OK, what about this, it was upthread… maybe you didn’t see it.
Premise: Various social, economic, and political factors are the real cause of problems, not religion.
Rebuttal: Yes, but social, political, economic hardship cause people to become desperate. Desperate people will find something to cling to, to give security, stability, hope. One of the most common things they cling to is religion.
New Premise: It is worse to reach out to out to a religion from desperation if the religion is Christianity than it is Buddhism. It is worse if that religion is Islam than if it is Christianity.
Justification: Islam teaches subjugation of women and distrust of “infidels”. While Christianity has elements of both, both elements are stronger in Islam.
So my point is, Islam is actually WORSE for the overall situation when you introduce it to, as you say, developing countries.
Yes, that is an excellent rebuttal- to the point the person who started this thread, who will remain unnamed at the moment, made. And that point was that radical Islam is not violent due to culture, but to religion.
Do you agree or disagree with the final conclusion, the part in bold. I’m too tired too try to give you any other response. If you do not agree with the part in bold, fine, thats ok, but if you don;t agree please tell me why.
Premise: Various social, economic, and political factors are the real cause of problems, not religion.
Rebuttal: Yes, but social, political, economic hardship cause people to become desperate. Desperate people will find something to cling to, to give security, stability, hope. One of the most common things they cling to is religion.
New Premise: It is worse to reach out to out to a religion from desperation if the religion is Christianity than it is Buddhism. It is worse if that religion is Islam than if it is Christianity.
Justification: Islam teaches subjugation of women and distrust of “infidels”. While Christianity has elements of both, both elements are stronger in Islam.
So my point is, Islam is actually WORSE for the overall situation when you introduce it to, as you say, developing countries.
Sure. We just disagree in the extent. I think that those same countries with Christianism, or Communism or any other ideology wouldn’t be, on the whole, that much different. Maybe slightly better off. Maybe slightly worse. But pretty much still having similar problems. You believe the influence of Islam is way greater than that. I’ve been pretty clear on that.
Ok, I don’t agree with you but it is not worth arguing about. I’m too tired to say any other response or to try to either go up or down in my position.
I will ask you a different question instead.
If I honestly feel there are inherent problems with Islam, how can I express that without hurting anyone’s feelings or making anyone feel bad. Or is my belief that Islam is problematic simply wrong and needs to be changed?
Why would you want to? Hurt feelings, make people feel bad. Make them think, change their mind. Change your own, even. That’s the whole point of debating.
I read a post here last week about someone who had moved to NYC. Through what seems like a miscommunication between her and the Bus Driver she missed her stop. That happens sometimes in NYC. But she said “And I went home and cried because I don’t want anyone to treat me bad just because of the way I am dressed”. She indicated that she wore religious clothing… that post really got me to thinking…
So, it is true that I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But I also feel Islam is a force of determinant for the world. I feel that all religions are. But of the current prevalent religions I think Islam is the worst. I doubt I will be changing my mind about that.
Evidence would indicate that I read your cites more than you do.
You’re doing their work for them, you know? America’s enemies, that’s their big propaganda selling point, that America in particular and the West in general, are all about a war on Islam. That is the Big Lie they are hoping to sell, hoping to make true.
And here you are. Pressing their case for them, furthering the twin causes of hatred and ignorance. Can’t even offer you a “Bless his heart, he means well”, because you don’t mean well. Most likely, they don’t even know about us, but if they did, they would point to you as exemplary. “Look, here’s this message board, chock-a-block with liberal humanists, and even there, you see how they hate Islam!”.
And may the sweet baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your heart. Amen.
You have done nothing to demonstrate that you are informed on the issues that you wanted to discuss.
I do not accuse you of being stupid; I point out that your prejudices prevent you from bothering to actually find out what you are talking about. Your approach to complex problems matches that of George W. Bush.
So, now, to make your argument, you have to resort to claiming other posters made statements they have never made? Not good form.
That is not a central point regarding Islam. That is a point in regard to one faction of Islam that has been condemned by nearly all other factions. It has as much validity as claiming that Boko Haram is representative of all Christianity.
Quoting the number of people killed in sectarian violence really does nothing to demonstrate presentation of facts. Presenting facts in this discussion would involve information regarding the ways in which motivation is formed among the people behaving badly. Pointing out the results of the bad behavior tells us only the extent of the evil without providing a legitimate examination of its source. (I know, for you the source is “Islam” while you ignore 1400 years of Islamic history to focus on fewer than 20 years of history, ignoring all context, and focusing on a particular quasi-religious attempt at empire building in which the movement spurns many Islamic teachings to create their own sect.)
