GOP Candidate Allen West: People With 'Coexist' Bumper Stickers Want To 'Give Away Our Country'

Allen, "coexistence" is why people came to this country, from every corner of the globe, for 300 years.

Why turn the tables on 300 years of progress?

Please, don't endorse the Party of No Civilization.

Allan West is a prime example of what is WRONG with this country and the GreedyObstructionistParty of NO compromise NO choices and NO bipartisanship! People like him are WHY I left that party long ago!

Are all repugnants that friggin STUPID and partisan. Don't bother answering, it is a rhetorical question.

So he's angry about that bumper sticker? There's a Jewish star on that bumper sticker. I think we need to publicize that fact and the fact that he is annoyed by that.

This man proves once and for all that christians really ARE out to conquer the country and force a christian-sharia type law on us. Chrislam is a real and growing threat.

There is a *much* better chance of extremist "Biblical Law" being enacted in America than the bogey man of "Sharia Law". America has way too many people willing to give up their rights by making this a "Christian Nation".

If he gets that angry over a bumper sticker, his meds need to be tweaked.
Most folk I know that have that sticker are either Pagen or Agnostic.

And that's part of the problem, pound4abrown; it's not just those scary ole muslims people like him are after. It's pagans, agnostics, atheists - all of the rest of us, in other words.

I doubt Republican politicians recognize agnostics or pagans, let alone make a distinction between the two.

Actual translation: "I don't like hippies." Classic GOP establishment attitude, straight out of the Goldwater/Nixon play book. When one sees a "coexist" bumper sticker, it is usually flanked by a "free Tibet" sticker and some dancing bears. Hippies probably aren't going to vote GOP, so there's no real danger offending them.

Frankly, the "coexist" sticker contains symbols that may not be familiar to establishment stiffs. I'm surprised Mr. West didn't insinuate the yin-yang and peace symbol are "coded" symbols - to be read by other hippies - to position hostile social takeover. That's what J. Edgar Hoover did in the 50s. He insinuated civil rights, disarmament, and charity groups used "Aesopian" antonyms like "peace" to mean (domestic) "war" (against America). Everything, of course, was a euphemism for "communist revolution" - same as it is today with radical conservative figures.

Clearly, this is a case of fearmongering. If this is also a veil for red baiting, the idea of conflating humanistic ideals as religious tenets is a classic play. Hoover, Senator McCarthy, and the American Christian evangelical movement have each claimed that social justice, equality, and secularism are in fact competitive religions, threatening to destroy America's Christian values. Nevermind that they - like the "e" in the "coexist" image - aren't.

Bonos is right, though. Without a more careful disclaimer, it seems as if Mr. West is criticizing all of the symbols in the image. These include the star of David, the cross, as well as symbols representing peace and equality. Notice the, uh... cross. He's practically giving critics a free pass with that. Good luck, Mr. West.

GARRISON-2010

Co-Exist with Intolerant Atheist liberals attacking every expression of Judeo-Christian Faith?

Garrison, I know a lot of Christians feel put upon when they try to jam their beliefs into everyone else's face and some of us just don't acquiesce, but what you feel is nothing like persecution.

Persecution is when my next door neighbors accosted me at age 6 with their Bible, showing me the lurid illustrations of the torments I was going to suffer when I went to Hell. I responded that the astronauts who had orbited our planet and been to the Moon and back had failed to encounter God, any Angels, or any heavenly palaces on the way.

Persecution is when two people corner you when you're 15 years old and guilty of nothing more than wearing a funny t-shirt and spend an hour lecturing me on how they're going to "save" me from myself, and all they manage instead is to reduce me to tears (which later becomes bitter anger) and make me wish I'd never heard of them, their stupid church, or their @!$%# opinions.

Persecution is when your doctor, instead of examining your flu symptoms spends 30 minutes lecturing me about how I'm going to be forced to choose a religion soon, and how there's nothing wrong with my body but there is something wrong with my mind. I'll have you know my mother, after hearing that story, called that Dr, told him he was a jerk, and pulled our family's records and moved us to another physician's office.

These are just some of the examples of how I have been persecuted for my non-belief throughout my life. I assure you, you have NO FCKING IDEA what persecution is like. So cram your whiny poutrage.

Co-Exist with Intolerant Atheist liberals attacking every expression of Judeo-Christian Faith?

