This Century's Martin Luther has arived

[jmotivator]

This Century’s Martin Luther Has Arrived | The Daily Caller

"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and devout Muslim, gathered Muslims from America, Canada and Europe to declare a Muslim Reform Movement. Their effort intends to separate mosque and state and confront Political Islam, whose adherents are often referred to as Islamists.

The organization he founded, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, (AFID) plans to post the declaration on mosque doors, encouraging mosques to sign on."


I've often said that Islam is in need of a new testament. I don't hold much hope for this movement amounting to much, but it is good to see none the less.

 

[Paleocon]

This Century’s Martin Luther Has Arrived | The Daily Caller

"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and devout Muslim, gathered Muslims from America, Canada and Europe to declare a Muslim Reform Movement. Their effort intends to separate mosque and state and confront Political Islam, whose adherents are often referred to as Islamists.

The organization he founded, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, (AFID) plans to post the declaration on mosque doors, encouraging mosques to sign on."


I've often said that Islam is in need of a new testament. I don't hold much hope for this movement amounting to much, but it is good to see none the less.

While trying to get people to reject the more objectionable parts of Islam (much as Crazy Luther rejected those parts of Christianity that he found objectionable) has some appeal, it's more trouble than it's worth. The last thing we need is more secularists running around. The problem isn't that they take their religion too seriously, the problem is their religion.

 

[Van Basten]

While trying to get people to reject the more objectionable parts of Islam (much as Crazy Luther rejected those parts of Christianity that he found objectionable) has some appeal, it's more trouble than it's worth. The last thing we need is more secularists running around. The problem isn't that they take their religion too seriously, the problem is their religion.

Dude....

 

[Paleocon]

Dude....

What? Secularism is the bane of modern political life. It carries a much higher death toll (both in terms of individual humans and in terms of cultures eviscerated) than jihadism.

 

[Beaudreaux]

What? Secularism is the bane of modern political life. It carries a much higher death toll (both in terms of individual humans and in terms of cultures eviscerated) than jihadism.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This Century’s Martin Luther Has Arrived | The Daily Caller

"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and devout Muslim, gathered Muslims from America, Canada and Europe to declare a Muslim Reform Movement. Their effort intends to separate mosque and state and confront Political Islam, whose adherents are often referred to as Islamists.

The organization he founded, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, (AFID) plans to post the declaration on mosque doors, encouraging mosques to sign on."


I've often said that Islam is in need of a new testament. I don't hold much hope for this movement amounting to much, but it is good to see none the less.

You're thinking of the "Reformation" not the New Testament. And yes, this sounds as though he could begin the Islamic version of Reformation. I hope he is successful. Martin Luther had King Henry VIII and his daughter Queen Elizabeth as well as many in Germany to help him along. For this to succeed, it will take a modern day Henry VIII or Elizabeth (a powerful monarch or leader) to forge a nation into peaceful Muslim beliefs and away from Islamic Jihad (Wahhabis Sectarianism). I wish him success.

 

[Paleocon]

Google "United States abortion death toll", or look up "The Black Book of Communism" which details the slaughter perpetrated by atheist communists.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Google "United States abortion death toll", or look up "The Black Book of Communism" which details the slaughter perpetrated by atheist communists.

In other words, no, you can't.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What? Secularism is the bane of modern political life. It carries a much higher death toll (both in terms of individual humans and in terms of cultures eviscerated) than jihadism.

Historically, more people have been killed in the name of religion or due to religion than for any other reason. Secularism doesn't hold a candle to religion in that regard.

 

[JC Callender]

Historically, more people have been killed in the name of religion or due to religion than for any other reason. Secularism doesn't hold a candle to religion in that regard.

Look at the 20th century alone. Stalin, Hitler, Mao....at least 60 million deaths alone, who of these were killing in the name of religion?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Look at the 20th century alone. Stalin, Hitler, Mao....at least 60 million deaths alone, who of these were killing in the name of religion?

Hitler and Stalin didn't kill in the name of religion, but they did kill others because of THEIR religion. And I don't think looking solely at the 20th Century is an appropriate analysis.

