| Archive for http://rorap.net The Roanoke Valley's Most Reliable Forum |
| la_sirena |
students told to shun muslimsas a part of my journalism course, i'm instructed to read the News & Observer every morning. this particular article caught my attention today."RALEIGH - A national Muslim advocacy group has rebuked the Wake County Public School system for allowing a Christian evangelist to speak at Enloe High School and distribute pamphlets denouncing Islam. The Council on American Islamic Relations said the school system will have created a "discriminatory, hostile learning environment," violating federal civil rights law, if it does not investigate the incident and apologize to students." full story here. Kamil Solomon's site according to a reader's comment on the 'the people's forum' part of the newspaper, kamil solomon was "imprisoned and tortured under the moderate Islamic law of Egypt"and "He escaped with his life only because of international intervention." i do not know if this is true; i don't see anything of it on his site. i guess one would need to ask him. i'm curious as to why someone who calls himself a christian is denouncing another religion on the basis of what i understand to be intolerance. i'm not an expert in the history of christianity but surely christianity (or at least those who practice it) has been guilty of the same thing. any thoughts? |
||||||
| SkygreenLeopard |
The school should have never allowed him anywhere near the student body. | ||||||
| la_sirena |
i'm a bit confused about that as well. i don't understand exactly why he was asked to speak in the first place and why the administration didn't seem to do any background check type things. surely if they did, they wouldn't have asked him to come, because that would have been suicide. | ||||||
| flyupsidedown |
You said you weren't an expert on Christianity and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not an expert either though others will speak forcefully out of their own predjudice to convince you "they" are. Your insistence on "tolerance" is the mantra of the secular media mindset and the social neutering handlers of our society. Now, if you speak "Truth" you are labeled INTOLERANT. Christians have a mandate from God to "expose the unfruitful works of darkness".
"Exposing" and "darkness" are heavy words. "Darkness" just means plain old evil. When Christians begin to "expose" or bring to light those things they know to be harmful to society, individuals and displeasing to God you will hear phrases like INTOLERANT, BIGOT, HOMOPHOBIC etc. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is Christians who bring in the dregs of society, those hurting, emotionally wounded, those who feel despised and rejected by society. They spend their blood and treasure and time to help, and feed and clothe and build strong marriages and families etc. To restore individuals to their rightful place in God's fellowship and love. They know we are all the same in God's sight. Intellectuals to ignorant, rich to poor, though the condescending rich and intellectuals wouldn't think so. I would suggest you check out Kamil's web site and learn the things he wants to share with an uninformed public. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Jesus tells us "you know a tree by its fruit". You know, a holly berry is beautiful and red and appears at the outset to be healthful and tasty. Someone has warned at some point in your life that they can kill you. I wouldn't call them intolerant. |
||||||
| SkygreenLeopard |
please. what a load of absolute drivel. just once, can you refrain from making it obvious to the world that your ideology strays far beyond the borders of self-righteous fundamentalist bigotry? it's tiring. |
||||||
| la_sirena |
are you saying that tolerance isn't important and that it has no place in society? i am hoping that your opinion is something along the lines of 'society has a skewed definition of tolerance', which is much less saddening than the idea of tolerance not being needed, hence the surrounding quotations.
perhaps in some cases, it is the christians who have been doing the rejecting. 
do you agree with kamil's teachings, and do you agree that he had a place as a speaker in a public school, and that his words were warranted? |
||||||
| Kestrel |
Well, if Islam is not a peaceful religion, then Christianity certainly isn't a peaceful religion either. After all, remember the Crusades? Oh, and was discovering the world was not the center of the universe harmful to society? And while I've heard that Christians in Egypt have had a hard time, that also means that one should be careful when accepting religious views coming from a Egyptian Christian. Just because some Muslims attack Christians does not make Islam a violent religion. And anyway, Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet, but not savior. Judaism says Jesus was some crazy person. And I remember hearing that people in the Middle East are much more giving to charity than people in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades |
||||||
| Cap'n Slappy |
I love this board! | ||||||
| la_sirena |
follow up story
- actually, just kidding. the link doesnt seem to be working anymore. i'll see if i can find it on another site. it seems that escamilla had a similar agenda for promoting christianity. its saddening that he was teaching a few muslim students at the time that he asked kamil to come speak. gah. |
||||||
| flyupsidedown |
Name me one "sunny" spot on the muslim map where other religions aren't persecuted? Then look at all of the "christianized" western nations where "tolerance" abounds in all shapes and sizes. | ||||||
| Kestrel |
Lebanon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon Anyhow, I wouldn't say "tolerance" is abundant in this country when it comes to religion. Also, I would say that tolerance tends to go with being a democracy. But remember, there currently seems to be a backlash against muslims in western countries. I remember many times in college and elsewhere when people would try to convert me after they found out I was an agnostic with atheist tendencies. And much of the time I would have made a better christian than the people who were attempting to convert me. And really, should we exhibit good traits in this country only if they are first exhibited elsewhere? No. |
||||||
| flyupsidedown |
Lebanon ... hmmmm, yes that would be a nice little "sunny" spot to take the wife and kids to. Where the gov't turns a blind-eye to Hamas lobbing missles at innocent men, women and children asleep in their homes in Israeli settlements. Didn't we have 200 marines killed in Beirut not long ago? Yes, a perfect example of Muslim tolerance. Lebanon used to be friendly territory, but as always the Muslim influence begins the downward spiral. I have heard from some Pakistani friends that they do have the best food in the world. I do love middle-eastern food. The problem is living long enough to digest it if you're American/Christian.
