PabloSerna said:

---

We are all standing on different sides of the same mountain arguing that it is a different mountain because I don't see what you see.

Same mountain. Same God. Get over it.

---

How can it be the same God? They believe distinctly different things about God, and also man because God became man through Jesus. Minor point about Angel of the Lord in the OT for jews, but modern jews have erased that connection.

Do you realize how much church authority you lose by declaring that its the same God? (all of it). If its the same God, and muslims and jews just worship it in a forgivable error, what is the difference between catholic and any religion? As long as your prayers are addressed to, 'Whoever is the highest ranking God, please read'

What validity is your sacraments if whole other religions that have completely different views on God and completely different sacraments are equally valid? When does a sacrament become invalid? What makes a sacrament valid then?

Its one thing to say that there is a bit of truth in other religions that A) leads you to Christ or B) demons driving other religions require some truths to remain so as to invert other truths. Like the Norse flood myth having their version of the nephilim (frost giants) survive instead of a man (because that man represents the pattern of Christ to come)

But that is not the same as saying other religions are equal expressions and worship the same God up the mountain and we shouldn't be doing anything to evangelize them.

Perhaps I'm looking at it simplistically, but the way I see it is like this
-Jews believe in the God of Abraham
-Christians believe in the same God of the Torah, but have added attributes to that God (the Trinity)
-Muslims say they believe in the same God of the Jews and Christians, but disagree with the attributes from Christianity and believe in what the Jews claimed originally

It's a tough analogy because God is obviously not a physical thing, or something/someone whose attributes can be proven. But if I imagine a very humanistic view of God, sitting on a throne, and everyone praying towards him, I essentially imagine this argument going like 3 people looking at the same person on a throne, where the Jew says "that's my God, not yours", the Christian says, actually that's my God too, but not this guy's" (pointing to the Muslim), and the Muslim is like, "actually we're all praying to the same God, we're literally looking at the same God right now," and the Christian is like "no we aren't."

I just don't understand how you can say "they aren't praying to my God" when they say they are. It would make more sense to say that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what God is, but unless you believed in multiple gods, you can't really argue that they are praying to a different God. Because if they believe they are praying to the God of Abraham, and the God of Abraham is out there, he's listening, right?

It's like when people argue that Muslims don't believe in God they believe in Allah. And I have to explain to them that an Arabic bible refers to God as Allah, just like a Spanish bible refers to God as El Dios.

Except Christians didn't add anything. The Trinity is in the Hebrew scriptures. The God of Abraham was triune, the God of Moses was triune.

St Justin Martyr gives a great walkthrough of this in Dialogue with Trypho.

The historical reality is that second temple Judaism - reading the scriptures - saw this. Hard monotheism / one power in heaven Rabbinic Judaism is a reaction against Christianity.

Quote:

---

It's a tough analogy because God is obviously not a physical thing,

---

The word became flesh. Jesus Christ is God.

Quote:

---

I just don't understand how you can say "they aren't praying to my God" when they say they are.

---

I'm speaking to the person in the office next to me right now. Their name is bigtruckguy3500. Am I talking to you?

Quote:

---

but unless you believed in multiple gods, you can't really argue that they are praying to a different God. Because if they believe they are praying to the God of Abraham, and the God of Abraham is out there, he's listening, right?

---

I believe in multiple gods, as do the authors of the scriptures. But there is One God, the creator of heaven and earth. The God of Abraham is Jesus Christ. If they don't believe in Jesus Christ, they're not praying to the God of Abraham.

Quote:

---

It's like when people argue that Muslims don't believe in God they believe in Allah. And I have to explain to them that an Arabic bible refers to God as Allah, just like a Spanish bible refers to God as El Dios.

---

This isn't a linguistic argument.

Here let's try this. What if I told you I was the God of Abraham, and you started to worship me in genuine belief that you were in fact worshipping the same God Abraham worshipped. Are you worshipping the God of Abraham? Why or why not?

Just another example....

Somalis in Minneapolis are stealing billions from American taxpayers, loading bags of cash onto commercial flights, and funding terrorism back in Mogadishu. This is an insane system, and it must be stopped. pic.twitter.com/9lwcFJtphj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@christopherrufo) November 20, 2025

Good resource. I have come across specifically some of the works of Abdul Saleeb in a joint teaching series with RC Sproul.

I think it is a major error to simply put the one true Christian God in the same bucket as Allah.

