[QUOTE=chowder]
Fiveyearlurker
With respect and believe me I don’t want to get into a slanging match about this.
The Crusades happened hundreds of years ago, what is being talked about in this thread is happening now
[/QUOTE]
Reread what I wrote. That was my point. Christianity had a bad run being a religion of violence and came back from it. Islam has a problem right now.
I have a feeling that most Muslims don’t openly rejoice when ‘members’ of Islam commit such acts, but we also don’t hear loud condemnation either. I think what they are feeling though is something like this;
Muslim - “I don’t agree with what (the terrorist) did, and I wouldn’t do it myself, but damn, they sure kicked those Christian’s asses the other day. I would like to see a world dominated by my religion and maybe this is a start in that direction, even though I’d prefer a less violent method. Although, maybe the method in less important than the cause, and since we’re the underdog in any war with the East I can possibly rationalise this type of (terrorist) activity.”
I could see how a Muslim could rationalise a line of thinking like that.
And I can see how it would be contagious.
It would be nice if all Muslims thought this way.
Or all people in general.
Read through that site and listen carefully to what she says Muslims are taught by their religious leaders.
Radical Islam is a problem.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Reread what I wrote. That was my point. Christianity had a bad run being a religion of violence and came back from it. Islam has a problem right now.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. And it looks like they have a bigger problem than Christianity had. Christianity survived its immaturity because its violent period required sustained manpower to be effective (swords and sticks). The majority view in the religion just got tired of donating lives to a stupid cause.
Today’s extremists (I hate to call them Muslim) have a host of mass destruction tools at their fingertips. They don’t need to get a large buy-in from their mainstream membership to get other religions to react.
I need to bail out of this discussion. It’s just depressing my whole day. Kicking Buckwit around was a bright spot but it looks like he’s been invited to go somewhere else.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
I agree with this to a point. Speaking as an outside observer, and non-Christian, I have no problem looking at Christianity and saying that it is, at it’s heart, a religion of peace. That’s not to say that the extremists like Falwell don’t give it a bad name. But there are a few violent followers, in an overall pretty good bunch.
However, during the crusades, there is no doubt that Christianity ceased being a religion of peace and became a religion of violence.
I don’t take the term “religion of peace” to mean that the religion was founded on such a platform, but to mean that it’s members are currently adhering to that platform. At some point, enough followers of a religion take it to a violent level that the religion ceases being a religion of peace for now. Waving away those “few” violent followers and saying that they are not really Muslims seems like a semantic argument rather than a useful one; they still think they are Muslim, and that what they are doing is for the betterment of their religion. Just like the Christians during the crusades.
Your opinion may vary, but Islam has hit a tipping point in my mind. Even if Islam is not founded on a basis of violence, if it is being used that way by enough people then it has ceased to be a religion of peace. Enough Muslims (in my opinion) are using their religion to justify violence that even if the Koran does not support their belief, Islam has become a religion of violence. Hopefully, like Christianity, it finds it’s way back.
[/QUOTE]
Hi, Fiveyearlurker.
(Please forgive me if you’ve answered any of my questions in response to another poster while I was composing this.)
If I’m understanding what you say correctly, then I agree with you, but only to a point. My question for you, though, is this: How, exactly, would you define “enough” for purposes of your equation? I mean, there are, according to numbers that I’ve been able to dig up, between 1.2 and 1.79 billion Muslims in the world, so what, for you, would qualify as “enough”? Also, what has occurred that you have now discerned that Isam has reached a tipping point?
I don’t ask because I want to cavil with you (and certainly not because I want to be thought an idiot), but because I’m really curious. In the dark nights of my soul, I struggle (like you do, if I’m reading you correctly) with separating extremists from ordinary, live-and-let-live (well, *almost * live-and-let-live, anyway) adherents to Islam–I do this, too, with regard to Christianity, especially in light of the vomit-inducing anti-gay zealots worldwide and, particularly, in the U.S., and also with my beloved Judaism, especially with regard to the conflict with the Palestinians, which makes me more or less equal opporunity here–so I think I kind of understand what you mean when you refer to a tipping point. Still, however, I’d rather hear what you think.
