I suggest you look up the History of the German-American Bund in America in the 1930s. Please see the Wiki article about them. See the article, here.
Now, it is quite certain that the majority of German-Americans never supported the German-American Bund. And it is also true that American military commanders with names like Eisenhower and Nimitz helped defeat the Axis powers. Just as I am certain that there probably were tens of millions of Germans, even if they were card-carrying Nazis in Germany, that were decent, peace-loving individuals who did not really think that they were supporting evil and repression.
There is a distinction to be made between Islam and Muslims, just as there is a distinction to be made between Naziism and Germans. The fact that there probably existed millions of decent Germans who supported Naziism **does not suddenly make Naziism good. **
The fact that there are many good and decent Muslims, does not change the character of Islam.
How would you have felt, in the 1930s, if you saw what was happening in Germany and then saw the G-A Bund in their thousands parading in the streets of New York City? Or holding their boycotts of Jewish Shops in America?
I think you would have felt much as I feel when I read about a Muslim female student in France beaten up by Muslim thugs for bringing a sandwich to school during Ramadan, or when Muslim thugs cruise cities like Amsterdam looking for gays to bash, or when a Mulim man in Canada tells a female driving inspector that she may not sit in the front seat next to him when he takes his driver’s test, or any of the other examples I brought up in my OP.
And by the way, members of the German-American Bund did not get a chance to destroy America because they were locked up when America entered WWII.
There is no point in discussing it with you anymore if you insist on misunderstanding. I did not say that nobody interprets his religion to mean he should go do combat with others. However, we have been talking about wars and conflicts which amount to much more than local skirmishes between group. And the history of conflict/war proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not even close to true that ‘all wars have been caused by religion’ or that ‘wars are caused by religion’ or any of the other myths that people like to perpetrate.
I also think people seem to be unclear about the word ‘cause’. ‘To cause’ means to effect. Religions themselves do not cause wars. Not even belief in religions causes wars. Misinterpretation of relgious beliefs causes some people to think they should fight others, but this still has not caused any actual wars. What has sparked the wars is that people of one sort abuse people of the other sort because the second group are considered inferior for whatever reason and sometimes the reason is that they are of a different religious group.
You can roll your eyes until they’re facing Cairo but that won’t make what you say true. But let’s discuss further; explain how, exactly, that these issues are ‘based in religion’.
Wrongo. I suggest you read the links that I posted above. There is much more to this than just religion. It’s about who gets to rule the roost, and different groups in Iraq don’t want each other to rule the country because they fear that they’ll be mistreated. There are factions within both the Shia and Sunni groups that hate each other as much as some Shia hate some Sunni.
I know people far prefer to bifurcate issues to make a nice clean black-and-white distinction for themselves. That means people don’t have to put any time into thinking, learning, and studying about what the issues actually are. The world is much more complex, and certainly conflicts are much more complex, than the simplistic (and completely erroneous) idea that issues and conflicts are about two clearly-defined groups hating each other because of religion.
There is a comparison that I saw either at that site or another site, that comared the Koran and the Bible in terms of cruelty and violence. While your figures are correct, it has been pointed out that because the Bible is much longer than the Koran, the Koran has a much higher proportion of violence.
Furthermore, you are comparing apples and oranges her, my friend. Calls for violence and cruelty in the Bible (such as stoning people for sexual sins, execution of homosexuals, etc.) tend to be concentrated in the Old Testament. And if you want to be honset, how many of these proscriptions are enacted in modern criminal law? Homsexuality, for example, is now decriminalized in pretty much every progressive western democracy. Except for a few nut jobs like the KKK, have you heard many conservatives in the US Bible Belt demand that gays be executed in compliance with Leviticus?
How many people in the west do you know who demand that people who work on Sunday be put to death in keeping with the Bible?
On the other hand, stoning of women who comit adultery has taken place within the last few years in Mulsim countries. I have in my computer a picture of two Iranian teenagers about to be hanged for homosexual activity. If I can figure out a way to make it available to you I will.
