Again to Mike and Dhimmi No More

Submitted by Seamus MacNemi (United States), Jun 18, 2007 at 00:59

I never said anything about the meaning of Islam and I haven't argued with your interpretation of that particular word. What I object to is your dismissive attitude toward those of us who want to find real solutions to the problems that face us for now and in the future. As far as "ISMs" and "ITIES" are concerned I was refering to the vapid notions of theologins that have plagued us for far too long. Theology is just so much nonsense. The very word is an oxymoron. It presupposes knowledge of the unknowable. My religion depends upon a tradition which tells me how to behave in the practical sphere of human relations and leaves speculation about the nature of G-d to the mystics. Such speculation has absolutely no bearing upon the way I live or upon what I believe. I am not required to believe that G-d is a trinity (What ever that means) or that Jesus was divinely concieved or born of a virgin. The physical state of Jesus' mother at the time of his birth is of absolutely no concern in my religion. I do not believe in any kind of supernaturalism. I do not believe that Jesus was or is G-d.

If you want to believe in that sort of thing you are welcome to it, but don't think you can impose it upon me or any of mine.. And NO, the HOLY NAME is NOT YAHWEH. It cannot be pronounced in any manner that you would understand and it cannot be written in English.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".