Specifically on who God is:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

Quote:

---

NOTE TO THE READER

We are well aware that the name Allah is used by Arab speaking Christians for the God of the Bible. In fact, the root from which the name is derived, ilah, stems from the ancient Semitic languages, corresponding to the Mesopotamian IL, as well as the Hebrew-Aramaic EL, as in Ishma-el, Immanu-el, Isra-el. These terms were often used to refer to any deity worshiped as a high god, especially the chief deity amongst a pantheon of lesser gods. As such, the Holy Bible uses the term as just one of the many titles for Yahweh, the only true God.

Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah:

God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am Yahweh (YHVH) and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME, YAHWEH, I did not make myself known to them." Exodus 6:2-3
Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title or a generic noun for the true God, but not as the personal name for the God of the Holy Bible.

---

Quote:

---

Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?

---

Quote:

---

The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)

Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil...

---

Quote:

---

According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later...

This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regard to eternal security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regard to the believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.

This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises...

---

Quote:

---

The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall historical events.

---

Quote:

---

The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers to engage in throughout eternity...

---

Quote:

---

A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by...

The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the one and the same God.

---

Quote:

---

The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).

Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in three Persons...

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

The thing is that approach is glossing over a lot of the finer points that actually matter.

Perhaps I'm looking at it simplistically, but the way I see it is like this
-Jews believe in the God of Abraham
Modern Judiasms suffer from extensive reinterpretation of the OT after the resurrection of Christ and the loss of the temple 40 years later. The temple is a huge, central part of Judiasm. Judaisms dropped a ton of messianic extrabiblical literature after Christ came because it was too Jesus-y like the Melchizedek Scroll.

They say things like God has no body. This is a huge disconnect from the historical reading and Christian reading of the OT. Without Christ being incarnate you have no foundation for man's equality in front of God (Christians don't kill one another or mistreat one another because we are created in God's image-if you don't believe Christ is the image of God you are missing one very good reason to not kill, lie, cheat or steal against one another)

There is a lot of language in the Quran and follow up hadiths as well as Jewish talmudic case law that things like lying, cheating, or harming outer groups being a lesser offense or allowed because these religions don't have Christ as the unifier of all mankind.

-Christians believe in the same God of the Torah, but have added attributes to that God (the Trinity)
Like Zobel said, nothing has been added. The Messiah the OT has fortold has come. There is a fog that is lifted about exactly how the Messiah has come, but that is not adding things.

-Muslims say they believe in the same God of the Jews and Christians, but disagree with the attributes from Christianity and believe in what the Jews claimed originally

-Muslims say a lot of things but at the end of the day, there is no reason to believe a prophet who came 500ish years after Christ could rightly be a continuation without de-Godifying God. Christ needs no further prophet in the OT sense. Prophecy has been fulfilled, the church established, the holy spirit poured out on all flesh. What is the core purpose of Israel in the OT? To be set aside as priests to the nations and produce the Messiah that will save all of mankind. That is the context of prophecy. So islam has to say things like, 'Christ's death was just an illusion because he couldn't die he is God' And then you wind back up with the same problem modern jews have where there is no God but God and God doesn't have a body. Denying the divine counsel and the incarnation.

The life of Mohammed as a prophet is clearly at odds with everything the OT has to say about who/what is a prophet says/does. He even states he is a plain warner.

It's a tough analogy because God is obviously not a physical thing, or something/someone whose attributes can be proven. But if I imagine a very humanistic view of God, sitting on a throne, and everyone praying towards him, I essentially imagine this argument going like 3 people looking at the same person on a throne, where the Jew says "that's my God, not yours", the Christian says, actually that's my God too, but not this guy's" (pointing to the Muslim), and the Muslim is like, "actually we're all praying to the same God, we're literally looking at the same God right now," and the Christian is like "no we aren't."

Words and descriptions mean things. If you and I are trying to talk about a 3rd person named Larry who is not with us right now, and we want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person, we're going to start describing him. 'Oh the Larry I know does X,Y,Z' 'Well the Larry I know does A,B,C' 'Well ABC and XYZ are mutually exclusive so it can't be the same Larry.'

I just don't understand how you can say "they aren't praying to my God" when they say they are. It would make more sense to say that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what God is, but unless you believed in multiple gods, you can't really argue that they are praying to a different God. Because if they believe they are praying to the God of Abraham, and the God of Abraham is out there, he's listening, right?

The christian understanding is that tons of gods exist. What you and I call powerful angels and demons are little g gods. They have their own wills and are either in rebellion or aligned with God. There is only one creator God who created all of this and shares his rule with a divine counsel.