Co-Exist with Intolerant muslims and Shari'a Law?

These types of people are just as bad as Mr. West.

Co-Exist with Intolerant Atheist liberals attacking every expression of Judeo-Christian Faith?

This country has been a melting pot since it was founded. What is Allen so afraid of all of a sudden?

Someone needs to look into Allen's background. Maybe under his intolerance he has no business here.

Incidently, most of the founding fathers of this country were deists. Some were athiests and agnostics. This country was not founded by people of the Judeo-Christian faith.

@ Garrison-2010 yet it is okay for the Christian Right to force their views, values and religion upon everyone, entering into political avenues to try to put their Dogman on those not of their faith?
Thats right equal to Submission to your views and religion.
Sorry but Co-exist means live in peace and harmony with your fellow man and let them follow what faith they choose as you yourself do.

One day humanity will grow up and when that happens our species will be able end hunger, wars, want, poverty and enter a new age of growth and exploration.

The Universe is out there waiting for us and until we learn to get along we will be stuck on this rock killing each other over stupid reasons.

Co-Exist with Intolerant Atheist liberals attacking every expression of Judeo-Christian Faith?

Co-Exist with Intolerant muslims and Shari'a Law?

Co-Exist seems to equal SUBMISSION.

no,

see, the way it works is everybody makes accommodations for each other, so the intolerant muslims have to become tolerant and the sharia law, not so much. The intolerant atheists would have to tolerate christianity more and the jehovah's witnesses would probably have to stop coming to my door and interrupting the soap operas.

you'd have to let go of your "black and white" mindset in order for it to make sense. But if you're happy hating that which is different and thinking of yourself as the victim in all situations, by all means, be my guest.

Aww, poor Garrison - clinging to a faith so fragile that every differing opinion must be handled as an all out attack...do they give you decks of playing cards so you can figure out which attacker is which ? Is it in a newsletter?

The only difference between a church and a cult - is that society accepts a church. Otherwise, they're identical.

The USA is an explicitly pluralistic country. To not understand that is to not understand America at its very core.

Buck

According to some on the right who "want their country back", "our" country has already been taken away.

How can something that's already been taken away be given away?

Perhaps this West guy is confusing his lost sanity with what's already lost. Or given away. Or something like that.

It's getting harder and harder to tell what's lost, who's lost or who or what has been given away.

Can anyone clear this up?

So why would anyone nominate or vote for an idiot like West? Republicans must be putting Xanax in their brownies considering some of their wierdo beliefs they're pushing these days.

Most folk I know that have that sticker are either Pagen or Agnostic.

Yeah, ha ha ha, very funny.

um ... er ... well ... mmm ...

OKAY, okay, I've had one on my car for many years now. :-P

Regards

A bumper sticker that says: Co-exist. What a horrible, terrifying, world-threatening comment to stick on your car! Imagine what might happen if all people respected each other...utter chaos, huh? The seas will vanish and the sky explode!

What I don't understand is that the Christians, who are supposed to follow the words of the bible, can't find it in themselves to "love thy neighbor." Isn't that what the bible (which they insist was written by God or maybe just God-inspired scribes) preaches? Aren't they aware of that phrase? I thought that was one of the more important lessons in there. Isn't that what they tell us every chance they get? And isn't 'love thy neighbor' just another way of saying 'co-exist' or show some respect for each other?

What is wrong with them, that what they try to shove down everyone's throat isn't what they believe at all.... Sad commentary on some truly despicable, and ferociously faux-religious, frauds.

Additionally, I would bet Allen West is running on some sort of 'family values' ticket. Most of these insane, hypocritical GOBPers do.

"...he tells the truth. The hard truth. The harsh truth." His "hard truth" is that he declares himself to be bigoted, ignorant, racist. If you folks would like to constrict religion in America, fine, let me choose which church you will attend, which preacher will pass inspection, which mythical ceremonies will be allowed, which prayers we will indoctrinate our children with. Let me do it.

Christians show their extreme intolerance at Hannukah-time when they INSIST on people saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Hannukkah.

Wow Allen, mis-interpret much?

But its so much easier when the ignorant bigots self-identify, isn't it?

I'm a Christian, but please don't lump me in with the rest of the crazy Christian right.

http://allenwestforcongress.com/issues

My question is for Mr. Allen...how do you plan to do all this fighting? All this protecting? How many members of the GOP are going to insure that their kids are involved with all this protecting?

