Maybe it reads better in French.
In your post #275 that I was referring to, where you claimed:
You were complaining about people defending Islam per se, and you attempted to reinforce your complaint by quoting a Muslim warning against defending Salafi/radical Islam or “Islamism” in particular.
Evidently, you cannot tell the difference between Islam as a whole and its extremist repressive variants. Or else you just sloppily don’t bother to distinguish between them in your accusatory rhetoric, and then try to disguise the fact when you get caught.
It may surprise you to learn that there’s probably nobody here who substantially disagrees with this statement (depending on what kind of quantitative figure you mean by “a lot”). If you could just manage to be more scrupulous in distinguishing between this kind of violent extremist-theocratic fundamentalist Islam in particular and the religion of Islam in its entirety, we would probably find ourselves on the same side for most aspects of this issue.
Sorry about that Tom, I was thinking in terms of the technical definition of “religious bigot” as one who steadfastly maintains a derogatory opinion of an alien faith, rather than a personal insult. However, if the term is Mod-deprecated for whatever reason, of course I withdraw it and apologize to both magellan01 and Valteron for using it.
Emphasis added. Do you have any reliable evidence whatsoever to back up your absurd claim that the subset of the world’s Muslims who have “no intention” of “fitting in” with the modern world and peacefully accepting the existence of non-Muslims vastly outnumbers the subset who feel otherwise?
No, you don’t. But apparently that doesn’t stop you from making the claim. Like many other people ill-informed about Islam in general, you form your opinions of it based on the media’s stories of violence and aggression committed by followers of particular radical-Islamist extremist sects. The majority of the world’s Muslims who aren’t pushing radical-Islamist jihad don’t make the news because they’re not doing anything that sells newspapers. As a result, you and many like you have got the false impression that they’re just a tiny, non-representative minority.
No fear. We are also sick and tired of you repeating the same unthinking mantra that you consistently fail to support with pertinent facts and logic. (But it would never occur to me to think you were “running away.”)
I hope you do get a chance to do some research on the topic. (You might want to expand your sources beyond professional haters like Harris and Pipes, of course, although I fear you would be (as you have alreadyu demonstrated) unable to accept any contrary information.)
Have a good time on break.
Interesting. You refer to this quote I supplied, but must have missedits meaning:
Do you see it now? It means that apologists for the religion “per se” aid the extremist elements by attempting to stiffle any sentence that brings Islam into question. And that makes it harder for the reformers to rescue the religion from being totally hijacked for evil.
Hope that helps.
I’ve explained this EXPLICITLY in this thread and elsewhere, still you insist that my position is something other than what it is. Thanks for the help, but you know, I think I’ll go with my own interpretation of my own positions.
But wait, what’s this?..
So in the same thread you say I do not understand the difference between Islamic terrorism/barbarism and Islam in the larger sense, and then acknowledge that I do and agree with it. Whew! Tough to keep up.
But here, you see, you did actually read the words I wrote and accepted them as my opinion. Allah Akbar! See how nicely that works out? Now if you could just manage to continue to focus on what is written we’ll do a lot better.
Now that you seem to have a fuller understanding of what my position actually is, if you were to go back and read my posts in this thread I think you’ll see that they are consistent.
No, you’re still misunderstanding your own cite. The author is warning of the dangers of making “politically-correct excuses” not “for the religion ‘per se’”, but rather “for IslamISM” (emphasis added).
“Islamism” is NOT the same thing as Islam “per se”. Rather, it is a commonly-used shorthand term for the specific type of fundamentalist-theocratic Islam that we’ve been talking about here.
It appears to be your confusion between “Islam” and “Islamism” that’s at the root of the misunderstandings here, but I hope it’s clearer to you now.
To your first and second statements: that was more or less my point. In the USA, and most of Europe, all religions are (theoretically ) restricted from imposing their views by force on others. In Mexico the law, and the Constitution, say the same thing; the RCC doesn’t agree and, since the presently governing party (the PAN) is conservative Catholic in its roots and philosophy, the Cardinals can get away with a lot of unconstitutional behaviour. If you like I can give various examples.
Does the RCC send the attackers out? Depends on how you define the RCC; priests unquestionably preach intolerance for non-catholics, and the first Nuncio (the Pope’s official ambassador) after Carlos Salinas reopened relations with the Vatican, Girolamo Prigioni,was widely quoted in Mexican newspapers at his first press conference: questioned about the attacks on Protestants, he said “Sects are like flies. You don’t try to reason with flies.” (“Sects” is the Catholic word for anybody-but-Catholics)
I have a problem with cites. Mexican news isn’t archived the way American news is; I will have to go to the library and dig out old newspapers (the above quote is from 1989) and even then you’d have to take my word for what I’m quoting. Also a lot of my information comes from one-on-one discussions with my compadre, who was chief of the Oaxacan police for ten years.
