barack obama marriage status

Tolerance for intolerance is not a virtue

A phobia is an irrational fear. When people use words like "Islamaphobe" or "homophobic" represent an irrational fear of Muslims and homosexuals. The "phobia" implication is misleading. If a person disagrees with policy (eg gay marriage), this does not mean that people are afraid of gays people, however, is likely to be beaten with the "homophobic" defamation of this review.

Recently, the Islamic Republic "cultural center" that is proposed near the World Trade Center, people had poignant questions about why he should not be built. Is there an irrational fear of Islam and are people who want to prevent this cultural center / Mosque built to be truly "Islamophobic? Are they judging the Islamic religion in a manner different from what it was to judge other religions and if so, is it justified?

Both George Bush and Barack Obama pointed out that Islam is a religion of peace that has been co-opted and used by those who want to overthrow the religion. But if people have appropriated religion are in charge of religion, and if people have appropriated religion are those who make the rules, religion itself is not a religion of peace. If the people who practice religion are afraid of those who have co-opted and incapable change it, why say that religion is something that clearly is not?

In a book entitled "The Trouble With Islam, Irshad Manji, the author reveals a term to be better known and understood, however, rarely mentioned the word "ijtihad" According to Manji: .. "This is not jihad, but the tradition of ijtihad … Islamic independent thinking … allows all Muslims … to update their religious practice in light of current circumstances. "Unfortunately, the mullahs and radical imams have squashed the idea of ijtihad.

Every religion is full of contradiction and, to some extent, is facing interpretation of religious texts that times change. People have always had trouble trying to keep their faith and its meaning in a changing world. For true believers of religion, science and changing times do not change the subject of religious texts. You can interpret their religion in modern times, keeping the faith, the sense and the good of what religion is.

Unfortunately, when radical imams of Islam took control and took it upon themselves to determine the meaning of that faith, created a religious dictatorship. To get rid of "ijtihad" were put in a position where it could not be questioned or contradiction. In doing so, no get the best of the Muslim faith, took the brunt and institutionalized so that his was the only possible interpretation.

There are passages in the Koran and the hadith of Jews and Christians as people worthy of the Book. "In other passages, Jews and Christians are described as inferior and sometimes inhuman. That is an interpretation rational and reasonable would be necessary, but that's exactly what people in the control of religion do not.

Even lying in the negotiations and signed treaties break is considered acceptable if it furthers the objectives of Muslims. It goes back to a Hudaybiyya interpretation. This treaty was signed in 628 AD and declared a truce between the Quraish tribe of Mecca and the Muslim community in Medina. A treaty 10 years, but has when Muhammad invaded Mecca and forced people to convert to Islam.

The magnets make the rules of Islam constantly refer Hudaybiyya of the Treaty during the negotiation with those they consider enemies of Israel. How can any sane person or countries to negotiate with people who say right up front, they have the right to terminate a treaty at any time that is convenient to do? His word is worthless and is declared an official policy?

In all countries where Islam has become part of official government policy is not the cruelty and intolerance, even in the so-called moderates. Those who write books critical of Islam as Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, for contracts submitted in their lives. A simple drawing criticism of religion causes riots and death threats. A filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who made a film criticizing how women are treated in Muslim countries, is murdered for daring to tell the truth. Van Gogh's film is based on real facts of the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote in his book "infidels", how FGM and how women are told they are treated as being beaten by their husband because that is what religion requires of them.

Islam has become a nightmare cruel worship for those who are forced live in countries where religion is gaining ground in public policy. Terrorism is just a natural byproduct of a religion where a few "privileged" people come to rationalize anything, no matter how cruel or immoral, saying that advancing the cause, if the Islamic religion.

Countries in general and the United Nations, in particular, seems very selective in how they condemn the actions of individual nations. Sentenced to just As for the practice of apartheid in South Africa, but where is their condemnation of Muslim countries in general discrimination against non-Muslims? Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries live in the status of dhimmi, which means they are second class citizens formally have fewer rights and Muslims. Why the UN does not condemn the concept of "dhimmi" status of the policy is discriminatory?

The sad reality is that the UN and many countries are afraid of Islam. Perhaps, if they may disagree with the cruel treatment of women and non-Muslims who have a common enemy with them to hatred of the United States, Israel and, in some cases, the West in general. It has been said that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" excuse for the many behavior of the jihadists crazy in the name of a perceived greater good and end to rationalize and excuse the behavior of these imams and mullahs are crazy.

They favor anyone turning their eyes to this radicalism. People living in these religious dictators, those who want to start a family and have a better life for themselves and their children can not be helped by bending magnets crazy. The people of Iran did its best to let the world know they wanted freedom, but the world, to their eternal shame, did nothing. By doing nothing, he face the bad.

George Bush was right and I hope history will correct the record of his presidency. Help people who want freedom, supporting reliable and can get rid of the imams and mullahs who are these fools people (Muslims and non-Muslims) live in poverty. When the people of Iran saw what happened in Iraq who have been inspired. They wanted their chance of freedom. For Unfortunately, things went the other way. The inhabitants of these Islamic dictatorships know they can count on the support of the United States and reliable the West in general, and are forced, by fear, to submit to the imams crazy.

So Now, the magnets as a crazy 13-storey building "cultural center" near the site of the World Trade Center. People who have tried to bury history Jewish for the construction of mosques in the top of the shrines and temples Jews who took the town of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, and created an environment where Christians are afraid to be in their most sacred site, people who destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues and artifacts that could never reproduce all now have the gall to speak of tolerance?

Muslims need to clean their own house before other lectures on tolerance. Not for the U.S. to show who is tolerant of Islam. The burden of proof lies with the Muslim religion to demonstrate it is tolerant of others. Maybe one day when "ijtihad" returns and Muslims can be allowed to interpret their religion in a manner that is not cruel, then it may be a "cultural center" near the World Trade Center. Meanwhile, the project is simply a tribute to worse, not better, to the Muslim faith. It is a tribute to the imams who were very aware of religion in the seventh century and should not even not be deemed integrated into the holy site of the WTC.

Obama @ Saddleback Church -Defines Marriage