What a tangled, repulsive diatribe...

He does not use PC speech very often, and whether you like it or not......he tells the truth. The hard truth. The harsh truth. And if anything has been made perfectly obvious to me over the last 4 years, it is this; Jack Nicholson's character in 'A Few Good Men' was right....."The TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

This is not the truth. Not the truth of rational people everywhere. Only haters, followers of limbaugh, beck, palin, bachmann and others of their ilk, think this kind of hatred is the Truth....

I can only pity them....

There is another thing in your rant that needs clarifying:

WE need to decide what is best for us, not some elitist political class that believes they know what is best because we, the people, are too stupid.

I gather you're a rightie. The way you protect this low-life West and spray your virulence on the left leads one to that conclusion. As such, how can you believe what you wrote and still vote repub? There is no one group that thinks themselves more elite than the repubs. They continue to vote no to anything that will harm their incomes, while not giving a dam* about the people of this country.

They protect Big Business, Big Oil, Wall Street and their own bush Tax Cuts... Did you hear John Boehner twitch and swerve to not answer Face the Press interviewer David Gregory? After trying unsuccessfully (five times!) to duck the question about whether the bush Tax Cuts are paid for (and its potential $830Trillion ADDITION to the deficit over the next 10 years because we'd have to borrow the money)...well, Boehner showed his true colors, and they're NOT red, white and blue.

And the Wall Street Reform bill...they want to get rid of that one too, because, after all - who wants the big money men to have to follow RULES? For goodness sake! Then they'd be unable to steal all our money again and give it to the repubs. Boehner and his elitist club don't want that either!!

Repubs only use the deficit card when there's no real money to worry about...like when it's a mere $30Billion for something like the 9/11 Responders....

So, they scream about $30B for the people who are dying because they helped during 9/11, but are willing to accrue $830B so they keep their tax cuts... Repubs are just like Fox Fables - unfair and unbalanced.

So sickening!

Anyone who makes less than a quarter million a year has no reason to be a repub.

I have to wonder if any of you actually watched the video that wasn't edited before you started putting your opinions on the record? (Obviously the author didn't.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjisK-cDlxU&feature=related

Watch the whole 10 minutes, please, otherwise you are just another mindless drone being led around by the nose, fed soundbites and believing what you are told to believe.

As for religious oppression and co-existing, people need to understand there is a difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. Those who seek to co-exist through freedom FROM religion have no interest in preserving the rights of anyone to freely believe whatever they choose to believe because they truly are of the opinion that the only way freedom OF religion can be achieved is through freedom FROM religion. Furthermore there is a difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. An Atheist, believing there is no god, cannot be bothered by the religious beliefs of others, even those who get right in his face and tell him he's going to hell if he doesn't change, because the true atheist, firmly set in his beliefs, knows in his heart that the other person is simply delusional and can't help himself--there is no fear of a hell that does not exist. The anti-theist, however, is vocal, angry, actively seeking to destroy the religions of others, especially those that they feel are too vocal in seeking to recruit new believers. They are threatened by dogma, perhaps because they would like to be true atheists but suffer from doubts (I think that's something that should be studied, actually, because it might help us all to understand each other a bit better and pave the way to tolerance.) At present the anti-theist is nothing more than the modern day crusader, forcing his will on everyone else.

My favorite is the people who can't quite make out the word "coexist" from the arrangement of religious symbols. They look at it, adopt what I call the confused-cocker-spaniel-head-tilt and announce, "I don't get it."

:-)

Lu-1328381

I would say that today's anti-theists (which really are few in number) are yesterdays atheists (by your definitions) who are tired and fed up with "those who get right in his face and tell him he's going to hell if he doesn't change".

And I can't help but wonder why it is alright for a theist to "get right in his face and tell him he's going to hell if he doesn't change" but not alright for an atheist to act similarly. Would not the action of theists who "get right in his face..." be characterized as vocal, angry, actively seeking to destroy the religions beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others?

A jouous life is fluid but well ordered. (Dreher, pg 118)

Namaste Colonial82.

