Jerry,

>>>>>
>>>>>And, to be blunt, you are either with the USA in its fight against terrorism, or you are for the terrorists. There is nothing to negotiate. The Islamic fundamentalmentalist want us convert to their form of religion, as demonstrated by the Taliban, or they want us dead. You negotiate by surrendering. As Bush said, "There is NO middle ground. " Pacificism is not the 'higher moral ground", it is folks enjoying liberties paid for by other people's blood and sacrifice.
>>>>
>>>>Jerry;
>>>>
>>>>The Islamic fundamentalmentalist do not want us to convert to their religion. They only want us dead and for our system of government to not exist.
>>>>
>>>>Tom
>>>
>>>The only question that remains is "how large is the gap between Islamic orthodoxy and fundamentalism?" I suggest it is not as large as some people think, or hope.
>>>JLK
>>
>>I've heard enough to feel confident that murder and suicide are forbidden in 'garden variety' Islam. To feel confident that the fundamentalist "brand" practised by Taliban and proselytized by Bin Ladin is based on an interpretation of their texts which has (relatively) minor acceptance throughout Islam.
>
>From whom have you heard it and why does it bolster your confidence? Paul Johnson, historian and journalist, said "It is widely said that Islamic terrorists are wholly unorthodox in their belief that their religion sanctions what they do, and promises the immediate reward of heaven to what we call "suicide bombers" but they insist are martyrs to the faith. This line is bolstered by the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace and that the very word, "Islam", means "peace." Alas, no so. Islam means "submission," a very different matter, and one of the functions of Islam, in its more militant aspect, is to obtain that submission from all, if necessary by force. Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism. The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5 adds: "Then fight and

I don't know Paul Johnson, nor do I know the people who have been representing Islam on radio/TV/press to state 'what Islam is'. And I'll admit that the first few times that I heard the Islamics explain the two salient details (murder/suicide) the words "innocent people" were used and I said to myself "Hmmm, I wonder if 'innocent' has a special qualification, like 'other people of Islamic faith...'". But I ultimately came to the conclusion that there aren't many other words that can be used to communicate the idea and that they surely wouldn't stoop so low as to hide any special meaning.
As regards 'books' of the Koran/Kuran/????, I have no clue as to whether these are actual content or not. It could be that this is a book like the books left out of the Christian text, could it not?

>slay the pagans whereever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]. The nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought 'until they embrace islam.' Those canonical commands cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam. Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted to changed conditions, and unlike Judiasm, which has experienced what is called the 18th century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages. The 7th Century Koran is still taught as the immuntable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentailly akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism...."

Again, I have no idea if these quotes are accurate, especially as regards their (alleged) source.
But I would add that many of the Christian variations also teach '...as the immuntable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true'.
Also, words, especially in the hands of a pro, can be misleading. As a simple example the term "mainstream Islam" probably wants us to interpret it as 'the majority practising Islam'. But Mr. Johnson could well be saying something else.

>
>He goes on to say that American policy makers have to steer a narrow path. They have the military power to do what they want, but they need a broad-based global coalition to back their actions, including states like Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The danger is these states will insist on qualifications that will amount, in effect, to appeasement, and that this in turn will divide and weaken both the administration and U.S. public opinion. And, regardless what the non-fundamentalist Arabs do, there are always the folks like Bill Maher, who believe the terrorist were the brave ones and America deserved what happened. I see he is back on the air again. I am amazed how he has the gaul to call his show, and his opinions 'Politically incorrect' when they represent the anti-American, leftist multiculturalism that is so politically correct these days and being jammed down everyone's throats. Things like that always stand out: politicians introduce 'freedom of information'

I don't watch Bill Maher so I have no clue. So my throat remains unjammed by him. But I do know that the U.S. is the world leader in marketing and sales and that the U.S. knows every angle that can be used, overt and subtle, to SELL any product or idea to the masses, so it is quite possible that anything that you and I watch/hear/read is subtly selling a specific point of view.

>acts which make it impossible for citizens to learn what politicians are doing, "anti-terrorist acts" which reduce everyones freedoms except the terrorsts, "Secure Social Security acts" which insure the SS will be broke, if it isn't already, and the list goes on....
>
>
>>Now, even through this whole crisis coverage, I haven't heard one single "Christian" preacher/commentator pass on the golden opportunity to tell/invite listeners to 'come and accept the Lord Jesus Christ now as your personal Saviour...". I think that says something in itself.
>
>Why, Jim? What's your problem with that? Don't Christian preachers have the same rights as other Americans to speak their opinion and/or share their faith, regardless of circumstances? It's what they do all the time. They practice what Paul said to do, "Be constant, in season and out". They never "passed on this golden opportunity" because they never stopped offering their invitation before, during or after September 11th. If any group of 'Christians', using the term losely, 'took advantage' it was the fakes who promote religion for profit - the Jim Bakers and Jimmy can't keep his pants up .

I guess that Christian preachers have the "right" alright, to "sell" their faith wherever/whenever they can. Your use of "share" is a euphemism for "sell". But to me it is tacky under these circumstances - immediately (first 10 days) after the attack, when they have been asked for comfort or explanations of God's possible motives. It bothered me a lot, and I sure can see how other country's governments could get upset with this kind of practise in their own countries (keeping in mind that not all countries are "free").
That they practise Paul's teaching so literally is perfectly OK? Maybe it is, IF that is what Paul really meant. Sure looks like an interpretation to me though.

As a person named Jim it didn't go unnoticed by me that preacher Jims can do things most unChristian. You forgot the mass poisoner, who was in the same league.