Muslims show Christian minister whose is religion of peace

[fossten]

Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 4:39 PM on 15th March 2009

A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’

The Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to the studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions in Urdu.
Mr Samuel, based at Heston United Reformed Church, West London, said: ‘He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door.

He started slapping my face and punching my neck. He was trying to smash my head on the steering wheel.

Then he grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible.’

The Metropolitan Police are treating it as a ‘faith hate’ assault and are hunting three Asian men.

In spite of the attack, Mr Samuel went ahead with his hour-long live Asian Gospel Show on the Venus satellite channel from studios in Wembley, North London. During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack.

Pakistan-born Mr Samuel, 48, who was educated by Christian missionaries and moved to Britain 15 years ago, said that over the past few weeks he has received phone-in calls from people identifying themselves as Muslims who challenged his views.

‘They were having an argument with me,’ he said. ‘They were very aggressive in saying they did not agree with me. I said those are your views and these are my views.’

He said that he, his wife Louisa, 48, and his son Naveed, 19, now fear for their safety, and police have given them panic alarms. ‘I am frightened and depressed,’ he said. ‘My show is not confrontational.’

 

[sid grubbs]

Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 4:39 PM on 15th March 2009

A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’

The Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to the studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions in Urdu.
Mr Samuel, based at Heston United Reformed Church, West London, said: ‘He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door.

He started slapping my face and punching my neck. He was trying to smash my head on the steering wheel.

Then he grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible.’

The Metropolitan Police are treating it as a ‘faith hate’ assault and are hunting three Asian men.

In spite of the attack, Mr Samuel went ahead with his hour-long live Asian Gospel Show on the Venus satellite channel from studios in Wembley, North London. During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack.

Pakistan-born Mr Samuel, 48, who was educated by Christian missionaries and moved to Britain 15 years ago, said that over the past few weeks he has received phone-in calls from people identifying themselves as Muslims who challenged his views.

‘They were having an argument with me,’ he said. ‘They were very aggressive in saying they did not agree with me. I said those are your views and these are my views.’

He said that he, his wife Louisa, 48, and his son Naveed, 19, now fear for their safety, and police have given them panic alarms. ‘I am frightened and depressed,’ he said. ‘My show is not confrontational.’

Muzzlims are SCARED TO DEATH of Christianity,,They know our religion is strong and CAN TAKE IT they have to resort to this kind of behavior,,they're weak. Goofy artists in the name of ART produce all kinds of stuff about JESUS,,GOD,,VIRGIN MARY,,ST.JOHN,,MARY MAGDALIN (sic) etc etc etc WE JUST "KEEP ON TRUCKIN' ". Muzzlims (they love it spelled that way) are also SCARED TO DEATH of the INTERNET.

 

[Calabrio]

At least they didn't cut this head off in the studio.

 

[KD00LS]

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

Yep they should have just KEPT ON TRUCKIN never mind the preacher.

 

[Calabrio]

Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves.

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

 

[KD00LS]

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

It's not hostile atheism it's common sense. If you want to play savior and publicly denounce someone's religion how can you not expect some kind of backlash? I'm not justifying the acts of the Muslims at all, but some recourse obviously is going to come from it. I don't know where you get this term of 'hostile' just because I have a different belief system than you do, or anyone. You disagree with me, so would you be a hostile theist? And where did I say I was an atheist at any point? If you really wanted to know, the best way to describe me would be non religious and agnostic. Please don't misconstrue this as I'm some kind of lost cause in terms of faith and that I'm afraid to accept a religion. I think I'm pretty tolerant towards religion, I just don't like my opinions infringed upon. Perhaps we should stop making ambiguous comments from aloft our pedestal and if you really disagree with one of my standpoints then I'll be glad to have a friendly debate about it. Don't put words in my mouth either.

 

[Calabrio]

If you want to play savior and publicly denounce someone's religion how can you not expect some kind of backlash?

First, where did it say he'd denounced Islam?
Second, why is it reasonable to presume that such disagreement will lead to intolerance or violence. Did the minister get have church thugs go back and teach these muslims a lesson?