 

[JC Callender]

Hitler and Stalin didn't kill in the name of religion, but they did kill others because of THEIR religion. And I don't think looking solely at the 20th Century is an appropriate analysis.

Are they to blame for getting killed for their religion? And if your talking about sheer numbers of deaths, I think using the 20th century as an example is totally appropriate. Probably the bloodiest century in history and I can't think of a single major religious war.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Look at the 20th century alone. Stalin, Hitler, Mao....at least 60 million deaths alone, who of these were killing in the name of religion?

None of that had anything to do with secularism. You can't just take anyone who's not religious and attribute all of their actions to some vaguely defined "secularism".

 

[HowardBThiname]

This Century’s Martin Luther Has Arrived | The Daily Caller

"Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and devout Muslim, gathered Muslims from America, Canada and Europe to declare a Muslim Reform Movement. Their effort intends to separate mosque and state and confront Political Islam, whose adherents are often referred to as Islamists.

The organization he founded, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, (AFID) plans to post the declaration on mosque doors, encouraging mosques to sign on."


I've often said that Islam is in need of a new testament. I don't hold much hope for this movement amounting to much, but it is good to see none the less.

While this is a long-shot (at present), I cross my fingers that it gets off the ground. A movement like this, if it were to catch on, could liberate the world from Islamic extremism, albeit slowly.

 

[HowardBThiname]

What? Secularism is the bane of modern political life. It carries a much higher death toll (both in terms of individual humans and in terms of cultures eviscerated) than jihadism.

You're so incredibly wrong.

Christianity has a form of state "secularism" built in, which was it's saving grace. When Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to render unto God that which is God's, it was the pathway for the separation of Church and State.

Islam has no such saving grace in its creeds, hence, it's going to take an enlightened man (such as the one the OP features) to start a movement that changes Muslim hearts and minds.

Secularism "at the State level" is absolutely essential to the survival of ANY society, nation or people. People are free to worship as they please, but the must never have the power to push that worship on others if their nation is to survive.

 

[JC Callender]

None of that had anything to do with secularism. You can't just take anyone who's not religious and attribute all of their actions to some vaguely defined "secularism".

Why not? My argument with CC is about religious wars vs. secular wars. Can you take someone who committed an act from one denomination of a religion and blame religion in general?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Historically, more people have been killed in the name of religion or due to religion than for any other reason. Secularism doesn't hold a candle to religion in that regard.

Disapointingly unless you consider communism and nazism as religions, I do but..., then religion has killed less. Again the Mongols killed more.

If you include the green movement as a religion then it's death toll of over 200 million and counting is getting close to the Mongols.

 

[Kobie]

Disapointingly unless you consider communism and nazism as religions, I do but..., then religion has killed less. Again the Mongols killed more.

If you include the green movement as a religion then it's death toll of over 200 million and counting is getting close to the Mongols.

And if you count cancer as a religion, it's killed millions more!

 

[Lovebug]

I won't even attempt to speak for Muslims or Islam. If this gives them something to think about, it is up to them to do so.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Why not? My argument with CC is about religious wars vs. secular wars. Can you take someone who committed an act from one denomination of a religion and blame religion in general?

Because they didn't kill anyone in the name of secularism. It's that simple. It was related to Stalinism, Nazism, etc, which is its own dogma completely unrelated to whether or not it's secular. In fact, Nazi Germany actually used a lot of Christian religious rhetoric during some eras (although Nazism was unrelated to Christianity in its motivations, just like Stalinism was unrelated to secularism in its motivations).

Just because something isn't motivated by religion doesn't mean it's somehow by default motivated by secularism instead.

Secularism by itself has no inherent dogma. It is by definition completely inert. It is the absence of something, not the presence. No one has ever killed anyone purely in the name of secularism, because there is no reason to do so. Secularism by itself doesn't care what someone else believes. It has no structure, no leader, no rules.

Every religion has killed people in its own name. Even Buddhism. So yes, we can say that religion in general tends to kill a lot of people.

