Should we revise the definition of religion?

[Mojo2]

Should we revise the definition of religion?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

Islam and the Definition of Religion

In a redefinition of "religion" shouldn't any religion pass the following tests proposed by former Muslim, Nonie Darwish?

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

1) a religion must be a personal choice;

2) no religion should kill those who leave it;

3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members;

and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

 

[I.P.Freely]

yes , all religions are a right load of old bollocks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

According to what authority?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, as not all Muslims advocate killing those who leave the faith, nor is this sort of killing sanctioned by Islamic dogma.

Moreover, Christianity would fail to measure up to being a religion as a consequence of criterion 4, where Christians seek to deny homosexuals both their civil and human rights.

Otherwise, this is ignorant and hateful anti-Muslim nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes to, all religions are a right load of old bollocks.

True.

Religion is the bane of humankind.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Islam is a religion.

Any number of things to attack Islam for without resorting to the transparent desparation of trying to say it isn't a religion. That's just childish and desparate.

 

[Mojo2]

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

According to what authority?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, as not all Muslims advocate killing those who leave the faith, nor is this sort of killing sanctioned by Islamic dogma.

Moreover, Christianity would fail to measure up to being a religion as a consequence of criterion 4, where Christians seek to deny homosexuals both their civil and human rights.

Otherwise, this is ignorant and hateful anti-Muslim nonsense.

But, of course it must be said that Islam is an aggressive political entity with a goal of total world domination.

Of course we would try to defend our own religions and our government, our system of government, our banking and economic system, our justice system and our way of life and our culture (such as it is) against changes that would, with 100% certainty, be imposed upon us all.

It is our duty, and our only recourse, to oppose Islam.

Or be swallowed up by it and be made subjects of it.

Or be killed by it.

So, it is only right that we resist the increased introduction of islam to America.

 

[Mojo2]

Islam is a religion.

Any number of things to attack Islam for without resorting to the transparent desparation of trying to say it isn't a religion. That's just childish and desparate.

A religion which violates basic human rights is not a religion.

A religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members.

A religion must be a personal choice.

No religion should kill those who leave it.

Now, isn't this really a pretty elementary test to pass for a real religion?

A 'religion' which can't measure up to these standards (at least!) shouldn't be afforded the respect automatically given to a religion.

 

[Avatar4321]

I see an issue with 3. Why should a religion be allowed to kill anyone.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should we revise the definition of religion?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

Islam and the Definition of Religion

In a redefinition of "religion" shouldn't any religion pass the following tests proposed by former Muslim, Nonie Darwish?

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

1) a religion must be a personal choice;

2) no religion should kill those who leave it;

3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members;

and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

Good luck with that.

Telling Monkeys how and what to believe is like using a herd of cats to fend off the tide.

Pass!​

 

[AVG-JOE]

The best that we can do is to enforce Civil Laws that focus on bad behavior and make every effort to protect the minorities.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

According to what authority?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, as not all Muslims advocate killing those who leave the faith, nor is this sort of killing sanctioned by Islamic dogma.

Moreover, Christianity would fail to measure up to being a religion as a consequence of criterion 4, where Christians seek to deny homosexuals both their civil and human rights.

Otherwise, this is ignorant and hateful anti-Muslim nonsense.

But, of course it must be said that Islam is an aggressive political entity with a goal of total world domination.

Of course we would try to defend our own religions and our government, our system of government, our banking and economic system, our justice system and our way of life and our culture (such as it is) against changes that would, with 100% certainty, be imposed upon us all.

It is our duty, and our only recourse, to oppose Islam.

Or be swallowed up by it and be made subjects of it.

Or be killed by it.

So, it is only right that we resist the increased introduction of islam to America.

According to The United States Constitution, your only right of resisting Islam is to see to it that any and all violations of Civil Law are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, religious affiliations be damned.

There's a reason that Sunni's and Shiite's get along for the most part here in the USA.... They BOTH understand that imposing their own warped versions of Sharia Law ain't gonna happen here, so they learn quickly to live and let live.

 

[Mojo2]

The best that we can do is to enforce Civil Laws that focus on bad behavior and make every effort to protect the minorities.

Like many Americans, you seem to believe our laws were designed to protect us from anything and everything.

Some people believe so completely in the magical powers of free and fair elections to 'cure' a bad governmental situation that we congratulated the Palestinians forfreely electing the ineffective, Hamas leadership they have now.

We praised the Egyptians for "freely" electing Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood crew.

We thought our work was done once the Iraqis voted for Malicki.

AVG-JOE, our laws were not meant to stop the spread of islam. It was not meant to protect us from our own failure to do our due diligence with regard to Islam and the threat of it.

To anyone who has done any amount of research into the matter it is clear that CAIR and other stealth Jihadists, are successfully using our laws and our system to position themselves to act when the time is right.

We are not doing enough to stop them and some of us don't even recognize the fact that, even as I write this, they are readying the attack they will unleash on us. They are preparing our trap.

And it is a damn shame too few of us are even aware of it.

Terrorists have been visiting Obama in the White House.

Islamists are in key positions in our government already.

 

[Mojo2]

Should we revise the definition of religion?

Going beyond such criticisms, Darwish offers some thoughtful and seemingly incontrovertible criteria which must be met, before classification of Islam as a “religion” becomes feasible: 1) a religion must be a personal choice; 2) no religion should kill those who leave it; 3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

Islam and the Definition of Religion

In a redefinition of "religion" shouldn't any religion pass the following tests proposed by former Muslim, Nonie Darwish?

Shouldn't every religion measure up to these standards?

1) a religion must be a personal choice;

2) no religion should kill those who leave it;

3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members;

and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights.

Good luck with that.

Telling Monkeys how and what to believe is like using a herd of cats to fend off the tide.

Pass!​

No one is proposing to tell anyone what to believe. That is why we oppose Islam. It proposes to compel us to make choices not of our own volition.

What Brigitte Gabriel suggests is a way of making sure we give deference only to religions which deserve it. Americans, rightly, want to afford legal protection only to religions and worshippers who measure up to these standards.

Most people expect a religion to be like Judaism and Christianity and Buddhism.

Many people mistakenly believe Islam is benign, peaceful, loving and harmless like the other religions and worshippers.

As long as a religion can pass these tests it should be considered a bonafide religion.

If it can't pass these tests it does not deserve 1st Amendment protections.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1) a religion must be a personal choice; given the choice, people avoid religion when it's not hammered into them as children

2) no religion should kill those who leave it; this does not reflect history

3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; again, ignores history

and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights. religion and rights are NOT hand in glove

 

[Mojo2]

I see an issue with 3. Why should a religion be allowed to kill anyone.

It shouldn't.

Neither Islam nor its followers deserve the same religious protections we afford worshippers of real religions and the religions they follow.

 

[Mojo2]

1) a religion must be a personal choice; given the choice, people avoid religion when it's not hammered into them as children

2) no religion should kill those who leave it; this does not reflect history

3) a religion must never order the killing and subjugation of those who do not choose to be its members; again, ignores history

and 4) a religion must abide by basic human rights. religion and rights are NOT hand in glove

Take your head out of the past.

We aren't going into the Islamic Time Machine that transports any country it conquers back to the 7th Century.

We are trying to safeguard America's future Liberty.

The standards are good.