Using that logic, you're denouncement of religion should cause you to expect an ass kicking as well. Denouncing all religion isn't any loftier than embracing another one.

If you really wanted to know, the best way to describe me would be non religious and agnostic.

As I was saying, you're "faith" in nothing is no better, worse, or different, than someone else's faith in something. And any candor regarding said lack of faith, or intolerance for people discussing theirs, infringes upon their opinion. Precisely as you wish to be protected.

making ambiguous comments from aloft our pedestal and if you really disagree with one of my standpoints then I'll be glad to have a friendly debate about it.

That's what I did.

 

[KD00LS]

First, where did it say he'd denounced Islam?
Second, why is it reasonable to presume that such disagreement will lead to intolerance or violence. Did the minister get have church thugs go back and teach these muslims a lesson?
Using that logic, you're denouncement of religion should cause you to expect an ass kicking as well. Denouncing all religion isn't any loftier than embracing another one.
As I was saying, you're "faith" in nothing is no better, worse, or different, than someone else's faith in something. And any candor regarding said lack of faith, or intolerance for people discussing theirs, infringes upon their opinion. Precisely as you wish to be protected.
That's what I did.

1.It said he had heated arguments with Muslims. You can honestly say he got into an emotional debate with Muslims and didn't say anything to undercut their credibility? Any time there is a religious debate it is in the attempt to make one side less reputable than the other, aka denouncing. It doesn't have to say the word "denounce" without implying it.

2. When someone asserts their belief or assumption as true without knowing if it is really true by experience, and then proceeds to claim that another person's religion is wrong or erroneous, they are being intolerant of another person's religion and belief system. I'm sure the minister wasn't on television saying Christianity is a possibility, and so is Islam, so I should equally believe in both or respect both as equals. Deeming that Christianity was true and the Muslims were wrong, or even debating the credibility of their beliefs, is the definition of intolerance. He doesn't need thugs to go teach Muslims a lesson. Both parties are wrong in violence as well as public denouncing.

in⋅tol⋅er⋅ant
   
–adjective
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters

3. Being agnostic doesn't mean that you denounce all religions, it means you respect them as a possibility because they are not truths. It means that you are uncertain of such a religious truth due to evidence either a. not existing b. not being proven enough to be labeled as personal truth. Agnostic literally means without knowing. Beliefs and knowledge are two separate spheres. It is not an egocentric standpoint in which you believe you are the all holy center of the universe.

4. How can you attempt to use the same notion of religious equality that I intended against me? How can you say my standpoint, which is agnostic (or open minded), is hostile? Discussion about it is fine, heated debate is another thing. The intention of debate is to prove something wrong, in turn denouncing a religion. Religion should be a private institution, end of story. If you believe in a religion, you shouldn't have to convince other people, especially publicly on television.

 

[Calabrio]

1.It said he had heated arguments with Muslims.

But about what?
Did he merely say Mohammed was a pedophile thug with an irrational fear of dogs? If so, I say bravo. Most most likely, if a disagreement was drawn, it would have been on a particularly issue, like treating women like cattle, or honor killings, or slavery.... But neither of us know, and so far, neither of us are really all that compelled to find out.

Any time there is a religious debate it is in the attempt to make one side less reputable than the other, aka denouncing. It doesn't have to say the word "denounce" without implying it.

Again, not so. Some times it's a matter of discussing the merits of the philosophy or the interpretation of scripture. Sometimes, often times, it can be an embrace of the commonality and shared beliefs.

2. When someone asserts their belief or assumption as true without knowing if it is really true by experience, and then proceeds to claim that another person's religion is wrong or erroneous, they are being intolerant of another person's religion and belief system.

All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

I have no "tolerance" for a religion that thinks it's acceptable and ordained by a God to treat non-believers as slaves. Or one that engages in honor killings. It's not "tolerant" to accept those things, it's foolish and wrong.

