A small minority who blaspheme a great religion...

Great Debates
41

Did I insult the Native Americans now? Jeez, I was not about to go into the entire history of Native American oppression. He asked a question, and I gave a cynical and bitterly ironic answer - probably the answer he was looking for but never thought I would give.

*True Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and one of its central tenets is to not kill innocents. *

It doesn’t define “innocents,” and that’s its problem. I’m getting sick of people saying this, as more violence is done every day in the name of allah than in the name of anything else. I’m just not going to be politically correct about this one. On another thread, someone pointed out that the line in the Koran after “he who kills an innocent person is guilty of killing all of humanity” (which sounds nice and peacefull assuming our definition of “innocent” is universal) says something to the extent of “cut off the hands and feet of the nonbelievers on opposing sides of their bodies.” But i’m sure that’s just “taken out of context” … bs.

You would do well to make the distinction between religion and psychopathic human behavior.

… i’ll refrain from saying the sarcastic comment that’s on the tip of my tongue.

42

OP is right! Regardless of the teaching of Koran, Islamic countries have shown very little civility. Not only to Americans, but to each other. All the people who espouse the greatness of Islam would never dare voice an opposing view in ANY Islamic country.

Of course the problem isn’t just limited to Islam. Jerry Falwell, for example, thought the tragedy of the Sept 11th was god punishing the US for its secular ways. Eerily similar to the beliefs of the leaders of the Islamic countries. There does seem to be something about religion that rots higher-level thinking and encourages barbaric behavior, no?

The three major religions, when you get down to it, all empower their parishioners to kill infidels/non-believers/ blasphemists, etc.

I must admit, however, the Muslims of today are elevating it to a new height. But, can it be logically argued that Christianity and Judaism are any better?

43

Slight correction regarding this poll can be found here
It states:

I can’t seem to find the article I read somewhere else which was discussing life in Peshawar. But it further helped to define why the sentiment of anti-US spreads so quickly. It described an area in Peshawar where the police don’t even dare to go into. The place is run by tribes which have very long lasting roots and are practically seperate from Pakistan in their rules.
So how well do you think they can tune into CNN in a place like that?
Not everyone sees the US through the eyes of an American, opus1.
The fact that the Middle East or Central Asia, which happens to be one of the poorest areas in the world (very much helps give rise to discontent and hopelessness), and has a religion that is common to many who live in that region, has no correlation to the madmen who share the same traits.
A lot of muslims hate the US? So what? A lot of westerners often display sentiment of “superiorness” to other nationalities. Again, so what? Not all Westerners are like that. Just because they share a trait means there’s a causal link? I’m not sure I agree with your logic (if any) there.

Because you don’t have to actually suggest and/or condone the brutality you might be fantasizing about as you typed that.
The fact that you would lump three completely unrelated traits together are a glorious testiment to the validity of Zenster’s suggestion that you should indeed get a freaking brain.

:eek: That’s the second time this month I have found myself actually agreeing with Zenster. Now I’m getting scared.

44

I don’t think Islam should get a free pass and I certainly don’t think that Muslim terrorists should get a free pass. I fully support the U.S. air strikes on Afghanistan even though I know that Afghani civilians will inevitably be killed in the process. I’m just pointing out that Islam isn’t the reason why some Muslim people behave in a violent and destructive way. This conflict is very political in nature.

My example of the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was not meant to be critical of that action. It was intended to show why many people around the world, not necessarily Muslim or Arab, view America as a particularly destructive and violent nation.

I’m shocked to find myself considered “politically correct” all of a sudden. I have nothing against politically incorrect jokes or comments. For example, I like the old racist jokes which are based on assumptions that everyone who falls into a certain category behaves in the most stereotypical way possible. But I think hate-filled rhetoric which is based on these same assumptions steps across the line from politically incorrect to racist. Remarks about African American gangsters might be funny, even coming from a white person. But if such remarks were made during the race riots in Cincinnati last April they would be extremely inappropriate.

There are elements in the Muslim world which are spouting the same kind of rhetoric against America. They claim that the overwhelming majority of Americans want to eradicate Islam, kill all Arabs, drive everyone of Middle Eastern origin out of their country. These claims are being made to incite people, to convince them that this is a war against Islam. You are helping their cause by trying to convince Americans of the same thing. A war between America and Islam could quite possibly lead to the Third World War. Oh, it seems alarmist now, doesn’t it? Let’s not focus on the present so much that we can’t learn from our mistakes in the past.

45

Speaking of ignorant…care to provide a cite for the assertion that the Federal Government does not have authority on the Reservations?

46

This may very well be a political conflict, but to the vast amount of poor and ill-informed peoples of much of the Muslim world, it is about religion. As long as the powers that be in the Arab and wider Muslim world continue to remain “anti-terrorist” but apologetic of types like Al-Queda and make statments about “American arrogance” being at the root of this conflict, then millions of Muslims will regard the US as the Great Satan. Many of the Muslim world is poor, doesn’t have the access to information that we do, and much of their plight is easily blamed on US cultural and political “hegemonism” by their ruling elite, rather than looking at the domestic causes.