Kevin,

I certainly don't condone anyone getting in anyone's face about anything. But this "what's good for the goose is good for not just the gander but also the sheep and the chickens and the whole of the barnyard" mentality surrounding religion is bordering on insanity. The idea that any one person who holds a view is in any way a true representation of a whole of people who hold that view is absurd. All Christians are not the sort who get in your face and insist you repent and believe, just as all Muslims do not have bombs strapped to their bellies just waiting for their opportunity to martyr their way into the arms of a few score of virgins, but all of Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism and (though less frequently) Buddhism are treated with such disdain, despite the fact that for every negative act by any of those of any given faith there are countless positive acts that go completely ignored. Religion is a roadmap often misconstrued, not because of the failings of the gods, but because of the depravity of humankind--the very depravity that makes religion necessary in the first place. If every person were capable of reason, there would be no cause for gods, no cause for laws of any kind, because we would instinctively do right not just by ourselves but by each other. To me it makes very little sense to wish to take away the system of reason of the masses--if a person needs the threat of a hell in order to keep them from "sinning", then I'm certainly not going to be the fool to tell them that hell does not exist, because I certainly don't want to be the one who is "sinned" against. Another way of looking at this is to consider that if they are "stupid enough to need a god to keep them in line," then how stupid does the person have to be who wants to take that god away and leave them amoral and lawless and in still stupid? At the moment, anti-theists are bent on removing religion from everything, suppressing the right to freedom of religion for everyone, which very much is like the angry, in-your-face Christian, which makes as little sense as a mother throwing a tantrum in a store because her child is throwing a tantrum in the store. The golden rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you, is a universal rule, it is one of the longest standing rules in the world and the only rule that is ever really needed, if everyone would follow it, the world would be an amazing place, and yet it is the one rule that people the world over have the most difficulty following (by the way, it is in every religion, including Satanism in the form of doing to others before they do to you, which can be as easily used for good as it could be for evil). The thing is this rule is meant to counteract the most basic human instinct--treating others not as you want to be treated, but as you have been treated. As people claiming to be for tolerance and equality, we should look down on the poor behavior of the anti-theist as readily as we do the poor behavior of the over-zealous of other belief systems.

Preach it!

I really have to ask..........................How can someone so ignorant still survive and live?? He must have a lot of caretakers! :-(

(I AM speaking of Mr. West, not any posters) ♥

Hey Garrison, I'm an atheist. What exactly are you going to do, since you don't want to co-exist, kill us?

I'm still curious if any of you have actually watched the unedited video. These statements were taken out of context.

Lu-1328381

First off - paragraphs please.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My point was that it seems more readily that atheists (or anti-theists) are chastised for acting in the way that they've been treated yet those that have treated them that way are given a pass.

I agree that the actions either way can have nothing but negative results.

The Golden Rule? Try the Platinum Rule: "Treat others as they wish to be treated". The Golden Rule assumes that everyone else is the same as you and that they would want to be treated as you are. The Platinum Rule recognizes that people are different and have different wants, desires and beliefs. The Platinum Rule is much harder for first you must understand how others wish to be treated - which amazingly requires the understanding of other's wants, desires and beliefs. Imagine what that can lead to.

Because acceptance is harder then hatred. If you don't have someone to hate then you can not deflect the populous from real problems that are facing this country. Acceptance doesn't mean agreeing, that's a doormat mentality. You can accept someone for who they are and not agree with them... hell you don't even have to like the person, just accept them for who they are and their right to exist.

Re: #1.30, #1.35

There are a lot of good people on Newsvine. The group I most admire is probably the smallest. It's people who consult diverse sources on a regular basis. To follow the Democratic or Republican party without question is to presume they are infallible. Since we're on a religious-themed thread, I think it's particularly appropriate to point out that we generally only ascribe divinity onto the deity we worship - not our fellow men and women.

For what my two cents are worth, I have much more respect for Colonial - whose views I probably disagree with - than many of my fellow liberals who call others names and refer to Republican figures as though they were Garbage Pail Kids ("Lush" Limbaugh, Glenn "Becky," etc.).

A lot of you are asking why now well because were entering another period of religious decline. While atheist and agnostics are by far not the largest group they are the group with the most growth while all major faiths in the US have lost members. People are starting to reject religion again and that instills fear in people such a West here. Remember people like West truly believe that they have to "save" the rest of us. The only reason West is Failing isn't that religion namely christainity hasn't adapted with the time and the oppressive nature of it is driveing people away from the constant fear mongering, no it's that satan has them with his "evil" cults.