As for you nominating yourself "christian of the year" , I'm sure you would win hands-down in the self-righteousness catagory. |
||||||
| flyupsidedown |
Also, as to your previous post about the "Crusades", you have the Catholic Church confused with Christianity. I wouldn't consider them the "poster child". They have their unique interpretation, much of which is not scriptural, i.e. mandatory celebacy for priests, "worship" and prayers to Mary, perdition, and penance, and cloistures etc., etc., etc. You could also add the "holy wars" none of which Jesus advocated. The Bible didn't teach the world was the center of the universe - The catholic church, again, did. Read you bible.
Where again was it you heard that muslims were more giving? What, you mean to terrorist organizations? I agree. |
||||||
| Kestrel |
Well, the Catholic Church was THE Christian church for many years. And there were plenty of nasty wars between the Protestants and Catholics in the past. Like it or not, the old Catholic Church is the past of every protestant church. Pray tell, which Christian church would you consider the "poster child"? And I don't recall Mohammed advocating any holy war either. Perhaps you should read the Qur’an since you seem to like bashing Muslims so much. Break out the big brush and paint away.
Pity I can't find the data that compares nations based on individual income. But I do remember hearing it in the news a handful of years ago. And what one may call a terrorist organization to others is an organization that provides charity to the people and fights for freedom. Let's not forget how the Jews took Israel in a violent action, first against the British, and then the Arabs once the British left. The Arabs have been attacking back ever since. |
||||||
| flyupsidedown |
You haven't a clue that you haven't a clue. Time is too precious. | ||||||
| SkygreenLeopard |
To get back on topic a bit, I think what we need to prevent this sort of thing from happening is something similar to Canada's anti-hate laws.
The most vehement opponents of these laws use the "free-speech" stereotype in their attacks. But in reality, free-speech does have it's limits. It's illegal to communicate a threat. It's illegal to yell "fire!" in a theater. It's illegal to use most profanity on network television, and in many public places. This would simply be another measure to protect the public from harm.. Here's a rundown on the specifics of Canada's laws: Who can be convicted under Section 319? Section 319 deals with hate speech: 1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted. 2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if: -The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation. -If the person can establish that the statements made are true. -If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergy-persons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example. -If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy. -If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred. -If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.. |
||||||
| Kestrel |
Hmm... I was under the impression there was some kind of anti-hate law in this country, but perhaps I'm getting it confused with hate crimes and not hate speech.
I come to the conclusion that he probably would not be convicted under that law. Though I'm still surprised they let this fellow give this speech at a public school. |
||||||
| spitfire |
Kamils story is newsworthy. But his evangelizing in a public school shouldn't have been allowed. Must have seemed pretty sleezy to everyone there except the already evangelized. Like if you hired a magician to perform at your party and then he tries to pressure sell your friends the line of trick cards he reps on the side. hahaha!
flyupsidedown wrote:
Reality: It is a cross-section of religious bleeding heart citizens & non-religious bleeding heart citizens who bring in the dregs.... and many of the dregs are ignored or refuse attempts to save them from themselves or circumstances. |
||||||
| la_sirena |
but there is, in this case. there's a part of the first amendment that has been interpreted by the supreme court as meaning that while in school, teachers couldn't 'promote one religion at the expense of another' or something similar to that. |
||||||
| Kestrel |
True, but it is subject to interpretation (like most things). Are they promoting the religion, or educating? |
||||||
| la_sirena |
good point. i suppose most people would agree that kamil's teachings were spiteful and done in poor taste, but he would argue that he is just trying to educate an uninformed public. |
||||||