Some time ago I made a couple of posts about the attack on the art gallery, with cites from the exact date of the newspaper reports, but apparently those posts were made before 2002 because I can’t find them when I search. What happened was that a famous Mexican artist and poet (whose name I forget right now) had an exhibition in an upscale Polanco gallery. Among his drawings was a picture of an Indian holding a cloak with a picture of Marilyn Monroe on it. To a Mexican the satire was obvious; it referred to the “miraculous” portrait of the Virgen de Guadelupe that was supposedly given to an apparently mythical Mexica (“Aztec”) named Juan Diego. The message was: first the Spaniards arrived and looted us under their standard, now the yanquis are doing the same thing with their imagery.
Cardinal Rivera didn’t approve, said so loudly, and on the first night of the exhibition a pair of thugs, and I use the term deliberately, broke in to the gallery, tore the picture up, and videotaped themselves grinning as they trampled the fragments. They were arrested, and the Cardinal called a press conference before the news was broadcast saying that these fine young Catholics were defending the honor of the Church, that he would personally pay any fines, and that the Church would not permit them to be imprisoned.(!) He also called the artist a terrorist, and went on to say that the action was meant as a warning to anyone who dared to insult the RCC that they would face the same reaction. I probably will be able to come up with a cite from La Jornada, the Mexico City newspaper, and I’ve been trying all afternoon to get into their website archives but I keep getting a “too busy right now” reply. (It’s Semana Santa, and pretty much everyone in Mexico is on vacation.) When I find the cite I’ll post it, in Spanish with my translation. In the meantime you can either accept my word or call me a liar; it’s up to you.
For a cite on the ethnic cleansing, so to speak, of Protestants by Catholics, go here: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51646.htm
In my last post above, please substitute answer for ask. :smack:
I like.
Interesting? And is the official line of the Roman Catholic Church to go out and kill non-Catholics? I would be very surprised to see some non-fraudulent evidence that it is.
Sounds like FOAF to me, friend.
So a couple of guys took it upon themselves to vandalize and you blame the Cardinal for telling them to do that when he didn’t tell them to do that?
Sounds like rhetoric from him. What was the response of the government to his remarks? Did the government say, “Well, of course we’re going to take orders from the Roman Catholic Church on how to govern Mexico”?
I’m certainly not Roman Catholic and I think it’s obvious that the vandals’ actions were meant as a warning to others. That doesn’t mean the Church’s official stance is to go around doing it. I’d dearly like to see the Pope’s reaction to the Cardinal’s comment, by the way.
Why not go with the third option: let’s wait to see what citations you provide. After all, one may be mistaken in his appraisal of the facts.
Oh, and Monty, if you want an answer to yoour question about inciting an illegal act, try here:http://www.mdep.org/sect19.html
Your citation shows that the roots are “ethnic differences, land disputes, and struggles over local political and economic power frequently were the underlying causes.” Looks to me like it’s not the Roman Catholic Church’s stance, but rather the stance of a couple of local jerks abusing both the religion and the law for their own aggrandizement.
So clearly the problem is Islam and the silly laws that protect their silly religious beliefs and prevent us from forcing them to adapt to OUR way of doing things.
Obviously the only solution is to forbid Muslims from entering our hospitals at all. No other solution is remotely possible.
CMC fnord!
Found a few cites:http://www.cimac.org.mx/noticias/01mar/01031408.html
El pasado 23 de febrero 16 familias de aquella comunidad de la zona fronteriza fueron expulsados por conflictos internos atribuidos a su práctica religiosa.
Last February 23 16 families of that community on the (Guatemalan) border were expelled because of conflicts atributed to their religion.
Carlos Martínez García- Revista FTL- num 1- Protestantismo-derechos humanos y tolerancia
Este conglomerado que conforma la religión tradicional considera una amenaza a quienes se convierten a credos como los evangélicos, testigos de Jehová y, en menor medida, mormones.
This group that belongs to the traditiional religion [Catholics} consider that those who convert to beliefs such as the Evangelicals, the Jehova’s Witnesses, and on a lesser scale Mormons, to be a menace.
http://www.elredentor.com/noti7.htm
Se acusa a los indios evangélicos de romper la unidad de los pueblos. Este señalamiento proviene tanto de científicos sociales como de ciertas fuerzas políticas y sacerdotes católicos.
The Evangelical Indians are accused of breaking the unity of the the town. This accusatiion comes partly from social scientists as well as from certain political forces and Catholic priests.
Googling “evangelicos expulsados” gives 19.500 cites.
Tom, religion is a part of culture. They are not separate entities that exist in isolation from each other.
