Convert or die?

[VonDerBerg]

Hey everyone,

I posted something not long ago in relation to this post in which I asked something about how to convert my dad of foreign policy. I've been working on it and presented the topic of blowback to him, which I believe in, but he countered with the claim that Muslims, for centuries, have lived by the idea that non-Muslims must convert or die. In this sense, he states that despite our intervention, Muslims would still want to kill us all simply because it's part of their religion.

I did some research and found this (here's the link to the original page):

"The Quran teaches that people should not be converted by force: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a).

Nonetheless, the doctrine of jihad has led many to allege that Islam was spread by the sword. This is a fair charge, but it needs to be qualified.

Muslims follow not only the Quran, which they believe is a literal transcript of God’s words, but also the Hadith, accounts of Muhammad’s words and deeds. These words and deeds are considered inspired by God and an example for Muslims to follow. According to one widely accepted hadith, whenever Muhammad would send an out expedition, he would admonish his appointed commander:

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.[12]

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.[13]

According to some Muslim jurists, the jizya had to be paid by each person at a humiliating public ceremony, in which the person was struck on the head or the nape of the neck. According to historian Bat Ye’or, this ceremony “survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century.”[14]

Both the jizya and the land tax were often extorted through torture, and were frequently so exorbitant that whole villages would flee or go into hiding.

Technically, then, Christians and Jews were not forced to accept Islam at the point of a sword. But their treatment nonetheless placed them under severe pressure to convert.

And many idolaters were not even allowed to pay the jizya. They were forced to either convert or die."

I know some of this is true and it wouldn't surprise me if it is all true. This doesn't exactly bode well for the "blowback is the only cause" argument but I also note that despite this information, the US wasn't under threat of Islamic attacks from 1776 onward (except Barbary pirates, correct?) for many years even though we were a much more Christian nation in those times as compared to today. If any of this is wrong, please correct me - I'm still trying to learn the truth about our history since my schools were never interested in such non-sense.

Any thoughts?

 

[PierzStyx]

The information, from what I can remember from history studies, is correct. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jizyah This link shows that there is still some form of this tax in various Islamic nations today. Look under "Jizyah In The modern World" for that information.

 

[phill4paul]

I have known many Muslims from many nations and none of them have ever mentioned this. So though it may be in their holy book it is obviously not something that is practised on a large scale.
I am sure there are some strictures in the Bible that many Christians do not adhere to.

 

[ronpaulyourmom]

The most basic point I would make is this.

How many Christians adhere strictly to the teachings in the Bible? How many Christians put each other to death for working on the Sabbath? How many agree with stoning to death homosexuals and would throw the first stone much less appluad one who does? Old books are filled with lots of lots of horrible things, and most of it is written off by the people in today's world.

Generally speaking people just want to live their lives. People want to have families, raise kids, accomplish goals. When you don't take away the ability for people to do those things, they stay non-violent. When you induce sanctions, tilt the odds against them (here in the US the best example is crony capitalism and dollar devaluation, racism), engage in war, etc... you drive people into non-normal violent behavior because the goals they had no longer seem attainable, or something has happened in their life that has left them so disgusted that they cannot envision themselves living a normal life anymore. If people do turn violent, it's generally a good idea not to become the target of their violence.

Peace and prosperity is the greatest pacifier. War is costly for all sides, and is counterproductive. Send your dad these four links:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../ron-paul-says-terror-attacks-have-increased/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/11/14/return-of-the-war-party-2/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/foreign-policy-dossier-ron-paul-20111112
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkKpW2dg4Y

 

[PierzStyx]

Christians? Not really. The NT is fairly light on ritual other than the Last Supper/Communion/Sacrament. Judaism is more comparable in that the full range of sacrifices demanded by God are no longer practiced by any Jewish sect that I know of, not even the ultra-orthodox.

 

[PierzStyx]

The most basic point I would make is this.