But we can even take that broader, and define it in a way that includes things like Stalinism and Nazism, which aren't religious: dogmatism tends to kill a lot of people.

All religions are dogmatic, but not all dogmatism is religious. Cults and tyrannical regimes can also be dogmatic. And in that case, the "deity," as it were, is usually the leader.

But there is one saving grace to non-religious dogmatism, which is that mortal deities tend to die relatively quickly. Religious ones don't, which is why they have so much destructive capacity. Even if a deity isn't objectively real, as long as someone believes dogmatically in their religion, it continues to live in the mind of its adherents, and thus the potential for violence is there even thousands of years after its inception. Mortal deities never live more than 80 or 90 years, often much less, and usually only have a destructive capacity for a couple of decades.

Dogmatism is something to be fought against in all its incarnations, religious and not. But the greater destructive capacity of a tyrant that doesn't die can't be ignored.

 

[Paleocon]

In other words, no, you can't.

Historically, more people have been killed in the name of religion or due to religion than for any other reason. Secularism doesn't hold a candle to religion in that regard.

Ah, 2+2=7. Liberals always do seem to just ignore in convent facts whenever it's suited to them.

"Against a fact there is no argument"

You're so incredibly wrong.

Christianity has a form of state "secularism" built in, which was it's saving grace. When Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to render unto God that which is God's, it was the pathway for the separation of Church and State.

Islam has no such saving grace in its creeds, hence, it's going to take an enlightened man (such as the one the OP features) to start a movement that changes Muslim hearts and minds.

Secularism "at the State level" is absolutely essential to the survival of ANY society, nation or people. People are free to worship as they please, but the must never have the power to push that worship on others if their nation is to survive.

If that had been what Jesus had meant, some Christian somewhere would have noticed it prior to the 18th century. Even if you buy the crazy "the apostles/early Christians distorted the true message" line of "reasoning", there's no reason to think that modern people could understand what he meant if the people alive then didn't.

 

[Tim the plumber]

And if you count cancer as a religion, it's killed millions more!

Faith is one of the things that defines religion.

Those who know that we must stop producing CO2 and return to a pre-industrial level of wealth without being able to explain why we should, what we are running away from, who follow unquestioningly the climate scientists (only some of them) who tell them that we are all doomed, well actually it's journalists etc saying what the scientists say often, are behaving in a religious way of thinking.

The needless increase in food prices due to using food as fuel is killing upwards of 10 million people per year. Personally I think it is much more likely to be around 30 million. That has been the case for the last 20 years. More than WWII less than Genghis and the boys. But should get the record in the next decade.

 

[RAMOSS]

Look at the 20th century alone. Stalin, Hitler, Mao....at least 60 million deaths alone, who of these were killing in the name of religion?

In the case of Hitler, it was religious motivation to go after the Jews. Mao made himself into a figurehead, and communism under both Mao and Stalin was ideologically motivated.. with 'the state' replacing 'God'. Plus, many of the deaths under Stalin was because of the failure of the '5 year' agricultural plans, because they were rejecting Darwinist evolution and assumed lamarckism was correct (it wasn't).

 

[JC Callender]

In the case of Hitler, it was religious motivation to go after the Jews. Mao made himself into a figurehead, and communism under both Mao and Stalin was ideologically motivated.. with 'the state' replacing 'God'. Plus, many of the deaths under Stalin was because of the failure of the '5 year' agricultural plans, because they were rejecting Darwinist evolution and assumed lamarckism was correct (it wasn't).

So the Jews are to blame for Germany's aggression during WW2?

Btw, I agree with you on Stalin and Mao. That's not religions problem, that's someone's problem for attempting to replace it.

 

[RAMOSS]

So the Jews are to blame for Germany's aggression during WW2?

Btw, I agree with you on Stalin and Mao. That's not religions problem, that's someone's problem for attempting to replace it.

No, but the motivation for Hitler to go after the Jews to a large extent was inspired by religion. Religion was either the inspiration, or at least the propoganda point.