The really good news is that, like you, I’m not prepared to call for the destruction of any of the world’s religions (we’re too far into the game, I think, though I tend to believe that we’d have been better off without them). And, certainly, I’d *never * be prepared to support the extermination of any segment of the world’s population (though, Og help me, there are some who tempt…).
And, as kind of an aside, I’d have a hell of a time subscribing to the notion that Christianity* (or Judaism or Islam, for that matter) is *inherently * a religion of peace. I mean, honestly, if the only Judaism available to me were the *uninterpreted *, *pre-modern * Judaism of the Torah, I’d have to excommunicate myself with the quickness. Thank goodness, then, that people do evolve–eventually.
*And yes, I understand that there are certain nuances here. As there are with, well, many things.
Okay…everybody say it with me…
Some people are assholes.
Islam will come around to being a religion with mostly peaceful adherents someday, probably about the time that people start to kill, rape, and maim in the name of Christianity, some other major religion, or atheist political dogma again. I don`t expect it to stay that way, of course.
The ideas of radical Islam contribute heavily to this, but Mohammed didn`t cause it any more than Jesus caused the inquisition. Some of their followers are complete subhuman bastards, is all.
By the same token, we see people of all faiths and of none doing great and good works because their god or personal ideals tell them to. This happens every day, and tends to make the news less. I strongly believe that in a majority of cases, dogma tends to give people the strength to do more of whatever they felt like doing anyway.
[QUOTE=Li’l Pluck]
Hi, Fiveyearlurker.
(Please forgive me if you’ve answered any of my questions in response to another poster while I was composing this.)
If I’m understanding what you say correctly, then I agree with you, but only to a point. My question for you, though, is this: How, exactly, would you define “enough” for purposes of your equation?
[/QUOTE]
I really have no answer to that other than the the old refrain about pornography that I know it when I see it. It’s not a satisfying answer, and leaves a lot of grey area, but I think Islam left the grey area in the last ten years.
And to add to that, I don’t think that any religion (or any institution at all) can be inherently peaceful. If Buddhists 100 years hence are blowing up Kindergarten classes, then Buddhism stops being a religion of peace. Conversely, if the KKK evolves in 100 years into an organization that does nothing but help the homeless, they cease to be an orgaization of asses, and become a whole new thing.
How Islam was founded or what was going on hundreds of years ago is irrelevant. I will judge their peacefulness by what is done in the name of their religion NOW.
To call something a “religion of peace” because it was originally founded that way is silly.
[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Please don’t tell me you draw a very fine line between being hassled by annoying people, and getting your head chopped off by them.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I do think there’s a big damn distinction there. My actual point, however, was that membership in an organizational group (like a religion) does not predict behavior particularly well. I’ve no doubt there are decapitation-happy UUists out there, too, but it’s been my good fortune not to encounter them as of yet.
[QUOTE=BubbaDog]
A follower of Islam who targets and kills innocents is not a follower of Islam.
A follower of Christianity who targets and kills innocents is not a Christian.
[/QUOTE]
A Christian who kills innocents is at as much a Christian ( or more so ) as one who doesn’t; it’s not like the Bible doesn’t call for slaughtering people. The same goes for the Muslims; killing innocents doesn’t revoke their membership. Both are intolerant by nature, and intolerance naturally leads to violence.
[QUOTE=Coin]
The ideas of radical Islam contribute heavily to this, but Mohammed didn`t cause it any more than Jesus caused the inquisition.
[/quote]
They contributed by founding religions. Monotheistic religions, to make things worse; a religion that denies the validity of others, and threatens those who disagree with eternal torment is guaranteed to lead to violence and tyranny.
[QUOTE=Coin]
I strongly believe that in a majority of cases, dogma tends to give people the strength to do more of whatever they felt like doing anyway.
[/QUOTE]
And I believe that people run around commiting atrocities because their religion tells them to. I simply don’t buy this religious apologism, that lays all the blame on the followers and not on what they follow. This is simply an example of how it’s a major taboo in our society to blame a religion for anything.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
I really have no answer to that other than the the old refrain about pornography that I know it when I see it. It’s not a satisfying answer, and leaves a lot of grey area, but I think Islam left the grey area in the last ten years.