If you continue to deliberately accuse me of things I have not said, you are not going to fare well. This is at least the fourth post in which you have made claims regarding what i have said that are simply not what i posted.
In this specific case: I have never said that religion plays no part in the issue. I have pointed out that religion is one of many factors while you evade the situation by pretending that religion is the only significant factor.
So what? This is your assertion for which you have provided nothing but your opinion. Where is the evidence for this claim, (Marx’s “opiate of the people,” perhaps? He provided no evidence, either.)
Since you are wrong on your initial accusation and you have failed to provide evidence of your “rebuttal,” there is no point in wasting time responding to the bad assertions and straw man arguments that followed these statements.
Really? That is your point? You want to assert that “introducing” Islam is a bad thing when it actually preceded the beginning of “development” in every country where it is a genuine issue? Like your ignorance regarding (and persistent, deliberate misuse of the word), “apologist,” you appear to have no idea what the word “introduce” actually means.
In circumstance after circumstance, (death penalty in Texas, “need” to invade Iraq, etc.), GWB demonstrated that he came to an emotional conclusion that was at odds with the facts, then refused to actually examine the facts of the situation. GWB was not particularly prejudiced against any group and he was not, (as often claimed), stupid. He was, however, intellectually lazy in forming his opinions–making up his mind before gathering facts.
Yep. Fanatical violent whackadoos will do whatever the hell they want and find justification in holy books to support it. What the books say doesn’t matter; all that matters is what the fanatics want to do. That there seem to be more violent whackadoos in a certain faith at this moment doesn’t seem to mean anything to me about the holy books – there were times in the past that there were way more Christian violent whackadoos (like, say, much of the middle ages) than Muslim violent whackadoos, which demonstrates that the books actually don’t matter much.
Also, you know who is even more central to Christianity than Jesus? God. And God is one violent mofo in various parts of the bible – just as violent as any figures in the Koran.
So…if the Koran and the Hadith had a footnote on every page which said “P.S. - Draw Mohammed whenever you like.” these “fanatical violent whackadoos” would still kill cartoonists for drawing Mohammed? If, instead of saying, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, Leviticus said “There’s no such thing as witches you retards!”, the “fanatical violent whackadoos” of 17th century Salem would still have burned witches? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
Violent whackadoos rarely make sense. If the Koran or Islam really were inherently more violent or more supporting of violence then the Bible or Christianity, then there wouldn’t have been times in history in which Islamic societies were much more peaceful and progressive, on average, than Christian societies – and there were many such times.
I’m not arguing that a holy book can’t be more or less peaceful than others – one certainly could. A holy book of one page that said “be peaceful, kind, and non-violent”, and nothing else, would be a non-violent holy book, for example. I’m arguing that the Bible and the Koran are equally easy to use to justify violence, and equally easy to use to justify peaceful behavior, and I think that this is borne out by history. I think it was a quirk of geopolitics and sociological relationships that made Islamic societies far more peaceful than Christian societies in parts of the middle ages, and I think the same phenomena are responsible for differences in statistical associations with violence between Christians, Muslims, and Christian and Islamic societies today.
I’d argue that they still would have killed someone, using *some *excuse. If not witches or graven images, maybe simply for worshiping in the wrong way, or being the wrong color, or living in the wrong place.
To paraphrase iiandyiiii, violent whackadoos gonna violent whackadoo.
A lot of bass-ackward think going on here. To oversimplify, a peaceful and humane culture does not look upon their Holy Writ and suddenly decide they are doing it all wrong, that their godly instructions are to wreak havoc upon the unbelievers. The culture evolves that way and then they look back upon their Holy Writ and discover that God not only approves of their behavior, He insists upon it!
Or, as if often the case, those in possession of wealth and power look upon Holy Writ and find that God endorses their wealth and power, It Is Written. “Love of money is the root of all evil” saith The Lord, but their are exemptions, workarounds so that the Godly and pious are permitted to greedily grasp whatever they can.
First, people decide what they want Holy Writ to say, and then go find that it says it.
It has not escaped my attention that this irrefutable fact underscores, yet again, the awesome danger of Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to the Republic in particular, and personkind in general. So, remember, when your Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance volunteer comes to your door, give, and give generously!
Your premise that the religions have nothing to do with anything can be tested by analyzing countries that have large muslim + other populations in modern times.
Lebanon has a fairly large christian and muslim population. Are there any differential behavioral characteristics between groups? I don’t actually know enough to say, but it might be insightful for someone who does to chime in.
India is mostly hindu but has a very large muslim population. Are the Hindus committing more violence against muslims or vice versa? Again, I don’t know enough to say but it would be interesting to find out.
