Jewish Population 1948 v. 2023
Egypt----- between 63-80,000 v 500 or less
Syria------ 40,000 v. 1,000 or less
Iran------ 100,000 v. 8500 or less
Iraq------ 50,000 v. 5
Saudi Arabia, no exact numbers but Saudi had a thriving Jewish community when Muhammad lived, which has dwindled to virtually zero today.
Arabs in Israel 156,000 v. 2,100,000
I could go on, with other Muslim countries, but I think the point is made. Suffice it to say that under Sharia law it is illegal for Jews and Christians to worship or practice their faith in public.
But hey, Iran holds the chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, while Iran and other Muslim nations are some of the worst countries when it comes to basic human rights.
9 comments:
We really do need to rid ourselves of the UN and never again contribute our tax dollars to whatever the hell it is they're pretending to be. To have so many reps of dictatorships and marxism chair the HRC is the worst joke ever.
As to your main point, it seems the Jewish community are "oppressed" to say the least. Not hearing a lot about that from any who claim to be concerned about such things. Even in this country they remain among the most victimized by "hate crimes". Yet still, only crickets from the posturing modern progressives.
Suffice it to say that under Sharia law it is illegal for Jews and Christians to worship or practice their faith in public.
Suffice it to say that under Sharia law AS SOME/MANY Muslim nations practice it, minority religions have limited freedoms. In SOME Muslim nations, they have a different understanding of religious law.
I vote for more religious freedom everywhere, and less conservative/fundamentalist attempts to assume power in the name of one religion, whatever that religion is.
I think it's good to be consistent and factual.
When Muslim‐majority countries are ranked according to their religious freedom scores (Table 2), Southeast European and West African states, in line with their overall personal freedom scores, fare well. These include Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Chad, Burkina Faso, Niger, and The Gambia.
https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world#religious-freedom-most-scarce-saudi-arabia
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/morocco/
Even in the more free Muslim nations, I'd like to see more freedom, so be sure, this is not a song of praise for Muslim nations, just being accurate.
While I'm not sure it's germane to this post, I don't disagree with your sentiment about the UN. Especially in light of the sexual abuse scandals recently.
Obviously the Jewish community has been oppressed since the rise of the Roman Empire. But we've only seen two groups that wanted to completely exterminate the Jews since then. The NAZI's and Muslims. Shockingly enough, most Muslim leaders strongly supported Hitler and his attempt at genocide.
Now for the first time in thousands of years we have a Jewish state, which welcomes people of other faiths as full participants in their national life, surrounded by people who want to eliminate them and somehow it's all Israel's fault.
Somehow despite the 50 Islamic states in the world, we can't tolerate one Jewish state, and hold Israel to a higher standard than any Muslim nation.
"Suffice it to say that under Sharia law AS SOME/MANY Muslim nations practice it, minority religions have limited freedoms. In SOME Muslim nations, they have a different understanding of religious law."
Ohhhhhh, well if "some Muslim nations" have some "limited freedoms" then it's all good. What an absurd excuse. Well because "some Muslim nations" are slightly less oppressive than others, let's applaud these paragons of human rights.
"I vote for more religious freedom everywhere, and less conservative/fundamentalist attempts to assume power in the name of one religion, whatever that religion is."
Sure you do, as long as it's not accompanied by anything that hints at "conservative".
"I think it's good to be consistent and factual."
Just one more thing (like answering questions) where your words and actions diverge.
"When Muslim‐majority countries are ranked according to their religious freedom scores (Table 2), Southeast European and West African states, in line with their overall personal freedom scores, fare well. These include Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Chad, Burkina Faso, Niger, and The Gambia."
Again, the fact that some "Muslim countries" are less oppressive than others isn't a ringing endorsement, nor does it explain why virtually every Muslim country has significantly fewer Jews than they did pre 1948.
https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world#religious-freedom-most-scarce-saudi-arabia
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/morocco/
"Even in the more free Muslim nations, I'd like to see more freedom, so be sure, this is not a song of praise for Muslim nations, just being accurate."
But hey Iran is in charge of the UN Commission on Human rights because they're a paragon of human rights. It may not be a "song of praise", but it's just another example of you ignoring one facet of a topic in order to push your narrative.
"Well if "some Muslim nations" have some "limited freedoms" then it's all good."
Literally not what I said. Literally the opposite of what I said.
Why do you endlessly try to twist other people's words?
You said that Muslim nations make other religions illegal. That's Literally not always the case. Some do, some don't, some are in between.
Why not just say " Thanks for the clarification " and let it go. In this nation where both anti-Islam and antisemitism are both on the rise, why not try to turn down the heated rhetoric?
Why not be a peacemaker, not a hatred spreader?
"as long as it's not accompanied by anything that hints at "conservative"."
My concern is more about extremism and fundamentalism. Conservative CAN be helpful. But too many conservatives today are practicing a more extreme version of their religion.
Violent Extremism is the enemy, not left or right.
Dan
"Literally not what I said. Literally the opposite of what I said."