The more common method of killing gays in Muslim countries is a form of “honour” killing. The young men accused of having sex are taken to jail and, at the request of their families, are hanged in their cell by the jailers. It is then reported that they committed suicide to wipe out their shame. This sort of well-hidden atrocity has been denounced by gay rights groups in NA and Europe.
Look up the statistics on “honour killings” of young women who are pregnant out of wedlock. And before the Muslim apologists start up that this is a “tribal” or “cultural” practice and not an Islamic one, consider the fact that they almost invariably occur in Muslim countries.
Islam is a living faith. You have only to read the hundreds of cruel and inhuman passages in the Koran to see that it is one of the most barbaric, agressive, and sadistic books ever written. And millions of young Muslims are devoting years to studying its every word and working for the glorious day that the entire world will submit to Islam. As we speak.
If you think that this compares to fossilized references to violence in a Bible that most persons in the west ignore, think again.
Is it not just as easy to say that it is a misinterpretation for people to say religion promotes peace. There is much smititing, stoning, beheading, and raping in the Abrahimic texts.
My belief is that religions follow a survial of the fittest pattern. Religions that promote peace such as the Quakers and Shakers die off, while religions that used violence to convert belivers, such as the Catholic church, spread widely.
The boycott was a(n ineffective) boycott of German products by a small collection of Jewish groups. The German American Bund only responded with a (similarly ineffective) boycott of Jewish American establishments or products in a few heavily German enclaves in a couple of East Coast cities.
The short answer to RickJay’s question is “None.” The reason has far less to do with interning a handful of leaders of the Bund and far more to do with the fact that the Bund was never a serious political force and that, while lots of people enjoyed turning out for speeches, few people were in any way interested in harming the U.S. The German-American Bund and a few other Fascist-oriented outfits have a nearly direct parallel among the American Communists and similar organizations. During the financial crises of the 1930s, a lot of people were interested in looking for new economic and social policies. However, just as the Communist Party lost over 80% of its membership when the U.S.S.R. and Germany signed a non-aggression pact, (disillusioning those who had seen those countries as the great leaders for their respective philosophies), when the Germans actually invaded Poland and then France, the German-American Bund began losing members at a tremendous rate. Most of the members had been more interested in the beer-and-franks picnics each summer than in overthrowing American society. (Given that only around 11,000 German and German-Americans from across the whole country were interned during WWII (out of a population of about 300,000 German-born aliens), any claim that “most” of the German-American Bund members–who held rallies of over 20,000 and over 30,000 people, located primarily in the Atlantic Seabord states–is absurd. In fact, fewer than 100 members of the Bund appear to have actually been detained mid-way through 1942.)
It would be interesting to see a report of the locations of these hangings.
Like most of the stuff you present as “Islamic,” I strongly suspect that what you identify as “Islam” is actually regional and cultural in nature. Are these events reported equally in every Muslim nation? Or, as i strongly suspect, are they highly focussed in a number of specific countries with strong cultural traditions that are linked to Ilam only by association? (For example, it is a frequent claim by other people bashing Islam that clitorectomies and infibulation are a “Muslim” preoccupation. While it is true that there are a number of groups who indulge in those practices who are Muslim, they are not practices in which Muslims engage throughout the whole world–and in those locations where those acts are committed, they tend to be carried out to the same percentages among the people of Christian, animist or other religious persuasions.)
So what are the respective numbers for the hoorors you claim when we compare Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Turkey to Georgia to Malaysia to Indonesia to Muslim India and Pakistan to the Muslim islands of the pohilipines to Dearborn MI?
I can’t even begin to imagine how you think you have posted a valid argument. ‘Used violence to convert believers’. Can we even try to discuss these issues in modern context? Or shall we go right to how ‘democracy promoted racism in the US’?
Why can people not make the distinction between ‘some (a tiny minority of) people misinterpret religious text and carry out misdeeds based on their failure to comprehend’ and ‘all religion is bad’?
I ask you, as I have asked others; do you understand that ‘some’ is not the same as ‘most’ or ‘all’?