And to add to that, I don’t think that any religion (or any institution at all) can be inherently peaceful. If Buddhists 100 years hence are blowing up Kindergarten classes, then Buddhism stops being a religion of peace. Conversely, if the KKK evolves in 100 years into an organization that does nothing but help the homeless, they cease to be an orgaization of asses, and become a whole new thing.
How Islam was founded or what was going on hundreds of years ago is irrelevant. I will judge their peacefulness by what is done in the name of their religion NOW.
To call something a “religion of peace” because it was originally founded that way is silly.
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, it’s funny–after I composed my post, I thought of the definition of obscenity = I know it when I see it, so I wasn’t surprised that that’s what your response was. And I get what you’re saying in that regard, especially since you weren’t speaking in terms of necessarily empirical evidence, but in terms of your opinion.
I will say, though, that I’m not convinced that the *whole * of Islam (again, keeping your reply in mind) has left the grey area (though “X” number of its so-called adherents have, depending, of course, on what impression one gets from Islam, right?), and I’m not sure that I’ll ever be able to come to such a conclusion.
And I agree with you WRT how one defines the “peacefulness” of a particular religion/creed, so no argument there. And perhaps I’ll live for the day that the KKK does nothing but help the homeless. We should **all ** be so lucky! Hell, come to think of it, so, too, should the KKK. 
Thanks so much for responding to my query.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A Christian who kills innocents is at as much a Christian ( or more so ) as one who doesn’t; it’s not like the Bible doesn’t call for slaughtering people. The same goes for the Muslims; killing innocents doesn’t revoke their membership. Both are intolerant by nature, and intolerance naturally leads to violence.
They contributed by founding religions. Monotheistic religions, to make things worse; a religion that denies the validity of others, and threatens those who disagree with eternal torment is guaranteed to lead to violence and tyranny.
And I believe that people run around commiting atrocities because their religion tells them to. I simply don’t buy this religious apologism, that lays all the blame on the followers and not on what they follow. This is simply an example of how it’s a major taboo in our society to blame a religion for anything.
[/QUOTE]
Now, see, this is interesting, because, despite my previous post, I also find myself agreeing a great, great deal with what **Der Trihs ** has said here.
Hello, Grey Area. My name is Li’l Pluck. Nice to make your acquaintance. I have a feeling that we’re going to become very good friends.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A Christian who kills innocents is at as much a Christian ( or more so ) as one who doesn’t; it’s not like the Bible doesn’t call for slaughtering people. The same goes for the Muslims; killing innocents doesn’t revoke their membership. Both are intolerant by nature, and intolerance naturally leads to violence.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not the most devote of Christians. I’m trying to remember where in the New Testament Jesus instructs followers to kill other people. I know that there are Old Testament references but I can’t recall any New Testament passages.
Do you have a cite for this?
Hey, I’m not trying to envoke a Bible discussion or argument here. My personal understanding of the Bible is that the Old Testament is history and the New Testament is based on the religion designed by Jesus.
Better yet, just skip it. I see your point. There are interpretations of parts of the Bible that support violent action.
My belief is that of all of the “instructions” that can be taken from the Bible, violence on non believers isn’t one of the fundamentals.
I have no knowledge of the Koran, but I suspect its structure may be similar. I’ve met many Muslims and, with the exception of one hot-headed colleague, all were very peaceful, compassionate people. I assumed that their religions helped define them.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Please post me a link where Christian fundies are beheading Muslim Schoolgirls and declaring them Christmas trophies.
[/QUOTE]
Can’t manage that, but this might be sadly appropriate
[QUOTE=The Buck]
Thanks. I agree. Anyone elase that coversup or says that Islam is a realigion of peace is a fucking idiot. It’s a religion of pieces. They want to blow everyone up in pieces. Fuck’em all.
[/QUOTE]
Its too bad you’ve been Banned, but I I do hope you at least can lurk to read this. Because you’re a dickhead. Now, keep in mind, many of us are “dickheads” in the same way you’re being one. Bear with me.