Islam is difficult to discuss in this context because, frankly, it's more of a death cult than a religion. But if this were a Christian, a hindu, and a Jew, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

Agnostic literally means without knowing. Beliefs and knowledge are two separate spheres. It is not an egocentric standpoint in which you believe you are the all holy center of the universe.

Which is a belief system in itself, not necessarily better or worse, merely defined by the choices you make as an individual.

4. How can you attempt to use the same notion of religious equality that I intended against me? How can you say my standpoint, which is agnostic (or open minded), is hostile? Discussion about it is fine, heated debate is another thing.

You didn't say discussion was fine, you posted a single sentence stating very clearly that you thought all discussion of theology should be kept to oneself.

The intention of debate is to prove something wrong, in turn denouncing a religion. Religion should be a private institution, end of story. If you believe in a religion, you shouldn't have to convince other people, especially publicly on television.

If the purpose of a religious television show is to discuss religion, it's entirely appropriate to discuss it there. In fact, YOU should support that since you'll be easily able to avoid it.

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

 

[luxuryrules]

Perhaps you should keep your hostile atheism to yourself then.
Take the lead on this one.

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.

I've been over this.

Expressing or advancing a position of "no religion" is no more enlightened or distinguished than discussing a position "of religion."

In this case, if you don't want to enter the realm of theological discussion, don't say anything and leave the room.

Agnostics and atheists practice a double standard. Because they believe in nothing, or don't know what to believe in, that this is somehow a neutral position and more acceptable to discuss than a person who embraces faith. It's no different. Telling me you're an agnostic is no different than explaining to me why you think Christ is the savior.

If it's impolite or unacceptable to do one, so is the other.

I don't have a problem with either, so I don't mind if people discuss agnostics and atheists and religion all day.

 

[TheDude]

Saying "I'm Christian", "I'm Muslim", "I'm Buddhist", "I'm Atheist" etc., is far different than telling people the principles of your religion and why they're the one and only 'truth'.

I can understand KD00L's stance; I doubt he minds someone bringing up the fact that they're a Christian (or other) in a conversation, but he gets irked when said Christian (or other) goes on to tell him why their viewpoint (accepting Jesus as savior etc.) is the one and only way.

I don't have a problem with Mormon's or Jehovah Witnesses, I do mind when they come knocking on my door and pedaling their religious views though.

 

[KD00LS]

But about what?
1.Did he merely say Mohammed was a pedophile thug with an irrational fear of dogs? If so, I say bravo. Most most likely, if a disagreement was drawn, it would have been on a particularly issue, like treating women like cattle, or honor killings, or slavery.... But neither of us know, and so far, neither of us are really all that compelled to find out.

2.Again, not so. Some times it's a matter of discussing the merits of the philosophy or the interpretation of scripture. Sometimes, often times, it can be an embrace of the commonality and shared beliefs.

3.All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

3.I have no "tolerance" for a religion that thinks it's acceptable and ordained by a God to treat non-believers as slaves. Or one that engages in honor killings. It's not "tolerant" to accept those things, it's foolish and wrong.

3.Islam is difficult to discuss in this context because, frankly, it's more of a death cult than a religion. But if this were a Christian, a hindu, and a Jew, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

4.Which is a belief system in itself, not necessarily better or worse, merely defined by the choices you make as an individual.

5.You didn't say discussion was fine, you posted a single sentence stating very clearly that you thought all discussion of theology should be kept to oneself.


6.If the purpose of a religious television show is to discuss religion, it's entirely appropriate to discuss it there. In fact, YOU should support that since you'll be easily able to avoid it.

7.It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

1. If they are having heated religious debates, obviously it is being taken to a personal or at least an emotional level. It doesn't really matter what exactly was said, just enough to obviously offend someone and denounce something. If it turns out nothing it was the media that construed the situation, then the example gets thrown out the window. Religion still shouldn't be pressed upon people.

2. No. A discussion of different forms of philosophy takes on no biased standpoints. It is merely taking about the different properties of each, not if one is wrong or right. A debate is over right and wrong. Either way, this is not a discussion, it was clearly labeled a debate.