Can God provide some special grace to other abhramaic faiths saying they were close but no cigar? He's God- He can do whatever He wants. God is not bound to us we are bound to Him. But we can't act like its all equal in this life, wishing them all well in all their pursuits. Thats just an extension of universalism. The Messiah has established the church for the salvation of man. We have the full revelation to get to church and work out our salvation.

But using your mountain theology, This abrahamic God is clearly okay with a lot of things he has previously said he's not okay. Do muslim suicide bombers who kill innocent people get rewarded by a Christian God? Is condoning those actions consistent with bringing heaven and peace to this earth in this life? Even the concept of muslim heaven being a feast of carnal pleasure (72 virgins) is antithetical to how God has established order in this world or what this world and heaven is even about. Why should I value marriage at all or chastity at all if heaven is a constant orgy? The church cycles are about taming the passions, why tame them if they are just going to be inflamed forever in the next life?

What about Kabbalistic jews who talk to spirits, curse Jesus, and do other divination that is against God's will? Or jews who don't have a plan at all for the whole world to be saved because they've abandoned the concept of the messiah and by default also abandoned their fellow man.

There's a lot being glossed over, and realistically I didn't see how much until I started looking into Orthodoxy.

It's like when people argue that Muslims don't believe in God they believe in Allah. And I have to explain to them that an Arabic bible refers to God as Allah, just like a Spanish bible refers to God as El Dios.

The language itself is trivial. Me saying the word Jesus and someone else saying the word Yeshua is playing a different game than what your stating. Allah means specific things in Islam that it doesn't in Christianity. Islam wants to glom onto Abrahamic faiths so you're going to see common language to purposefully make it sound similar. When Mormons say God, but they mean a physical man of flesh and bone who ascended cosmologically into God the Father is that the same God? We both say 'God the Father' are they the same?

---

Adding a little scriptural context to what both Zobel and One MEEN Ag have said about God vs gods...

• Psalm 95:5 (or 96:5 depending on translation) states that the gods of the Gentiles are devils.
• St. Paul doubles down on this in 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 where he states that offerings to idols are actually offerings to demons, and not God.

RAB91 said:

---

Just another example....

Somalis in Minneapolis are stealing billions from American taxpayers, loading bags of cash onto commercial flights, and funding terrorism back in Mogadishu. This is an insane system, and it must be stopped. pic.twitter.com/9lwcFJtphj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@christopherrufo) November 20, 2025

---

Christopher Russo is not a reliable source. But assuming this is accurate, now do the Irish and the IRA.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Christopher Russo is not a reliable source.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Just another example....

Somalis in Minneapolis are stealing billions from American taxpayers, loading bags of cash onto commercial flights, and funding terrorism back in Mogadishu. This is an insane system, and it must be stopped. pic.twitter.com/9lwcFJtphj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@christopherrufo) November 20, 2025

---

Christopher Russo is not a reliable source. But assuming this is accurate, now do the Irish and the IRA.

---

See this is the type of BS that just reeks that you concede the point.

I am now updating my city counsel request to specifically have 100 somolian muslims move in to your neighborhood.

Is this your address?

424 Hypocrite Creek Rd, Bolivar, PA 15923

(For staff watching this is not his address, but a real address according to our AI overlords).

Final thoughts on this because you said something interesting that I think is illustrative. That their prophet came 500 years after Christ. You can talk about proximity in years to the incarnation, but the second person of the trinity revealed to us through the incarnation is eternally begotten of the father. This claim only pertains to Christ's divinity, which doesn't require or rely on the incarnation. There was a point in time before God became man. You can reject Christ's divinity, and not reject His divinity as such.

If you ask yourself what is the stuff of Divinity, you arrive at something like Aristotle's metaphysical attributes of the uncaused cause. That's my understanding of what's meant by the claim, and the claim ends right there.

But I understand the aversion to the paradox this creates that you can reject God and worship God. And I think it's fair to Zobel's point to point out the damage it can do if you take it further than that. And Pablo unfortunately proved his point really well for sure with his other sides of the same mountain stuff.

It's funny seeing liberals defending Muslims/Islam when their religion culture is counter to everything liberals and the left believe in.

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

stallion6 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

There are plenty of Muslims who get along just fine in the west. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon from the last 40-50 years.

---

You have obviously never served in the military or deployed in a combat zone with Muslims. Sharia law is not comparable with western culture. People like you will be the down fall of our society. You are easily fooled.

---

I spent 29 months in Iraq. I'm far better acquainted with actual Muslims than the vast majority of right wing keyboard warriors.

Aggie__11 said:

---

It's funny seeing liberals defending Muslims/Islam when their religion culture is counter to everything liberals and the left believe in.