How many Christians adhere strictly to the teachings in the Bible? How many Christians put each other to death for working on the Sabbath? How many agree with stoning to death homosexuals and would throw the first stone much less appluad one who does? Old books are filled with lots of lots of horrible things, and most of it is written off by the people in today's world.]

I believe you have made an error in your theology there. Those punishments are Law of Moses punishments that were fulfilled (and ended) by Christ in His sacrifice. While still sins, the Law that demanded such punishments Christians believe no longer is applicable since Christ opened the better way. That is why Christians don't stone sinners. Your comments would be better applied to Jews who have no such theological beliefs about the Law of Moses ending and are still bound to up keep it in theory.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Christian churches have been vanishing recently in the middle east, not because of jihad, but because of our interventionism. In fact, when I tell mainstream Christians that their missionary efforts have been catastrophically affected by our intervention, they really start re-thinking things I think.


There certainly is the element of theology, but because of my Reformed faith, I would have a different take on it than most people. Islam is much like Roman Catholicism in that they are church/state political kingdom philosophies. The implementation of force is common in all religions that have a theology which denies the power of God by asserting that men get to heaven by meriting favor with God by their own works.

When you deny the power of God in salvation...when you deny that salvation is totally an act of God that men cannot attain through their works, then you bring the element of force into the entire equation of society. This is why Martin Luther, the reformer, said:

"It is with the Word that we must fight, by the Word we must overthrow and destroy what has been set up by violence. I will not make use of force against the superstitious and unbelieving...No one must be constrained. Liberty is the very essence of faith...I will preach, discuss, and write; but I will constrain none, for faith is a voluntary act...I have stood up against the pope, indulgences, and papists, but without violence or tumult I put forward God's Word; I preached and wrote--this was all I did. The Word alone did all. If I had wished to appeal to force, the whole of Germany would perhaps have been deluged with blood."

John Robbins writes about this:

Religious liberty, freedom of conscience, is an idea that Luther derived from the Bible's teaching about faith: Belief is a gift of God; it is not a work of man's free will. Men cannot believe the Gospel unless God causes them to. Luther wrote: "God's Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference. Why? Because it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay...I can get no further than their ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart...We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure. By articulating the Biblical doctrine of faith as wholly a gift of God, Luther undermined the Catholic inquisition and formulated the theological rationale for religious liberty.

You see, the implementation of force in the Roman Catholic, Islamic, (and atheistic systems by the way) comes from the denial that salvation is totally an act of God. You will have the implementation of force in any system that says human merit contributes to salvation.

It is precisely BECAUSE of the Biblical truth that salvation is wholly a gift of God that force should never be used in society.

 

[seapilot]

Its about occupation not religion.

 

[VonDerBerg]

seapilot,

I've seen Pape's videos and acknowledge that they are true. However, this doesn't make the "convert or die" ideology that some Muslims have go away. I guess there has to be some kind of balance. We know that suicide attacks and US hatred is definitely caused by our government occupying their land. We also know (apparently?) that there is evidence that Islam, in history, championed "convert or die." It's not out of the question to say that some Muslims today still believe that, which would put a religious aspect to the whole situation.

Perhaps some Muslims would always hold these beliefs but, as with other religions, not really live how they're supposed to live according to Islam. US intervention, however, may spur these beliefs back to life or prompt Muslims to act in accordance to how they're supposed to since they see our occupation in their land as Christianity against Islam.

 

[seapilot]

Perhaps some Muslims would always hold these beliefs but, as with other religions, not really live how they're supposed to live according to Islam. US intervention, however, may spur these beliefs back to life or prompt Muslims to act in accordance to how they're supposed to since they see our occupation in their land as Christianity against Islam.

That is a good argument for the US to not intervene. The more the US intervenes the more the radical side of Islam gets power. With out that they would not have as much incentive or sway.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have known many Muslims from many nations and none of them have ever mentioned this.

As have I. The first couple of Muslims that I met were from the Middle East (Lebanon maybe?), and they did tell me that they believed I must convert to Islam or die, after they asked me to convert three times. They never tried to kill me though. I have met more Muslims from the East (Malaysia, Kashmir, etc), and none of them have ever mentioned it.