Your original point was that some people misinterpret religion to justify violence. I responded that maybe you and others misinterpret religion when you say it promotes peace. Going back in history to see whether religion justifies violence is appropriate, since the religions we are talking about were founded hundred or thousands of years ago. The two largest religious sects in the world, Catholicism and Sunni Islam, have both historically used violence to convert. I find it compelling to believe that the people starting the religions and writing their text have a better idea of what the tenets of the religion are than you do.
That would indeed be a valid objection if I had written those words, Since I did not, it is obviously a strawman. On the other hand you clearly state that “White supremacy teaches hate. Religions do not” without any qualifier that you are referring to “some” or “most”.
There are several Muslim families in our neighbourhood. They speak to one another but not much to people outside their religion. A couple of the women wear veils. None of the women will speak to a man in the street, so I can hardly get to know them. When it generally became known that my partner of 31 years and I are a married, gay couple, the men also took to refusing to speak to us. So I cannot say I know many.
The original information about hangings is from a column in a newspaper published by EGALE, the Canadian GBLT Newspaper. I do not have the column here in front of me. However, the person who wrote it is generally well informed and was speaking about concerns expressed by several GBLT organizations in the world.
You are attacking a straw man of your own creation, Tom, when you bring up mutiliation of female genitalia. I never said that clitorectomies and other forms of child genital mutilation are exclusively Muslim practices. And I realize that Jews and Muslims mutilate their male children through circumcision. And I am personally a victim of male genital mutilation (circumcision) although my parents were Christian.
But as long as you have brought up child genital mutilation, Tom, does it have to be EXCLUSIVE to Muslims? Can we not note that excising the clitoris of a little girl to make her a “good” girl, while not confined exclusively to Muslims, sure is popular in a great many Muslim countries.
After all, it is also true that genocide is not exclusive to Nazi Germany, and that gernocide was practised before and after Hitler. But that does not make Nazi Germany any less a genocidal, murderous regime.
Do I have statistics on their “honour hangings” of gays, you ask? Are you setrious or are you just being your usual nit-picky self? Let’s see, the family of Abu Mohammed of Aman, Jordan, reported to the government of Jordan on May 25, 2006 that they slipped a jailer $200 to hang their son who had been arrested after being found in bed with the son of their neighbour. That brings to 123 the number of people who reported doing this to the Government of Jordan. Get real, will you!!!
In point of fact, homosexual acts are illegal in the vast majority of Muslims states and are frequently punishable by death. If you wish to read a briefing about this from the Gay Humanist Association, see: this site .
It is also instructive to look at a map of countries’ legislation regarding homosexuality. See this site and its world map Five countries actually allow same-sex marriage equal to opposite-sex marriage (Canadian Muslims fought this legislation in my own country, BTW).
At the other end of the spectrum atre five states that actually provide the death penalty for homosexual acts. Guess what religion they are? In addition, many of the states not normally viewed as “Islamic” such as Kenya and Tanzania nonethless have a significant Muslim presence. As does Guyana in the Americas, for example, which provides life imprisonment.
OK, so you can point out that Turkey, Syria and Indonesia do not follow suit. And that India (which has a HUGE Muslim Minority) is not a MUslim state but that it criminalizes homosexuality.
But can you honestly tell me you do not see a general pattern on that map?
If you want a cite involving the “right” of families to murder their gay members, try this one .
The lawyer in question has since 1994, been involved with nearly 65 cases of honour killings involving gay men.
If you want to read about the police entrapment and toryure of gay men in the Palestinian territories, see this site .
As I explained to Tomndeb, the information I have about gay men being hanged in their jail cells at the request of their famailies in Muslim countries (so the family can say it was a suicide to redeem the family honour) is from a column I read in a Canadian GBLT newspaper. The columnist mentioned that other GBLT organizations in the world are aware of this practice. I am only citing from my memory of reading the column. I have not been able to find that specific column online. Sorry, but not every bit of information on earth can coveniently be found on the internet.
In some cases, GBLT organizations in the west learn about these inhuman crimes from terrorized and traumatized gays who have escaped from Muslim countries. See this example from the US.