---

I'm not interested in xenophobia. I take people as individuals.

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

Rocag said:

---

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

Quote:

---

Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy.

---

what if their religious claims preclude yours? or aren't reciprocated? hypothetically speaking, what if as soon as they possibly can, they would use the levers of power to fundamentally change the structure of our government because they actually disagree with it? should they be treated the same as anyone else?

this is the same phenomenon as kurt. you think they're welcome to come and practice their religion as long as they're willing to subordinate their worldview to yours. as long as the secular state is the highest authority in society and religious values have no place in the public (governmental) sphere, then they can come on in.

its a kind of fundamental category error... you're talking about "religion" over here and secular non-religious "rights" and "government" over there, and that is an undefended presumption.

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Muslim hatred and indifference toward Christian suffering being used to justify the reciprocal - and vice versa - suggests moral similarity between the two religions . . . I thought Christians held the moral high ground.

Lots of reasons. There's certainly a long history of wars between Christian and Muslim nations to point to, but few wars are fought for solely religious reasons. But beyond that I think the framing fits well into the apocalyptic mindset that many evangelical sects tend to cultivate. Everything is a war for the survival of Christianity because the end is nigh and all that.

And certainly lots of Muslims teach and believe a similar story in which its the evil Christians that must be eliminated. I don't think that means the genocide of either group is acceptable.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Muslim hatred and indifference toward Christian suffering being used to justify the reciprocal - and vice versa - suggests moral similarity between the two religions . . . I thought Christians held the moral high ground.

---

Recent history says Christians do hold the moral high ground.

i do not remember a bunch of Methodists flying planes full of innocent people into mosques. What happens to professing Christians in Muslim countries? Or for that matter, practicing LGBT folks?

Rocag said:

---

Lots of reasons. There's certainly a long history of wars between Christian and Muslim nations to point to, but few wars are fought for solely religious reasons. But beyond that I think the framing fits well into the apocalyptic mindset that many evangelical sects tend to cultivate. Everything is a war for the survival of Christianity because the end is nigh and all that.

And certainly lots of Muslims teach and believe a similar story in which its the evil Christians that must be eliminated. I don't think that means the genocide of either group is acceptable.

---

Fair enough. It is revealing how you first mentioned Christians. Carry on.

May I ask how you feel about recent history and which side has practiced genocide?

And to be honest, I am much more interested in actions than rhetoric. What happens to professing Christians in Muslim countries?

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Muslim hatred and indifference toward Christian suffering being used to justify the reciprocal - and vice versa - suggests moral similarity between the two religions . . . I thought Christians held the moral high ground.

---

Recent history says Christians do hold the moral high ground.

i do not remember a bunch of Methodists flying planes full of innocent people into mosques. What happens to professing Christians in Muslim countries? Or for that matter, practicing LGBT folks?

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Muslims.

I'm saying you are using hate to justify hate. And they are using hate to justify hate. It feels like you are only arguing that Christians are more civilized in their hatred.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Conservatives tend to misunderstand the liberal position here. Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy. There's also a callousness in western society as it relates to the killing of Muslim civilians in foreign nations that many of us take issue with. No one deserves to die because they're of the "wrong" religion. But again and again American Christians characterize world events as an epic clash of civilizations that makes the genocide of Muslims not just acceptable but a good and desirable thing.

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Muslim hatred and indifference toward Christian suffering being used to justify the reciprocal - and vice versa - suggests moral similarity between the two religions . . . I thought Christians held the moral high ground.

---

Recent history says Christians do hold the moral high ground.

i do not remember a bunch of Methodists flying planes full of innocent people into mosques. What happens to professing Christians in Muslim countries? Or for that matter, practicing LGBT folks?

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Muslims.

I'm saying you are using hate to justify hate. And they are using hate to justify hate. It feels like you are only arguing that Christians are more civilized in their hatred.

---

Where did I say I hated anyone? This is silly. Are you trying to equate people hating somebody to actually doing them physical harm? Like imprisonment or execution?

You are a smart guy. Surely you can see the difference of violence and blood shed iin recent history?

Depending on what estimates you use, we've killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims the last couple of decades in the name of fighting terror. The vast majority of those folks, not only had nothing to do with 9/11, they haven't left their village for generations.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of us aren't Muslims and don't agree with their religious claims, we just think they should be able to practice their religion in this country with the same protections that Christians enjoy.