1. Because sarcasm doesn't translate well (for you) in this medium.
2. Because hyperbole doesn't translate well (for you) in this medium.
3. Because your idiotic excuse (Some Muslim nations aren't THAT bad...) deserves to be mocked.
4. Because you the defender of (most) human rights has to stoop to making excuses because "some Muslim nations" only restrict a few human rights to make it seem like the rest of the Muslim nations aren't that bad if you average them out.
"Why do you endlessly try to twist other people's words?"
Because I hope, someday, to do it as well as you do. Or see above.
"You said that Muslim nations make other religions illegal. That's Literally not always the case. Some do, some don't, some are in between."
Yes Muslim majority nations are on a spectrum in terms of their governments. Turkey has had a secular government and is therefore not as bad on the human rights spectrum. But certainly not a paragon of human rights.
"Why not just say " Thanks for the clarification " and let it go. In this nation where both anti-Islam and antisemitism are both on the rise, why not try to turn down the heated rhetoric?"
Again, I aspire to be like you.
"Why not be a peacemaker, not a hatred spreader?"
Well, since I'm not speaking "hatred", and I realize that sometimes peace means defeating evil, I'm not sure of what your point is. But if you think calling me a "hatred spreader" will make things better...
"My concern is more about extremism and fundamentalism. Conservative CAN be helpful. But too many conservatives today are practicing a more extreme version of their religion."
Yet, strangely every single negative reference you make refers to conservatives. Hell, you even manage to add in "conservative Christians" when (mildly) rebuking Muslim terrorists.
"Violent Extremism is the enemy, not left or right."
Yet somehow, you only see the right as the source.
It's incredible the unrelenting falseness in Dan's comments. It never ends. It's endemic amongst the modern progressive and I'm seeing it in another at my blog when Vinny visits. I'm going to focus on just the quotes from your last response to him:
"The more serious problem is that you and Marshal can't condemn all instances of killing babies as always being a sin."
Aside from the ironic hypocrisy overflowing in this statement from the staunch supporter of the intentional targeting of babies still in utero, it would be false of us do what Dan demands of us. And this Gaza crap is the obvious example of why that's true, though he doesn't care about the lives of Israelis while he pretends to care about pallie babies.
So, when an enemy launches attacks from among their civilian population, and they refuse to evacuate babies or prohibit evacuation, while at the same time continually launching those attacks, there comes a point where the victims of those attacks must act to prevent more murderous killings of their own people. The IDF makes every effort to warn of reprisals, which makes their goals that much harder to achieve given the loss of the element of surprise. At some point they must act to stop the killings of their own people. Women, children, old people and even babies will or could die, despite every effort to prevent it while acting to defend their own lives. Dan, being a total asshole and fake Christian, will insist these deaths constitute a sin.
In the meantime, Dan wonders where he can get himself a pink pussy hat for the next NOW march on Washington DC.
"The more serious problem is that you all are reading the obscure/hard passage ("sometimes God commands people to slaughter infants") and giving that priority over the clear teaching (God is not a God of evil or one who commands evil AND that it IS evil to slaughter infants.)"
This is rich. First of all, there's nothing "obscure" or "hard" to understand about the passages wherein God commands the nations of Israel to war against corrupt peoples. It occurs a number of times and the language is clear. Some say it's hyperbole and the nations wouldn't take it literally as they rode out to kick ass. I've not seen ANY evidence to suggest that's the case...though I won't reject that possibility entirely.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that Craig agrees with me, but I don't give those passages priority over much. I give priority to accepting Scripture as written until someone can prove Verse X in Chapter Z means something other than what the plain reading indicates it means. Scripture doesn't contradict itself, nor does God. What we can know, since Scripture's clear that we can't know God's mind, is that if He chooses to wipe out every baby on earth, He's likely got a good reason which reflects His love, mercy and sense of justice and serves His Master Plan.
Thus, NO! God can't do evil so if He commanded me to kill anyone, including a little baby, doing so wouldn't be a sinful act on my part. Do I think He would command me to do such a thing? No. But He did command Abraham to kill his own son, and despite Abe not understanding why, likely feeling it was out of character, he, unlike the fake Christian Dan who dares judge God, assumed God knew what He was doing by ordering him to do it. That's a manifestation of true devotion and reverence to the Almighty. Such is anathema to Dan.
What Dan's doing here is tired, typical and oh, so Dan. It's him trying to do what the Pharisees often tried to do to Christ, as with the adulterous. He's trying to trap us in order to further his warped worldview.
Dan's a liar. It's what he does.
So far, I've stayed away from the obvious double standard in Dan's newfound hunch that all infants are of surpassing value.
The crux of Dan's position on this is a combination of a couple of things. 1. Taking one specific instance out of context. 2. Acting as if this one specific instance represents something that has been a regular command of YHWH or will be a future command of YHWH.
The suggesting that we prioritize one small, section of scripture clearly intended for one specific people at one specific time, in one specific circumstance is laughable. There is simply no way to make this claim backed by any evidence.
I'm more put off by Dan daring to insist that because God did so command the Israelites, that He ordered them to sin. Then Dan will insist that he doesn't reject Scripture, but that he's objecting to our interpretation, without EVER offering...with evidence to support it...an alternative.
Post a Comment