In some cases, the gay people who report them to western GBLT organizations beg them not to publish anything too specific for fear of reprisals and killings of their friends still in Muslim countries.
So, if I have no country-by-country stats on how many Muslim countries paid a jailer to hang their faggot son and make it look like a suicide, cut me some slack, buddy. But given the level of murderous homophobia in many Muslim countries, I think it is not too much of stretch to give the reports of jailhouse hangings some provisional credibility.
An analogy is not a strawman. There is a phenomemon, clitorectomy, that is often popularly associated with Islam that is, in fact, not Islamic, at all, but is associated with specific geographic locations where many Muslims reside.
There is a separate phenomenon, “honor” killing of homosexuals, that you have linked explicitly to Islam. My analogy is that if we already know that there is a mistaken 1:1 relationship between clitorectomy and Islam, may there not also be a mistaken 1:1 relationship claimed for homosexual “honor” killings and Islam? Could not, for example, the “honor” killings be a phenomenon of Arab culture unrelated to Islam?
A less extreme example would be the clothing of women. Islam dictates modesty. A rather small number of Muslim groups, generally connected to the Wahabbist sect, demand that women wear all-covering burqas. Despite the harsh nature of (some) Persian Shia, women in Iran are only obliged to wear loose clothing and a head covering; even the veil is not required. In Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, and much of India and Pakistan, the rules regarding modesty permit any clothing the local populace accepts–including bikini swimwear in some situations.
Now, you have asserted that the “honor” killing of homosexuals is an Islamic phenomenon and I have asked to see evidence that it is prevalent in all Muslim societies. If you cannot be bothered to demonstrate that it occurs with any frequency in Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Paris, or Dearborn, you will have to excuse me if I conclude that you are arguing that all Islam is only Arab and wonder why you are seeking the opposition to Muslims rather than Arabs. Based on your apparent logic, we should be striving equally hard against Quakers as we do against the evil Church of Rome.
Actually, the column I read about the “honour hanging” of gays in Muslim countries was in a column in Capital Xtra, the GBLT monthly in Canada’s Capital… It was in a column that I read either a year or two years ago, but I cannot remember the name of the columnist. I cannot seem to find the column with a search. But I DID find this article about the public hanging of two gay teenagers in Iran, that also ran in Capital Xtra, here .
It is not an official tenet of Catholicism to ‘use violence to convert’. While some factions of Islam interpret the Q’ran to say it is, it is also, in most Muslim views, not an official tenet of that religion either.
If you are unable to distinguish between an official law of a group and the behaviour of some members of a group, then I can’t help you. I could, you see, claim that Americans murder gays and codemn all of America and all Americans because some of them have indeed thought it was fine to murder gays.
Oh really? Well please show me an instance of white supremacists that don’t teach hate; and don’t be splitting hairs here because the ‘well, they don’t say it in so many words’ argument is a fallacious one.
I did not specifically say that “honour killings” of gays are performed exclusively in Muslim countries, nor that every single Muslim society performs honour killings.
I am not unaware, for instance, that Matthew Sheppard was pistol-whipped to death by non-Muslims in the US.
But clearly, the level of murderous, family-sanctioned and state-sanctioned homophobic violence that I have cited in half a dozen other messages, as well as the continued criminalization of homsexuality and heavy penalties, seems to occur a great deal in Islamic countries or Islamic-influenced countries.
By your logic, Tom, unless a pehnomenon is practised in every single Islamic society including ten Muslim families living in Boise, Idaho, I am not allowed to associate it with Islam.
As I pointed out, I am certain that millions of Nazi party members were probably decent folks, and I am certain that genocide is not exclusive to Nazi Germany. But neither of these facts prevent me from legitimately considering Nazi Germany to be a horrid and genocidal regime.
Islam is generally homophobic in its philosophy and doctrines, and in many cases murderously so. It is that simple.
Say, Tom, I just noticed that Quiddity Glomfuster just made the sweeping and unsupported statement about what “most Muslim views” are (see quote above).
How does he know? What surveys is he using?
Now if I did something like that. . . . . . . whoooooah Nellie!!!