It occurred to me when I met the first ones (the "kill you" ones) that US immigration policy is terribly flawed to allow people like that to immigrate here. May have been the first time that I questioned "open border" immigration policy.

 

[VonDerBerg]

That is a good argument for the US to not intervene. The more the US intervenes the more the radical side of Islam gets power. With out that they would not have as much incentive or sway.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. Back to my OP, many of us like to use the argument that it is only our occupation in their land that causes their hate for us and has nothing to do with religion. But it could be a combination. Basically, the argument still holds, it's just that religion can be a factor. I think Michael Scheuer argues this as well with Islamic holy lands right?

 

[coastie]

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. Back to my OP, many of us like to use the argument that it is only our occupation in their land that causes their hate for us and has nothing to do with religion. But it could be a combination. Basically, the argument still holds, it's just that religion can be a factor. I think Michael Scheuer argues this as well with Islamic holy lands right?

Correct-the actions of our government are easily used as a recruiting tool for extremism, and the not so extreme. It is not a stretch that some Muslims(in lands we occupy) see our presence as a war against Islam, as Sheuer points out in all of his books. The danger is in if they all see it as a war against Islam....


ETA: The only "Muslims" I have personal experience with (asides from my children's pediatrician), were not like that at all, and in fact-partied harder than the rest of my neighbors and I.

Dude had a beautiful 6 ft glass bong, too. Also had a really nice glass table..............not gonna touch that, your imaginations will suffice. Good thing we never had far to walk home.

 

[Marky]

I’m a Muslim, and would love to chime in here.

Some questions I would ask your father are:


Where were these mythical “Muslim hordes” spreading “jihad” across the world before the Cold War ended? Could it be there was a need for a new (yet old) bogeyman after the Soviet Empire fell? Why wasn’t Reagan or anyone else scaremongering and freaking out about the “Islamic threat” during the Cold War? Islam’s been around for quite some time (1400+ years), yet it’s only now that we have all of these self-appointed “scholars” and “experts” telling us how the Muslims are coming to kill us all? What took so long?


There is more ignorance amongst Americans about Islam now than before 911. Before 911, very few gave Islam or Muslims very much thought. Now the Islamophobia industry fuels people’s fears and makes them believe they are actually being educated. This small circle of hardcore neocon warmongers, present a distorted view of Islam to the ignorant and scared masses. They take Qur’an and Sunnah out of context and ignore traditional Orthodox interpretations. They avoid telling the truth of how Islam is actually taught and practiced amongst the Muslims themselves.

And their research methodology is simple: Any evil act committed by a Muslim is due to their religion. It doesn’t matter if said Muslim is ignorant of their own religion or barely religious at all..Islam still is to blame. Here is a report released a few months back showing who really funds the Islamophobia industry: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf

If you want to get a glimpse of what the major Orthodox Sunni scholars have to say about terrorism/extremism, I’d recommend these sites for starters:
http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/
http://www.answering-extremism.com/ae/default.aspx

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Muslims understand that killing women and children is forbidden even during times of war. This is from the strict code of conduct laid out by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The other fact is that only an extreme minority of Muslims consider themselves at war with the US. The traditional understanding is that there can be no jihad without an amir (leader), just cause, and clear benefit. Fighting is a last resort as it was during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The amir is the head of state of any given Muslim country, and not one out of all the Muslim countries has declared war on the US or any other non-Muslim country. Even when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they kept to themselves and were not interested in attacking any Western nations. They were even willing to put Bin Laden up for trial for the embassy bombings before 911, as this article explains: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

The small group of extremists blowing themselves up and wreaking havoc (mainly murdering fellow Muslims) are part of the sect the Prophet (pbuh) called The Khaawarij (Renegade Revolters). He referred to them as the "dogs of the hellfire”. In modern times, since the fall of European colonialism, and during the independence movement in Egypt, the ideas of Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood melded Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary rhetoric and Islam. This deviant ideology grew out of the colonial and post-colonial experience (blowback?) and greatly influenced people like Bin Laden who took it to new violent extremes.