I too, have felt a lot of anger towards islam, and I find it hard to take the idea “that its a religion of peace.” But you know what. christianity and probably every other religion has its less than stellar moments. (Even though he hasn’t kille anyone, Fred Phelps is doing anything to make me like christianity) Condemning a whole religion out of hand like you just did is…well, dickeaded. I think you know that and you only posted that crap hear hoping to fan a few flames or hopefully find a few dittohead…I mean dickheads.
I’m not going to say my persepctive is unique, but when I was a kid, way back in the 70’s it was pretty much drilled into me that white people were the devil. I was mistreated, beaten up and called the N-word on a frighteningly consistent basis. But you know what? When one white guy tried to be a friend to me in high school I took a chance…and I grew up enough to realize that you can’t blame any race, religion, or ethnic group for being assholes because of a minority group of 'em. I’m hoping you learned the same thing about black people if you ain’t black yourself.
That was a long winded way of me trying to tell you not to let the Dark Side consume you, man. Don’t give into your hate.
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Your opinion may vary, but Islam has hit a tipping point in my mind. Even if Islam is not founded on a basis of violence, if it is being used that way by enough people then it has ceased to be a religion of peace. Enough Muslims (in my opinion) are using their religion to justify violence that even if the Koran does not support their belief, Islam has become a religion of violence. Hopefully, like Christianity, it finds it’s way back.
[/QUOTE]
Sad, but too close to the truth to be glossed over. When I opened Irshad Manji’s book The Trouble With Islam Today and the first thing she said was, “Islam is on very thin ice with me,” it rang a chord in me too. Irshad Manji is a Canadian lesbian Muslim rebel who takes enough controversial positions to piss off just about everyone, which is why I have a crush on her.
I mainly agree with BubbaDog’s cogent analysis of the Trouble With Religions Today, on my good days anyway, but there are times when I get exasperated, when a big fucking line is crossed, and this is one of those times.
I’m a woman of faith deep down, whose life is essentially built upon spiritual values, and my basic position is to respect all religions, but I’m undergoing very severe struggles with the wrongs that religions have wreaked and are wreaking. Paradoxical as this sounds, many of the rational arguments by smart atheists I read in the SDMB make perfect sense to me and I feel their criticisms of the abuses of religion are mostly pretty well justified. Nevertheless, I feel my existence arises from a spiritual basis, so I stay in the interfaith milieu, stay engaged with religions somehow or other, mostly bitching at them these days. From within the religious sphere, as Ms. Manji has chosen stay in Islam to bitch at it from within.
Anyone remember Graham Nash’s lyrics back in the '70s–
Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here
Too many people have died in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call
So many people have lied in the name of Christ that I can’t believe it all
That song came out when I began my freshman year in college, simultaneously with my quitting the Catholic Church, so it was well-timed (the Church of England is the next closest thing to Catholic anyway). I often feel that way toward religions in general.
If I picked on Islam, it’s because I’ve been more engaged with it for so long, staying in contact with leaders of Islamic feminism, so often making excuses for Islam by dwelling on its positive aspects like its major contributions to world civilization a thousand years ago (and what have you done for me lately, Izzy baby?), and sometimes I just get fucking sick and tired of always being a good girl about it. Once I asked Dr. Amina Wadud, the rebel imam, about her struggles with Islamist fundies whose fatwas demand that she be silenced. She confided to me, “I just don’t give a shit any more.” I’m so there with her. I love when women fight back.
As a matter of fact, that was exactly the theme of the film Destiny directed by Youssef Chahine. It showed the 12th-century Spanish Arab philosopher Ibn Rushd (a.k.a. Averroës) offering a haven of intellectual freedom to Christian intellectuals fleeing persecution by the Church. The movie includes a militant Islamist fundamentalist sect as a rather pointed warning about the dangers that authoritarian religion poses toward rational thought and liberty. I highly recommend it.