Kevin, take a step back for a moment and look at the way some people want to be treated:

Does the entitled princess type deserve to be treated with the "respect" she demands of those around her? She wants to be treated as the center of her own universe and as part of the way others should treat her, she expects that everyone else must revolve around her. Out of necessity, her desired treatment requires that no one else have any expectations or desires of their own, except the desire to give her her will.

Does the embittered teen who just wants everyone to leave him alone deserve to be treated with the disaffectedness he expects everyone else to exhibit towards him? And what would end up happening to him if he was given his way and allowed to sulk and wallow in his own self-pity? To some his attitude is just a phase (many a parent has thought so in the past only to discover they were terribly wrong), but to others his attitude is a warning sign that now more than ever he needs not what he wants but precisely what he doesn't want--someone to get to the bottom of what is wrong, which would necessarily involve treating him as he does not want to be treated.

What about the masochist who enjoys mistreatment? Must we all cater to his pleasures and in doing so be something we do not want to be? What about the psychotic who only ever wishes to fight? Would we have an obligation as a society to argue with him because that is his will? What about the Christian, who is in the faces of others? Wouldn't it be necessary, under the rule of treating others as they desire, to head to church with them in order to appease them?

The trouble with treating people as they want to be treated is that it is at the opposite extreme of treating others as you have been treated. Everyone is allowed to remain inherently selfish and utterly unaware of the effects their selfishness has on everyone else, because they can just continuously claim that the other person's desires are infringing on the their own desires... which is ultimately the situation we are in at the present (i.e. those without faith are insulted by those with faith and those with faith are insulted by those without faith, and both are terribly wrong). Aristotle would have you seek out the golden mean--that place between the extremes. He would point to the golden rule as an answer, because it requires us all not just to look to ourselves and our own desires, but to look to our fellow man and treat him as we ourselves would be treated.

The princess must then lavish those around her with love and praise. The angry teen could be said to be following this rule by secluding himself, but those around him have an obligation to see that his crisis, even the small one, is genuine, and that he must be treated with compassion and respect, though not given what he wants. The masochist who enjoys mistreatment, you might argue, would then be required to also be a sadist and to mistreat those around him, however the masochist, desiring to be treated as he wants to be treated (which is ultimately what we all want--there's your rule, but unflawed, because it has been given balance of the ethic of reciprocity), must desire the same for everyone else. The one who wishes only to fight could then be turned away from by those who follow the golden rule because it is understood that some people are selfish and have not found that balance between treating others as they have been treated and treating others as they insist on being treated, because this very ethical rule is not about assuring everyone has their way but rather about assuring everyone is treated with mutual respect and dignity.

So how, under the golden rule, would an atheist treat a pushy Christian? Instinctively the desire is to lash out and treat the person in the same pushy manner, arguing that of course there is no god. Why? Because Instinctively we wish other people would just treat us like we want to be treated, because that seems like the respectful thing to do, and everyone should treat everyone with respect. Unfortunately that is human nature, to look at things solely from the perspective of the eyes one was born with, and not with the eyes of the world. The true Atheist, following the golden rule, might simply smile, say, "No thanks," and carry on with his life understanding that the person who is being pushy in their faith is failing to follow that one basic law while they do exactly as they believe their faith requires of them (save the sinners). The true Atheist should know that he is not really affected by the experience, unless of course he chooses to be insulted. By allowing himself to be insulted he has allowed the experience to affect him, which is contrary to what he wants.

What he wants is to be allowed to believe what he wants to believe without interference from anyone else. Of course we all want this, but we also want others to understand why we believe the way we do and to believe with us (this is true not just of our individual faiths, but also of every single idea we have, which is why we congregate on sites like this, telling others what we think and why we argue with our husbands and wives). In effect, by our very nature we want for ourselves what we are rarely willing to give freely to others. We aren't going to stop talking with one another, so what is required, when it comes right down to it, is the golden rule--that balance between how we are treated and how we want to be treated.

Two people of opposing faiths may sit and candidly speak of their beliefs without anger or animosity towards one another. These conversations are necessary so that we can understand each other. The fault comes in when one attempts to make the other believe differently. You can treat that person has you have been treated, which would only make you wrong as well. You can demand that you be treated as you want to be treated, but they would only demand the same thing, and both are obviously contradictory to each other. Or you can choose a more evolved path--the path where you treat him with the respect you feel you deserve.

By the way, has anyone watched the unedited video yet?