The focus of Qutb (and of the more extreme Bin Laden) was the overthrow all the Muslim rulers. That, they believed, would usher in a new golden age of Islamic civilization. Qutb was largely silent about the Western powers. It was Bin Laden that became critical of the US role in propping up these regimes. The whole jihadist ideology has been more influenced by Leninism then by Islam itself (in which the Prophet (pbuh) himself forbade violent revolutions).

I’m rambling, but if you want to know more about Qutb and how he twisted traditional understandings of Islam, I’d suggest this article for starters:
http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/arti...marx-and-frederick-engels-and-sayyid-qutb.cfm

May Allah guide you…
Salaam.

 

[klamath]

If you try and convince people that NO muslim would ever hate us if we weren't on their land you will never convince anybody. Some do and will hate us but a majority don't and wouldn't. Just like some christians in this country will alway hate muslims. A little eye opener on these forums was to hear a muslim adamently defend and SUPPORT the execution of a christian preacher for talking to muslim young people. He also adamently defended the jailing of a young christian and muslim couple that were dating. He also adamently defended the muslim countries jumping into the affairs of their neighboring countries because that was in their area of influence.

 

[SL89]

Yeah, the fundamentalists hold the conversion or death or payoff philosophy. That doesn't make them a threat. They are stuck in the 6th century and the only threat they could pose is that of attacking foreigners on their own soil. Us being there makes us targets. I suppose there is a small element (cell) in the US that would like to do serious harm but, all in all, I see nothing. Bringing the troops home defuses much of their mentality. And a strong DEFENSE that RP proposes, ensures our safety on the federal level. The rest is up to the individual and their respective state.

 

[VonDerBerg]

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Today I've confirmed that my dad just doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his view. I can't present reason and logic to someone who who has no interest in reason or logic when it comes to war. I tell him that Fox News is a neocon puppet and he doesn't reject that claim. Before I told him about Fox, I told him about neocons, Leon Strauss and Leo Trotsky, and he doesn't reject that information. I ask him where he gets all of the information he's heard and he says from Fox News on TV and the radio. I ask him if he believes everything that Fox says and he says no. I ask him if he trusts the government and he says no. I ask him if the expansion of government is bad and he says yes. I ask him if he believes Iran is a legitimate threat to the US and he says yes. I ask why and he says it's proven that they're extremely close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. He provides no evidence other than, "I hear these things and I've been around a long time and seen things and I know that they almost have one, and when they do they're going to use it." According to him, his only source of information is Fox, which he says he is skeptical of.

It is a hopeless cause. If he is ever to break free of neocon brainwashing, it will have to be done on his own accord.

I talked to him for hours and we just went in circles. We'd be talking about one thing, then he'd suddenly bring up some other aspect irrelevant to the original conversation. He's skeptical that the Patriot Act takes away our liberties. "It's only used on foreign calls not on our citizens..." He says that Bush and company really did believe that WMD's were in Iraq (as if he knows their thoughts), along with many other nations, thus it was justified. He can't fathom the idea that Osama purposely drew our forces into their territory so that they could attack us. "They think we're pussies, just like everyone else, and didn't expect us to go in after them." He says that our military as it stands is far too weak and small, that we need more troops and ships and planes, even if we did bring our troops home to defend our borders. He says that Obama's been decreasing our military (don't know if that's true but it doesn't seem like it). He says Obama's a Muslim as is evident by all the things he's heard, yet again. I guess friends blow each other up... He's confident that any GOP candidate would be better than Obama, which could be true, but the trend is that each consecutive president for the last however many years has expanded government, paving a way for the next president to expand it even more... plus government can't shrink too much in war time and the all the candidates are thirsty for blood (except RP of course).