If someone uses religion as their excuse for certain actions you also have to admit that some of these people actually believe what they are saying and doing. Does a suicide bomber not believe he is going to paradise? I submit most do believe that they are. Are they misinterpreting their religion? Who are you to say they are? Their belief is just as valid as yours is. Their interpretation based upon the evidence is just as rational.
Not all people involved in the Crusades were doing it for a land grab. Many were just as likely doing it because they believed it was God’s will to do so. Were they wrong? They weren’t anymore wrong than the Hebrews claiming the holy land for their own and putting the sword to the existing inhabitants as indicated in the Old Testament. Just because you interpret your book differently doesn’t make you right. Your interpretation is based upon your culture as it applies to you specifically at this time in history.
Thanks for the cites. Now, can you show me where it’s the Church’s stance?
Is George Bush responsible for the things that happen on his watch? How about the things he knows about?
If the Church knows about it and does nothing about it then they are just as responsible as the perpetrators, aren’t they?
Must I repeat the question for you, Uzi?
Attempting to hi-jack the thread back to the original topic…
A run through today’s BBC headlines. There do seem to be a lot of Muslims (and non-Muslims) involved in conflicts, but in the instances where faith is actually an issue, Muslims seem to be under attack. Maybe the Muslim way of life is the one that needs defending ?
Only one of these situations appears to involve Islamist extremists, the others are a mix of territorial struggle and anti-Muslim extremism. Maybe the situation is more complex than the hate-mongers would have it seem ?
Iraq extends new security drive
US troops on the ground in Iraq, no Iraqi troops on the ground in US
British sailors on their way home
British sailors seized close to Iran, no Iranian sailors seized close to UK
Moves to marginalise extremists
Taleban claim French NGO captives
Israelis kill gunman in Gaza raid
Bosnian Serb jailed for 15 years
Mosque attacked in south Thailand
Chechen president to be sworn in
The Chechen President, Ramzan Kadyrov, is a Muslim (at least nominally) and fought for Chechen independence in the '90s, but now basically serves Russia against remnants of Chechen (Muslim) Independentists.
As a first draft:
The church’s stance is whatever it states and, more importantly, how it acts and what it knowingly condones by its inaction, in its sphere of operation.
I have no idea what point you think you are making. Clearly, Wahabbists who follow a militatntly hostile version of Islam are dangerous to the world. It is hardly true that mystical sufis are a similar danger, even though they are both Muslim. It would be a bit like saying that the Catholic IRA and Protestant UDF are clearly violent Christians, so we need to fear Amish and Quakers because they are Christian.
My specific point from which you quoted an extract happened to reflect a particular type of situation that tends to transcend cultural origins. Mulsim immigrants to France are being attacked by nativist French in the same way that Catholic immigrants to the U.S. were attacked by nativist Americans. In each case, it was not the culture of the immigrants but the reaction of the natives that first led to violence (with the religion of the immigrants being a banner around which the natives rallied). The immigranrts then reacted in several ways, sometimes with violence, sometimes by abandoning their religion but keeping the external trappings of it, and sometimes by embracing the most conservative version of their religion. It was not Islam or Catholicism that originally led to riots in Paris and Philadelphia, it was friction between groups. (Note that the kids in France who raised so much hell last Spring were identified (by those who were not reflexively blaming Islam and who actually studied the groups) as kids who did not even believe in the tenets of Islam. They were condemned in the mosques where their parents worshipped. They only identified themselves as Muslims as a badge of honor because that was how they were identified by those with whom they fought, even though they were not actually Muslim in any religious sense.
I am deeply offended that all debate in this thread did not come to a complete halt with my departure. I am the bigot who started it, and you have no right to keep going without me like that.
What good is this thread without my mouth-foaming bigotry? All you are left with is Tomndebb’s righteous pontifications. It is like a corn dog with mustard and the coating but no weenie inside (gee, do you suppose I am leaving myself open to a smart crack with that last similie? 
).
I now have a dial-up connection at my country place.
At any rate, I just figured that with the all the angry debate, accusations and denials that this thread has produced, we might be in the mood for something light to celebrate the Spring Festival (aka Easter for people who believe corpses get to come back to life if it is the will of a God whose existence remains unproven.)
At any rate, I thought you might find this article about Islamic hygiene interesting It is not fictional, although the comment that accompanies it seems to be a bit sardonic. I think it is probably by Ali Sina, which is the *nom de plume * of an ex-Muslim who like most apostates from Islam is too addicted to being alive to give his real name.
Most of the quotes are from what are known as Hadiths. They are not actual quotes from the Koran, but they are recorded sayings of Mohamed, and some of them are amazing, truly amazing.
Have fun reading about Mohamed’s hygiene tips here
The main conclusion I would draw from this is that if your Muslim neighbour offers to sell you used gravel, don’t forget to ask him what he used it for! 