What, exactly, does he mean when says we shouldn't "co-exist" with other religions and cultures? Does he even understand what he is saying? If follow what he says then no one could co-exist with anyone?

Damm it! I hate it when when pod people like this West turn up!

What is wrong with them, that what they try to shove down everyone's throat isn't what they believe at all.... Sad commentary on some truly despicable, and ferociously faux-religious, frauds.

Additionally, I would bet Allen West is running on some sort of 'family values' ticket. Most of these insane, hypocritical GOBPers do.

Pod people I tell you, pod people!!

I wonder how they suck the brains out there victims, and what they put in....

Ten years ago this West may have been a decent tolerant man, until they caught him....

Now he is one of them!!! ;-)

Colonial, you exposed your true self.

Colonial, quit exposing yourself.

;-)

Lu-1328381

Wow, pretty verbose there :)

Treating people as they want to be treated requires a strong understanding of who they are. It's not about catering to them.

Your arguments work both ways. If you're the "the entitled princess type" then you'd have to cater to the entitled princess in everybody. If your the "embittered teen" or the "masochist" then you'd be treating others as if they were the embittered teen or the masochist.

The trouble with treating people as they want to be treated is that it is at the opposite extreme of treating others as you have been treated.

You lost me right here. It is not the opposite extreme. It is taking the "treat others as you would be treated" to the next higher level.

Everyone is allowed to remain inherently selfish and utterly unaware of the effects their selfishness has on everyone else, because they can just continuously claim that the other person's desires are infringing on the their own desires...

How can you get that out of "treat others as they wish to be treated". In order to do that, you have to have a strong understanding and a genuine empathy of the other person. It is not selfish and cannot be utterly unaware.

Ultimately, I understand what you're saying and I agree to a point. It's really determined by the level of detail (are we talking about a specific interaction or are we talking more generally?). I also think one, treat others as you wish to be treated, assumes the authenticity in our own hearts while the other, treat others as they wish to be treated, assumes the authenticity is other's hearts.

Hey Garrison, I'm an atheist. What exactly are you going to do, since you don't want to co-exist, kill us?

Hey, I'm an athiest, I'm not going to co-exist with Honor Killers, or homosexual 'stoners', how about you?

Somebody educate me, Islam is the religion, Muslim is the race? Is that right?

Not one of us can see into the hearts of others. On one level I admire Muslims for theie devotion to spirituality. (taking time out to pray 6x per day) But Im also a little concerned about there intentions. They are like Jehova Witnesses on Steroids and that scares some people. (dems and repub)

The only muslim I actually no today is the guy who runs the stop and rob down the street. He's seems like an ok guy.

I have no idea what Mr West experienced in the middle east. Obviously he knows more or has had more direct contact with the Muslim world than I. I'm not apologizing for his words, but I can't judge him.

a shared sense that WE the American people are in charge

A majority of "we the American people" voted Barack Hussein Obama into office. One of the downsides to a free country is that your political party is not gauranteed victory in every election and afterwards you need to deal with a leader you don't like. Democratic voters had to deal with 8 years of Bush, 4 Years of his father, and 8 years of Reagan for a total of 20 of the last 30 years. That means conservatives have been represented for 2/3 of the last 30 years and "liberals" for 10. So far Republicans have dealt with it in the manner of a 10 year old child that doesn't get what they want.

I don't understand why Republicans act like having liberal beliefs is somehow un-American. We are allowed the freedom to choose whatever political ideology we want here in the United States, if we can't do that, we are not a free country. I was born here, my family lived in Minnesota before it was a state, therefore any political ideology I decide on is inherently American.

I would never call someone un-American for being a conservative. People have different beliefs, and sometimes your guy doesn't win, deal with it.

Somebody educate me, Islam is the religion, Muslim is the race? Is that right?

No. Muslim is not a race! Islam is the faith, Muslim is the follower of that faith. I.e Christianity vs. Christian, Judaism vs Jew, Buddhism vs. Buddhist, etc. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, Asian Muslims, Hispanic Muslims, etc.

That's one of the things causing the problems - the view that all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arab.

(Oops, I duplicated some of Dennis's answer. I think the two of us were writing at the same time. Nevertheless, I think I covered some things Dennis didn't. Hopefully there's room for both of our answers.)

@JLeon, who asked: "Somebody educate me, Islam is the religion, Muslim is the race? Is that right?"

