util the reformation -- when the new unorthodoxy of Protestantism demanded (surprise, surprise!) the separation of church and state until (surprise, surprise!) they gained power and started persecuting catholics.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaFor example, separation of Church and State. It is something that has uniquely Christian roots. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" . There is nothing like that in other religions. Islam for example is diametrically opposite -- it's a system of belief where state and religion come from the same root and have the same authority.This is absolute nonsense. All religions advocate separation of church and state when they are not the orthodoxy. Once they become the orthodoxy, it's the other way round. Christianity (represented by Rome) was the orthodoxy for centuries in Europe and all the major European states were subservient to its doctrine util the reformation -- when the new unorthodoxy of Protestantism demanded (surprise, surprise!) the separation of church and state until (surprise, surprise!) they gained power and started persecuting catholics.Well, I suppose we have to fill the chasm.In 'liberal' Holland it was illegal to practice Catholic beliefs up to the 1890's or thereabouts, let alone succeeding to the throne.Did you know that the Shankhill road in Belast has 10 different denominations.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnIn 'liberal' Holland it was illegal to practice Catholic beliefs up to the 1890's or thereabouts, let alone succeeding to the throne.Unless there has been legislation to change this in Britain since I left in 1994, the British monarch must still belong to the Church Of England. In other words, Britain is a CofE theocracy.QuoteDid you know that the Shankhill road in Belast has 10 different denominations.Heh-heh! How do they know who to pick a fight with?

Amin, if you want to see where Jews got treated well you can look at where they still are - Morocco is about the only country I can think of. Turkey doesn't count, because if has been a secular Muslim country. And if it keeps going the way it is now, the Jews will leave. Iran also has a large Jewish community, though not much is known about them as they are kept very quiet.About 750,000 Jews fled Muslim countries once Israel came into existence. Zionism didn't endear them to their neighbors, but there was usually deep religious animosity towards them. As an aside, although the Stories of Genesis pre-date the Koran and Islam by over a millenia, the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac most likely refer to the tensions that existed between your ancestors and mine.

QuoteThis is absolute nonsense. All religions advocate separation of church and state when they are not the orthodoxy.Ferm, the fact that you are an ignorant guy with a big mouth isn't news to me. I quoted a line from the gospel that clearly states that duty to God and to the State are two different thing. If all religions advocate that, why don't you give me a few quotes from Quran that advocate that. Feel free to give it from "all" religions as well.I didn't speak about practical separation of Church and State, which may or may not have happened in different places at different times. I spoke of this principle being a part of religion, which has nothing to do with any particular state or Church at any historical period. It is unique to Christianity and has to do with unique circumstances in which Christianity was born.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYes, Minsky's Hypothesis is brilliant and deserves to be more widely known. The deeper cause is that the future isn't like the past and anyone who uses math that makes that assumption is destined for a world of hurt. That is, investment and risk management theories that use historical data, especially ones that use "recent" historical data, are extremely dangerous.One partial solution to Minsky-style instabilities is paradoxical management of leverage ratios -- mandating higher reserves during times of stability.Look how t4a would not hesitate to tell people what they can gamble on, based on some elaborate translation of history into a model. But he will turn off his brain altogether when advocating where a mosque should be built. T4A has advice for people every day. Some of his advice is not simply how he would act, or how he would advise you to act, but something he would like to see voted into law. It is how he would like to see people forced to act. There may be cases where t4a would like to see the US Constitution not just misread, ignored, or lied about, but amended.But when it comes to a mosque at ground zero, he lies by denying it will even make him smile or frown? T4A, will it make you smile or frown? Okay, now tell us what you think about bubbles, and what can be done about them? Okay, now tell us what you think about Christians, and what can be done about them? Okay, now tell us what you think can be done about mosques at ground zero? Cat got your tongue? First time in recorded human history that you can't tell us the smartest place to build a building, or start a business?!? Is that a smart place to build a mosque? Is that a smart place to build a McDonalds?See, witness a fool.But there is a simple explanation for this. So-called educated people have very high opinions of themselves. If something is too obvious, if it is known by any idiot on the street, some people feel compelled to declare the opposite. They do this to establish that they have superior knowledge. They refuse to stand side-by-side with an average person, and will prefer some very shaky ground, intellectually. They must at all times maintain a separation of themselves from the common person. T4a will be vocal about things others cannot discuss, and will refuse to talk about whatever is on the lips of the man in the street.They gotta always be different!And people fall for this trick by accepting there must be some sophisticated analysis behind their strange opinions. But they are not wise and tolerant, they just pick what the mob thinks and say the opposite. Intellectuals do not have a diversity of opinion, rather they cluster at the polar opposite of the mob.I am sure intellectuals in Iran, in private, love Christianity and oppose the construction of any mosque. And probably intellectuals in China hate the government, just as intellectuals in the US love the government.