3. It really doesn't matter what your opinion is on a specific religion, it's about tolerance as a whole and privacy. Obviously not all belief systems are equal, but that doesn't matter either. If they were equal, they'd be the same religion.

4. Again, I never claimed I came from an enlightened place or that agnosticism was a higher form of intellect. It's about personal preference and your own logic.

5. There are also many things you didn't claim in your condensed sentence either. Many different things could have been derived from that. Such as...

"Another reason why we should be keeping our religions to ourselves."

1. Keep it personal, as in one person.
2. Keep it in the confines of your own religion's members.

6. If the purpose of the TV show is to discuss religion, why is he debating with Muslims which are not concerned with Christianity? As I've said, debate and discussion are completely different.

7. I agree but that doesn't open the door to religious intolerance and conflict.

 

[foxpaws]

All belief systems are not equal.
And without specifics, it's difficult to discuss this further.

It is possible to debate religion, because it's a tremendously complex issue. It's even better to discuss it. In fact, if not for the thoughtful discussions of religion and religious philosophy, you wouldn't be living in a country that offers such individual freedoms.

Discuss - really?
OK - let's have a stab at this...

So, discuss Cal, why you have stated that all belief systems are not equal. Could you define 'Equal' in this case?

 

[luxuryrules]

I've been over this.

Expressing or advancing a position of "no religion" is no more enlightened or distinguished than discussing a position "of religion."

The difference you're failing to see is that claiming people should keep religion to themselves is not advocating a position of no religion. There's a difference between saying "keep it to yourself" and "don't do it."

 

[fossten]

I'm interested in knowing how saying we should keep our religion to ourselves can be interpreted at "hostile atheism?" He's not telling people not to believe in their religions, just that they should be kept to themselves. He needn't even be atheist to make that statement - anybody of any religion could make that argument.

He's telling people to shut up.

That's chilling the 1st Amendment.

 

[fossten]

1. If they are having heated religious debates, obviously it is being taken to a personal or at least an emotional level. It doesn't really matter what exactly was said, just enough to obviously offend someone and denounce something. If it turns out nothing it was the media that construed the situation, then the example gets thrown out the window. Religion still shouldn't be pressed upon people.

If it was the minister's TV show, how was he pressing his religion on them?

 

[KD00LS]

If it was the minister's TV show, how was he pressing his religion on them?

Either he invited them on the show or he tried to convince them otherwise on the phone. Allowing a debate to happen on air, basically.

 

[KD00LS]

He's telling people to shut up.

That's chilling the 1st Amendment.

As well as threats, racism, etc.

 

[fossten]

Either he invited them on the show or he tried to convince them otherwise on the phone. Allowing a debate to happen on air, basically.

So they voluntarily accepted his invitation to debate on the air, with full opportunity to argue their side, and he's forcing his religion on them?

Please defend that position, I'm all ears.

 

[KD00LS]

So they voluntarily accepted his invitation to debate on the air, with full opportunity to argue their side, and he's forcing his religion on them?

Please defend that position, I'm all ears.

What other way could they have gotten on there and gotten into heated debates with him? Either way, you shouldn't be debating religion. I never said the Muslims were right, don't think that's my position.

 

[fossten]

What other way could they have gotten on there and gotten into heated debates with him? Either way, you shouldn't be debating religion. I never said the Muslims were right, don't think that's my position.

No, you claimed that the pastor FORCED his religious views on them.

That's absurd on its face.

 

[KD00LS]

No, you claimed that the pastor FORCED his religious views on them.

That's absurd on its face.

I said try to convince, not force. In debate you convince, not force.

 

[Calabrio]

So, discuss Cal, why you have stated that all belief systems are not equal. Could you define 'Equal' in this case?

How about this- Islam is a violent death cult started by a child molesting, violent, lunatic who was afraid of dogs.

Mutilating women, beating women, honor killings, and engaging in a religion that endorses places all "non-believers" into forced slavery is not at good as the other mainstream religions. The good displayed by some Muslims comes about because of some of the individuals who chose to practice it and make it their own, not the teachings.