Islam is the religion, Muslim is the religious person - at least in the terms we use today. In the past, the English language has referred to Muslims as "Moslem" and "Mohammedans." It's all a matter of translation.

Think of it like this:

• Christianity is the religion. Christ is the founder. Those who follow Christ are Christians. Christ is connected to God. Christians use interchangeable names for God, including Jehovah and various titles of nobility (Lord, Almighty). Christians both follow and worship Christ in the process of worshiping God.
• Judaism is the religion, practiced by Jews, who worship God. The same God as the Christians. The difference is that Jews do not accept Jesus is the son of God. Because Jewish texts have undergone different translation and distribution processes, the name of God varies. Like Christians, Jehovah is sometimes used. More common is YHWH (or Yahweh). The same titles of nobility appear.
• Islam is the religion. Muhammed is the founder. Those who follow Muhammed are Muslims, who worship God. Muhammed is not considered a part of God. He is admired in the same way as the virgin Mary in Catholicism. Christ is also a figure in Islam - he is considered a teacher and admired, but not worshiped. Because of the same translation and distribution factors, the name of God differs in Islamic texts. The standard name is Allah. The usual titles of nobility are also used.

To recap, all three of America's major religions worship the same God. Christians understand that Catholics worship differently than Baptists. It's sort of the same way with Christians and Jews and Muslims - just a higher degree of customary difference. The central idea is the same. The big difference is the way Christ and Muhammed are interpreted.

Of course, to Christians this means everything. A Christian cannot belong to a church that denies the divinity of Christ (to do so would be to deny him like Peter did). But a Christian can join in pan-denominational prayer ceremonies in which a general appeal is made to God. The prayers of Christians, Jews, and Muslims all bear the same address.

There is no overt reason to consider Jews and Muslims enemies. Likewise, there's no reason for Muslims to consider Christians and Jews enemies. Likewise with Jews toward Christians and Muslims. Some do, however. And that's where a great many of the world's problems reside.

............................................................................................................

In no way is Muslim an indicator of race. See a map of Muslim majority countries by following this link. You will see that many of the countries are in Africa. A good number are in Southeast Asia and along the Pacific rim. The map does not take into account the total number of countries with some Muslim population, which is practically every country. Muslims can be members of any race.

Something a lot of people don't understand is that Arabs (the origin of the prophet Muhammed and thus the formal religion of Islam) are a Semitic people. Semites are any number of people who share a common ancestral language. When someone calls Arabs anti-Semites, they are actually making the absurd claim that Arabs are a self-hating people. If they say Muslims in general are, they are saying that Muslims have a pathological hatred for their religion's founder. Fun fact.

Steech - Much more thorough than mine. I went for the soundbite answer :-)

Kevin,

In essence, you and I are trying to come to the same point, but we are trying to reach it in different ways. I understand that under your "platinum rule", the idea of understanding the desires of others is ultimately the right way of thinking, and this is the way it is under the golden rule as well. My problem with your idea comes through the knowledge that never will we reach a point in our human existence when all living people are good enough to exist in that right way of thinking together at the same time. The wise grow old and die, and each day a new population is born, all of whom require teaching and living (mostly living) in order to eventually (hopefully) grow wise... and then die.

Because we are human, very often what we want is not just not good for others but also not good for ourselves. The platinum rule requires us to understand others, but it does not give room for those instances when those others do not understand us in return (which by nature is almost always) or for those instances when those others do not value what they need over what they want. The golden rule, however, does. The golden rule does not mean to treat others as you want to be treated by giving them ice cream when you want ice cream and they want cake (for instance), rather it means treating others as you want to be treated by considering what that other person wants and needs (that deep empathy), understanding where that other person is coming from, and determining what is the best action to take by considering what you would want or need if you were in the same circumstance while at the same time understanding yourself and what you are ultimately able to give--in other words, finding that balance between what is utterly selfish and what is utterly selfless.

The golden rule is a rule that can be followed by any one, that accommodates for others who cannot or will not follow the same rule or any rule, while allowing for the balance between having what you want or need while at the same time giving the other what they want or need. (I think perhaps you are looking at the golden rule as treating everyone else as if they were in your shoes vs treating yourself as if you were in the other person's shoes so that you can understand what action is really right?) The golden rule allows for the authenticity of what is in both hearts.