The quicker we can catch Bin Laden and stop dropping bombs on the rubble that is Afghanistan, the better. Send in troops!

47

Monty, are you referring to this statement I made:

Many Native Americans have died living on reservations in this country–mind you some of these reservations are not even considered US soil and so do NOT fall under the protection of the US government. That means that most of those folks don’t have access to any of the social services that US citizens do.

Oh dear. Let’s see if I can make this clearer. Reservations are interesting territory, and it’s tricky to define what they are. The best way that I can think of them is as liminal space–not particularly US soil–because, although they are on US soil, and some parts are owned by non-Indians, reservations are considered to be under the sovereignty of the particular nation–Sioux, Cherokee, . . .–that lives there. So it’s not easy for the US government to just go in there and say that they must do X.

That is not to say that the US government does not interact with reservations. It does so through agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And there are other agencies affiliated with churches and other non-profits that aid Native Americans. According to The Indian Heritage of America (1968) by Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. (Note: There is a second edition of this work with updated information, but I’m citing from the 1968 edition because that’s what I could put my hands on at the moment.): “For a long time the Indians, regarded as wards of the [US] government, were confined to their reservations–sometimes behind barbed wire–and were often forbidden to leave them without a permit” (p. 349). Reservations were originally started to make Native Americans assimilate into white culture in the United States, and while some Native Americans have assimilated, many stay on the reservations because they distrust the US, who has a history of not honoring treaties made with them, don’t want to assimilate into white culture. There are other reasons too, but you get the picture.

In the 20th Century, that of course has changed due to more progressive movement to try to include Native Americans in the US. Native Americans who have the means–a car that can traverse the long distances separating them from non-reservation towns–can and do leave the reservation at will. Native Americans who live on reservations have DUAL citizenship, that of their tribe on the reservation and US citizenship.

For more information on reservations and on Native Americans consult the following:

http://www.airc.org/reservations/index.html
http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/aitoday.html
http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/crt/indian.htm

You can find the Josephy book at http://www.amazon.com

Sorry for the digression, but I hope that this is clearer.

Kalt, I think it’s funny that I wound up defending the religion of Islam, when I’m agnostic and fast becoming atheist, but I still maintain that it’s not the religion of Islam that is at fault. It’s human ignorance that is. I agree with pennylane when she says that this is NOT a war between religions. There’s just too much political stuff going on here that goes far beyond religion.

48

Not really, C. After all, today* Native Americans are considered to be United States citizens because of their birth on US soil (the Reservations you mentioned as not being US soil above). So, the US laws, to include the Constitution of course, apply there.

49

Drat, meant to only underline the word “today” in that posting.

50

Monty, I’m not sure I can make it any clearer without repeating what I’ve already said and referring you to the linked websites which can provide information and even more sources.

When I made the original post I was describing how several factors contributed to the demise of several American Indian nations. As I understand it–and I could be wrong because I’m certainly not an expert in Native American history–in the latter part of the 19th Century when Native Americans were first placed on reservations, they were not considered to be American citizens; they were the conquered enemy. The point of placing them on reservations–where they died of starvation and disease–was to get them to assimilate into American society–I imagine once they assimilated they would be considered American citizens, but even that is debatable in the 19th Century–by adopting white cultural ways, converting to Christianity, and learning English and not speaking their native tongues in the mission schools. Things changed in the early part of the 20th Century–particularly after WWI, which Native Americans also fought and died in–when Native Americans on reservations were not considered to be “wards of the US government,” but instead there was a move to grant them sovereignty–the right to establish their own tribal governments whose jurisdiction was over the reservation–over their own culture and reservation land as well as granting them US citizenship. So today they are considered to have DUAL citizenship, that of their tribe and US, but the reservation is a place where the tribal government has sovereignty. I’m not sure how much of a role the Constitution plays within the working of each nations’ tribal government. However, I will agree with you that Native Americans are subject to the US Constitution when they venture off of the reservation. Now if I’m wrong on this, somebody please educate me.

51

I found this at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/indian.html

quote:
“Federal law recognizes sovereign authority in Indian tribes to govern themselves; an authority greater in many respects than that of the states. Indian tribes are subordinate and dependent nations, protected by the doctrine of soverign immunity. There are numerous federal statutes dealing with Indian rights and governance, such as the Indian Reorganization Act, and the Indian Civil Rights Act (also known as the Indian Bill of Rights). 28 U.S.C. § 1360 deals with state civil jurisdiction in actions in which Indians are parties.”

AND

I found this at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1152.html

quote:
Sec. 1152. Laws governing
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.
This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively.”

Perhaps an analogy that will make what I’m talking about more clear is to consider reservations as embassy soil like when you go the US Embassy in Germany. Although it’s technically on German soil, when you step on the grounds of the US Embassy, you are subject to US laws. It’s the same concept with Native Americans, but a little trickier since they are dual citizens of their tribes and of the US. Native American reservations are liminal spaces. There probably are grey areas where US laws apply to reservations, but for the most part they have their own sovereignty.

Sorry for the digression folks, but if you’ve been reading it, I hope you’ve learned something, and it wasn’t a total waste of time.