Cat Stevens & Marillion

I know exactly what you mean. I can't take much of that awful whining either.

With Cat's conversion to Islam, you could say that there is a parallel with Neal Morse??

OMG!! What have I said????

Some amazing ignorance being spouted here, bordering on the frankly racist. Most of the wars fought in the last 2000 years have been through theological manipulations of the words of some prophet or another - many of who were simple people.

All those born agains needing to fill vacuums in their lives and believing others should follow - Christian rock bands leave me cold, especially those using lyrics that wouldn't be out of place in a Victorian hymnal. There is a thing about some musicians needing more than their music. Todd Rundgren got his knickers in an almighty twist about his need to find a religion in the early 70's - that's what Initiation is about.  And all those Scientologists, Chick Corea (through to John Revolter). And the Beatles and Sexie Sadie. And did Richard Thompson ever renounce Islam?  Jim Page and satanism (Alistair Crowley's version). About the only thing Marx (Carl not Groucho this time) got right: religion is the opium of the people. It seems that to many musicians, the music alone wouldn't suffice and either drugs (including booze) had to be there as well. 

And btw, 'Allah' is Arabic for God.

Pixie- its difficult to criticise what you are saying without "dissing" you! The Jewish religion did not invent monotheism. What do you consider to be sensible if monotheism is stupid?

But the reason the early Christians thought it a good idea to rip off the Jewish religion and then the Muslims decided to rip off the Christians again to create Islam is more of a mystery.

 Early Christianity was based on the Jewish faith because Jesus and his followers were Jews. As Homer would say:DOH!

gdub411 wrote: Marillion-Cat Stevens=theological debate

Of course the Cat Stevens issue is a theological debate, Greg. Instead of Reds UnderThe Bed you've now got Saracens.You just dont get it do you?

I bet you are looking under your cot right now arent you!

There is truth in what you say.However, how many Muslims agreed with the Fatwah but didnt go public in the media with it? Most fundimentalist Muslims I would guess! So why dont you just stop all Muslims from entering America and hedge all bets.You see what I am trying to say here?

How many American Presidents have actually signed a Foreign Leader's death warrant, so the CIA could go and bump him off? In effect murdering them theirself. What is the difference? Not all of them were dictators and tyrants.

Double standards?

gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: Marillion-Cat Stevens=theological debate Of course the Cat Stevens issue is a theological debate, Greg. Instead of Reds UnderThe Bed you've now got Saracens.You just dont get it do you? I bet you are looking under your cot right now arent you!   Reed Lover...you really think I am just a big simpleton! I understand the whole Cat Stevens thing. Theological debates just get messy..I was trying to take some of the seriousness out of the conversation because I did not like where it was heading.....

You didnt like where it was going?

And they give you the vote?????????

Reed Lover wrote: There is truth in what you say.However, how many Muslims agreed with the Fatwah but didnt go public in the media with it? Most fundimentalist Muslims I would guess! So why dont you just stop all Muslims from entering America and hedge all bets.You see what I am trying to say here? How many American Presidents have actually signed a Foreign Leader's death warrant, so the CIA could go and bump him off? In effect murdering them theirself. What is the difference? Not all of them were dictators and tyrants. Double standards?

Not at all- I wouldn't feel too safe around any of the surviving US Presidents either 

But nobody has a right to travel wherever they want...you depend upon the goodwill of the destination. This isn't totally an Arab vs. Caucasian thing; this is more like scared people keeping the chain on when answering their door after a break-in. It's too bad we can't keep the doors unlocked anymore, but it's not an inherently racist thing to be nervous about specific people who have advocated violence in the past. Fearing the outsider is a fundamental human attribute that motivates each one of us in subtle or overt ways every day of our lives, no matter how cosmopolitan or civilized we think we are. Do I wish everyone could travel everywhere they want? Sure...I'd love to see quite a few historical locations in the Middle East. Would I make an issue out of the difficulties in doing that right now? Only if I was purposefully blinding myself to reality.

I'm not being naive; there's a lot of racism in the US, and a lot more anti-Arab sentiment since 9/11. I'm not advocating rounding Arab-Americans up for 'questioning' (remeber that glorious World War II? It had a pretty dark side for Asian Americans, especially on the West Coast). However, now is a bad time to try to convince people that an Islamic adherent (which I think is an overly fair description of the ex-Cat-man) poses no more danger to them than anyone else.

I don't believe there can ever be real peace and understanding between people of dramatically different faiths if those religious teachings inherently flame the primal fires of our predjudices- which all major religions do to some extent. Christianity and Islam have been at odds for longer than most of us can trace our ancestors; saying that denying entry to an advocate of violence is a moral weakness on our part just strikes me as either too close to unthinking kneejerk liberalism or too far from realistic expectations. I don't really think he posed any threat, but I also don't think that there's anything wrong with refusing to let him in.

We all know that Europe's one world government plan is being fronted by the Illuminati...Big Brother has you by the throat my friends