[QUOTE=shizaru]
I grew up enough to realize that you can’t blame any race, religion, or ethnic group for being assholes because of a minority group of 'em. I’m hoping you learned the same thing about black people if you ain’t black yourself.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a difference here thoough. If I get mugged by a black guy, it would be wrong of me to say, “Well, I hate black people because they’re violent.” Because I’m simply taking the issue of that one guy’s race, and applying it to everyone else of the same color.
But, what if I’m beheaded by a Muslim and that Muslim is clear that he is killing me because I’m not Muslim and it is his duty to do so? Furthermore, his Muslim Imam agrees with him and urges others to follow his lead. When the violence is because of that person’s religion, and becomes widespread enough (and I believe it has), then the analogy to the mugging becomes a false one.
It would be more akin to if during the million man march, the leaders had urged everyone to beat up one white person and people actually did. Then I think it’s fair to wonder if the group has a problem as a group.
I’m not sure that I’m making any sense. It makes more sense in my head!
[QUOTE=Johanna]
…a big fat two-fisted FUCK YOU. :mad:
[/QUOTE]
[Strong Bad] The Double Deuce! [/Strong Bad]
I read the title of the thread as, “Redheaded girls ‘Ramadan trophies,’” and I was thinking, yeah buddy, redheaded girls are hot.
[QUOTE=Fish]
redheaded girls are hot.
[/QUOTE]
I agree but the rest of them has to be attached.
Well, most of the rest of them.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
True, but at present the perception is that Islam has a much higher percentage of violent fundamentalist idiots than other big religions.
[/QUOTE]
That is definitely my perception, and I think there’s some validity to it.
Admittedly, if you wanted to describe the whole Iraq war as an attack instigated by Christian fundamentalists–Bush and his cronies primarily, plus their congressional allies–you could definitely tot up some impressive numbers on the other side. But for the most part, our American Christian fundies just embarrass us on the world stage. They don’t go around severing the heads of mainstream Protestants and Catholics.
I am constantly amazed by the number of people who think that, for example, approving of suicide bombing is a fringe belief, one held by only a small part of the Muslim world. We’re left with the idea that only a few thousand Muslim fanatics support these actions.
The Pew Charitable Trust, a well-respected international polling organization, has asked this question world-wide several times — is suicide bombing of civilians justified? The answers, of course, differed by country, from 70% in Middle East countries to 15% in Indonesia.
The population of the countries in the polls (Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco, Palestine, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Senegal, Mali, Tanzania, Uzbekistan) is about 850 million, perhaps three quarters of the Muslim world.
Multiplying their populations by the numbers approving of suicide bombing gives us over half a billion people in those countries alone that support suicide bombing.
Even more amazing, the belief was held by nearly as many women as men (57% men, 43% women).
I find it astonishing that a belief that is held by half a billion people is somehow excused as being “a few fanatics”. Make no mistake, folks — Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war and bloodshed, founded by a man who personally led raids to kill his neighbors and enslave their women and children, and we ignore that fact at our peril.
w.
PS - The polls involved, and other interesting world-wide opinion surveys, can be found here.
PPS - In the interest of full disclosure, I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim.
[QUOTE=intention]
I find it astonishing that a belief that is held by half a billion people is somehow excused as being “a few fanatics”. Make no mistake, folks — Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war and bloodshed, founded by a man who personally led raids to kill his neighbors and enslave their women and children, and we ignore that fact at our peril.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I think this obfuscates the issue. Islam is not CURRENTLY a religion of peace. It has been usurped by a significant number of its leaders that want to see it used for self-serving violence. It also, in its past, like many religions has had periods of being a force for violence.
But, to condemn Islam as a whole for being an inherent force for violence is to say that the only purpose for the relgion is a violent purpose. You can go into the Koran and find violent passages. You can talk about how violent Mohammed was. None of that matters a thousand years later. Like I said, if the KKK 100 years from now becomes a force for good, their violent past should be nothing more than a history lesson and they should be condoned (not that I expect this). I don’t believe that there is something about Islam that makes it distinctly and irrevocably violent. I think Islam can be redeemed and reestablished in much the way Christianity was redeemed after the violence of the crusades.
But, that’s only a belief. I’m open to the possibility that it will hit a tipping point and become unredeemable. I don’t think we’re there yet.