This has been a frustrating day considering the above only scratches the surface of fallacies I had to attack (also, please tell me if I'm mistaken in any of these positions I'm presenting as being falsehoods).

 

[pointtech86]

Islam is like Communism to me. I don't like it and I believe it is a serious threat to our movement and all forms of individual liberty, just as 12th century Christianity was a threat to the entire world at that point in time. The problem though isn't with the leaders of Islam, it is within their own holy book. Islam unfortunately because of the very direct decrees written within the book itself cannot be considered reformable without compromising the entire religion and forcing the Quran to simply be discarded. Whereas the Torah and the Bible were written by multiple authors over long periods of time, the Quran was written within one lifetime by the same man. The passages within the Quran that are threatening to non-muslims were written later in Mohammed's life and therefore abrogated the peaceful passages he had written earlier in his youth. Muslims are also allowed to decieve non-muslims into believing that they are not like "radical" muslims by Taqiyya if they believe it will help Islam convert or control more people and countries.

This video explains all of it.



I'm not trying to incite flames, I'm merely trying to point out that Islam is not like other religions, and must be considered as large a threat as communism if not more so because of how many people who profess Muslim faith. Islam and Individualism are incompatible for they are the anti-thesis of one another; we would do well to recognize this.

Also, I am a Ron Paul supporter and 100% support withdrawing our troops from all our bases stationed out of the the United States. I was never a neo-con and do not support pre-emptive war.

 

[Muwahid]

Hello,

I think it's time I officially introduce myself here. I am an American-Muslim, and a fundamental one at that - funny me being here, isn't it? I believe in following the Qur'an strictly and hadith strictly and not in a philosophical sense either. However, my belief in Islam, strongly contradicts the talking heads over @ Fox News and others, I also don't spout the talking points of American Islamic organizations, because I disagree with most they say. Some of my views and even my looks (TSA be damned!) have gotten me into hot water, but whenever they're explained people understand it, Islam is not something scary coming to your front door, not at all.

Yeah, the fundamentalists hold the conversion or death or payoff philosophy. That doesn't make them a threat. They are stuck in the 6th century and the only threat they could pose is that of attacking foreigners on their own soil.

This is the type of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Fundamentalism is what? You guys want to follow the Constitution fundamentally, right? Because any deviation from it, is deviation from your principals right? The same with Muslims, we have our Holy Book which dates back to the 7th Century, unchanged since, and various books of Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet (s)) - we too believe deviations from these, cause us to lose our faith and principals, and in turn choose to be fundamental.

I'd like to address all the points made, but do note that the reference you linked to is a complete Anti-Islamic website, their goal is to defame Islam, no credible information should really be taken from such sites. But to address the sayings of the Prophet, and Jizyah, and other things, the answer is very simple and succinct, one must only look at the history of Islam.

Islam started in Mecca, the Quraysh tribe were idolaters so when this message of monotheism came they rejected it, they didn't take it seriously at first, then it grew amongst the oppressed, the poor, etc, it became a problem, so they began torturing and abusing the early Muslims. They were banished from Mecca after Muhammads (s) connections in the Quraysh tribe died off. They went to Yethrib, modern day Medina, they were persued, with the intention of being annihilation - the Muslims however beat back the Quraysh, in what is known as the Battle of Badr. Long story short, the Quraysh tribe continued to wage war against the Muslims, this is why you find in the Qur'an verses such as "Kill them where you find them", they refer to battles taking place, in which they were attacked first! The Muslims eventually made a treaty with the Quraysh, called the treaty of Hudaybiyah - the Quraysh violated it, and killed more Muslims. The treaty was nulled, so the Muslims peacefully without a drop of blood conquered Mecca, the Quraysh fled, soon after the prophet died.