---

what if their religious claims preclude yours? or aren't reciprocated? hypothetically speaking, what if as soon as they possibly can, they would use the levers of power to fundamentally change the structure of our government because they actually disagree with it? should they be treated the same as anyone else?

this is the same phenomenon as kurt. you think they're welcome to come and practice their religion as long as they're willing to subordinate their worldview to yours. as long as the secular state is the highest authority in society and religious values have no place in the public (governmental) sphere, then they can come on in.

its a kind of fundamental category error... you're talking about "religion" over here and secular non-religious "rights" and "government" over there, and that is an undefended presumption.

---

My position is that a functioning and stable society requires that its members generally agree on the social contracts that are important in that society. In my opinion, those important positions include, but are not limited to, political procedural agreements, agreements about the rule of law, and individual freedoms and rights. In my opinion, worshipping the Christian God, or any specific religion, is not a critical requirement.

Immigrants that do not intend to reciprocate established standards and rights regarding individual freedoms is a concern. However, I don't agree that all Muslims must have values that are antithetical to American values.

And I also don't think Muslims are alone in their potential for having values that oppose 'Western' values. I think you could argue that Christian nationalists and socialists and anarchists and other groups also do not share 'Western' values and should be thought of as a concern.

There seems to be an effort (or maybe just a misunderstanding) here to paint myself, Roc, Sapper as advocating for opening the flood doors to let in millions of Muslims who are intent on undermining Constitutional values. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think anyone is advocating that in the slightest.

What I would like to advocate against is the prejudice that anyone falling under the term 'Muslim' must therefore be an extremist or anti-American or anti-Western.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggie__11 said:

---

It's funny seeing liberals defending Muslims/Islam when their religion culture is counter to everything liberals and the left believe in.

---

I'm not interested in xenophobia. I take people as individuals.

---

You're in the wrong thread then. No individual has been named. Only Muslims/Islam.

It "reveals" I live in a Christian majority nation and am discussing this issue with Christians.

Let me turn a question back at you since you brought up 9/11. What killed more innocent civilians: the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the US military response that came after?

What happens to professing Christians in Muslim countries? In most of them, nothing. There are certainly some where you can rightly claim persecution, but those are the minority. No liberal is endorsing everything done by every Muslim nation like you seem to be trying to imply. Their human rights abuses exist and absolutely deserve criticism. But the response shouldn't be "Just glass the middle east and start over, lol".

"individual freedoms and rights"

what are those and where do they come from?

dermdoc said:

---

Where did I say I hated anyone? This is silly. Are you trying to equate people hating somebody to actually doing them physical harm? Like imprisonment or execution?

You are a smart guy. Surely you can see the difference of violence and blood shed iin recent history?

---

Don't make this a semantic argument. Explain to me the point of this post:

Quote:

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Are you just offering an explanation of the callousness in Western society toward the killing of Muslims? Are you trying to justify that callousness? If your position is that Christians should love and respect their Muslim neighbors, even if they are hateful and violent, well that sure the hell isn't what you said.

My point is that pointing to the hatred from 'the other side' as justification for 'negative feelings' (I won't use 'hate') undermines your pretended position of moral superiority.

How recent in history am I allowed to go in this comparison exercise? Can I include Colonialism?

Why did we go to war with terrorism? What action prompted that? Should we have not attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Where did I say I hated anyone? This is silly. Are you trying to equate people hating somebody to actually doing them physical harm? Like imprisonment or execution?

You are a smart guy. Surely you can see the difference of violence and blood shed iin recent history?

---

Don't make this a semantic argument. Explain to me the point of this post:

Quote:

---

And why do you think conservative Christians feel this way? Do you think Muslims are okay with the genocide of Christians?

---

Are you just offering an explanation of the callousness in Western society toward the killing of Muslims? Are you trying to justify that callousness? If your position is that Christians should love and respect their Muslim neighbors, even if they are hateful and violent, well that sure the hell isn't what you said.

My point is that pointing to the hatred from 'the other side' as justification for 'negative feelings' (I won't use 'hate') undermines your pretended position of moral superiority.

How recent in history am I allowed to go in this comparison exercise? Can I include Colonialism?

---

Is hating someone' to you the same as imprisoning or killing them?

There is a factual difference.

Zobel said:

---

"individual freedoms and rights"

what are those and where do they come from?

---

Does adherence to the Constitution and living in American society demand that we all share the same basic values and principles? Or does it demand that we share those basic values and principles AND that we all conform to the same presuppositions and derivation of those shared values?

So, I'm not sure it matters. You might derive the virtue of individual freedoms and rights from your religion. And I might derive them from a combination of things that include a semi-religious upbringing, secular philosophy, empathy, and experience.

More actions. Not words.