Do note this, the Muslims co-existed with the Jews and Christians of Yethrib, infact they were the ones who convinced him after revelations he was a prophet. But then the conquest of the whole Middle East came soon after his death, the first target were the Byzantine empire, you know something funny? When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they actually allowed back in the Jews who were banished previously! And as a promise, the companion of Muhammad (s) Umar bin al Khattab, said to them and the Christians, your holy sites will be safe guarded, and no Muslim was ever allowed to infringe on their rights. He even refused to pray in their Church, not because he was discriminating against them but because he was afraid future Muslims would see that he did this, and try to claim their church for Islam, and make it a Mosque. That's respect.

Did they have to pay Jizyah? Yes. It's a tax, but Muslims also pay the tax of Zakat which these non-Muslims do not have to pay, the Jizyah goes to the state, while Zakat is used for charities - people coin this as "protection money"; this is absurd, because Muslims have the religious obligation to give charity, they are exempt from it - and Muslims do have to give Zakat, it's not a choice, so are Muslims oppressing themselves too?

Look at other countries like Indonesia, no Muslim army conquered it, sometimes Muslim armies did conquer lands, but this is the case with nearly ever nation on earth, they were conquered through disputes, but Muslims are simply not allowed to war without reason and conflict like anyone else, and violating ANY PEACE AGREEMENT is a abhorrent sin. Any talk of torture and abuse in that article, is simply false, there is NO abuse or torture allowed in Islam whatsoever, it's a huge sin, and something Muslims were subjected to not the other way around, these are scare tactics.

What about that scary Shar'iah Law we hear about (Pronounced Shuh-Rye-Uh by the pundits); they insinuate Muslims want it here, this isn't true. Some Muslims may, I can't speak for all but it's not a tenet of Islam I mean. Some may want it here for certain valid reasons, not to say YOU a non-Muslim should be tried in Shar'iah courts, but rather for say, marriage. This is even Dr. Paul's position that marriage and the government shouldn't be involved, they got involved for health concerns. The Church use to take care of marriage, and marriage use to be a religious ceremony. Islamic marriages have their own set rules, and Islamic divorces do too, so when you hear "Shar'iah law is coming here!" (1) No it's not (2) If Muslims talk about it, it's usually for their personal issues. Agree or disagree with that, it's your choice, but no it's not the intent of even the most fundamental of Muslims.

Finally, I want to address, why Muslims are such a big topic these days. We constitute 1.6 billion people in the world, and we've been marginalized, and trust me no I don't mean in America, if I have a long religious beard going on and I'm in the middle east I could be arrested for that! - These are the regimes put in place and propped up by the west, that's not a point my finger at other people problem, that's history, the British incited the Arab revolt promising independence from the Turks, but then took the Middle East with the help of the Leauge of Nations, with France, then put in Monarchs to suppress the people and take the resources. Revolutions did happen from a lot of these rulers - but in place were more vicious dictators like Ghaddafi and others - and who propped them up?

The violence in the middle east is systemic from oppression, not religion per se. Fundamentalists in the middle east in no way want to come here, I've lived in the middle east (although I am an American born citizen) that's not their goal, they aren't archaic set in the past people looking to force your women to wear a burka, these are once again fox news talking points. They want to implement their laws and rules in their lands just as Americans have the right to do in their lands. It's funny how any movement against Egypt use to be called terrorism until it became overwhelming, and then it was a revolution.

This is why I support Dr. Paul. Because I envision a future where Muslims and Christians and Jews and everyone else in the world, can have respect for eachother even when they disagree with each others views, and that they don't infringe on each others rights and think just because I don't agree with this persons ideology I can blow them up. That's why his foreign policy is one of peace and prosperity not only for America but for everyone.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

For those who don't have time to read this whole thread, here's the quote that matters.

This is why I support Dr. Paul. Because I envision a future where Muslims and Christians and Jews and everyone else in the world, can have respect for eachother even when they disagree with each others views, and that they don't infringe on each others rights and think just because I don't agree with this persons ideology I can blow them up. That's why his foreign policy is one of peace and prosperity not only for America but for everyone.

But, in general, this sort of educational material and religious discussion should probably go in the Religion sub-section.
Since this thread is composed of a surprising amount of new members, here's the link:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?213-Religion