Except the invasion of Germany was moral for lots of reasons, not the least of which was to prevent the completion of the Holocaust. So since your basic premise about moral wars is invalid your whole moral framework comes into question.
Your argument seems to boil down to “I don’t like Islam because … reasons.” I have no problem with your sentiment even if I disagree with it, but your logic is atrocious.
But as far as I know, we did not know (at least to the full extent) what was happening in concentration camps. I can see arguments both for and against invading Germany at the end of the war.
No, my bias is against religion in general. Which I actually dislike more, Christianity or Islam may change from day to day or week to week or depending upon the topic at hand. But my complaints themself against Islam are not arbitrary.
My problem is that you can’t say something is bad or evil or wrong without upsetting liberals and apologists.
Look at life where Sharia Law is in effect. It’s pretty horrible. There are so many Islamic terrorists that that you can not say they are just a “few bad apples”. There are far far too many of them to say that. Both Sharia Law adherents and Muslim terrorists quote directly from the Koran to justify their actions.
So, yes, I am bothered, in terms intellectual dishonesty on the part of other people, I am quite bothered when people want to apologize or minimize the effects of the Koran.
Now, most of the people opposing me are either (1)Muslim, or, (2)people who believe in equality and egalitarianism. So I’m kind of fighting a losing battle. Neither one of these groups are inclined to actually admit the truth about violence and it’s association to the Koran.
Sorta, kinda.
The passages regarding the submission of women to men are largely, if not entirely, the work of Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, who famously fell off his ass. If you accept his story of being selected by Jesus in spectral form and thereby specially appointed, all well and good. Many scholars do not. Many are suspicious of his efforts to “upgrade” a rough and somewhat crude Christianity into a form more acceptable to his own Hellenized worldview.
That his views came to be regarded as Scripture was a decision that merits some criticism. Studies of early Christian communities do not reflect his rather unfortunate views on the status of women. Certainly they did not reflect the views of the Christian community in Jerusalem, as headed by Jesus’ brother James.
There is ample reason to dismiss his self-appointed role as guide and authority. I, for one, most definitely do. I would urge you to acquaint yourself with the work of such scholars as Elaine Pagels and Dominic Crossan. An increase of knowledge is likely to decrease your certainties, but such is that nature of things Biblical.
And my real problem with that, the real problem… when you get past my bias and bigotry and bad attitude is, you can’t fix a problem if people won’t admit it is a problem.
So, we can’t fix the problems cause by the Koran when there are legions and legions of apologists claiming there is no problem with the Koran.
I would encourage you to look at post #880.
The problem isn’t your dislike of religion, no matter what you keep repeating. Your problem is your faulty logic.
Here is your OP in its entirety:
People pointed out that you failed to account for the fact that the majority of all populations in the region outside Israel are Islam, the majority of all Muslims around the world aren’t violent, there are plenty of non-Muslim populations in the world that are quite violent, and there is common violent language in the holy books of all major religions. But you seem to believe that your argument still holds. That’s what people are arguing against, not that there aren’t violent Muslims in the world.
And you people fail to admit that it is democratic law and standard that gives credence to the idea that “the majority of all Muslims around the world aren’t violent”. Democratic law is the only thing protecting us form the Koran. You can’t make that statement about countries with Sharia Law. That are violent and oppressive. They are run directly from the Koran.
Spain under the Inquisition, New England under the Puritans, Northern Ireland during the Troubles, lots of place during the Crusades were all violent and oppressive and were all run directly from the Bible. We get it. In the hands of bad people religion can inspire an oppressive state.
But the Nazis in Germany, the Communists in Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and the Khmer Rouge were all incredibly violent and oppressive without a holy book (or more accurately with a non-religious holy book). Everywhere you look throughout history people have oppressed others using any motivation they could lay their hands on. Democracy and rule of law are relatively new concepts with respect to the world at large.
Perhaps the problem is more human nature than any particular religious book? Because if you’re arguing that the Koran is a special evil in the history of man you’ll have to present a much better argument than you’ve done here. It’s really not worth the time to have the discussion with you if you continue arguing the tack you continue to take.
I can’t. Which is why your assertion that scripture should be interpreted according to authorial intent is a non-starter.
Why is the fact that I can’t rely on knowing authorial intent for scripture a good reason to abandon them entirely?
Of course you can. What you can’t do is make a blanket assertion about a religion of 1.6 billion people being bad without getting some (justified) pushback.
There is no one “Sharia Law”. Salafist shari’ah is pretty terrible, I agree, but their shari’ah is not my shari’ah. Nor is it the shari’ah of most Muslims.
Shari’ah does not come from the Qur’an. There are a whole lot of other sources of fiqh.
Because that “truth” isn’t any kind of truth at all.
Uh, no. Not only is the notion that “democratic law” is the only thing holding back the ravening Muslim hordes from imposing, well, anything on you risible, many versions of shari’ah favor democratic rule (it’s called shura), and there are plenty of democracies among the Muslim-majority nations.
Quick look at Islamic democracies
I wouldn’t say there are plenty, more like a few struggling or half hearted.
Yes, all of those are in the distant past, with the exception of Ireland. “Radical” Islam is a problem, now, in 2015. To deny the role of the Koran in this problem is, I’m not even going to call it disingenuous, I’m going to label it what it is: Dishonest. Nothing but apologetics and misdirection.
And I am one of the few Atheists that will admit that the role of Atheism in Communism played - some - role in the atrocities committed by communist states against religious peoples.
Democracy and rule of law are new concepts to the world at large. Yes. So what? I’m talking about conditions in 2015. Why are you talking about things that happened 50 or 700 or 1500 years ago?
You are trying to say, I guess, that lots of times and places have been violent and oppressive. Of course they have. But your tactic is one of evasion. This is 2015. The Koran is a problem, now, today. it is not the only source of violence in the world in 2015. But what the heck does it take for one of you people to actually condemn the Koran for the violence it is responsible for, in 2015, without trying to change the subject by pointing to violence elsewhere.
True. But some books do more to aggravate that tendency to violence than others.
Where did I ever say that?
Perhaps you could take your own advice and apply it to your tactics as well, allways trying to list other forms of violence than actually condemning the Koran and the violence it encourages.
A “literal interpretation” and “what the author intended” are not the same thing.
So during the Middle Ages when Islam was relatively kind and just compared to Christianity, the Koran wasn’t the problem? The Bible was? And now they’ve switched?
No one here is denying that there are evil, stupid, and powerful people who are using the Koran for violent purposes. They are oppressing lots of people, killing many, and using the Koran as their justification. But history has shown us that evil, stupid and powerful people have always done that, with whatever book is at hand. I won’t say that singling out the Koran as the cause of the violence is dishonest, but it seems to be particularly biased. All the bad logic you’ve used in this thread is contortion to justify a starting point that you assume is true without evidence.
No, evil, stupid, powerful people are the problem, now, today. And they’ve always been the problem. In the past they used the Bible, the Little Red Book, the Green Book, and dozens of others. Today, some use the Koran. But the book isn’t the problem; it’s a tool being used for evil purposes by some evil people.
No religious work preceded the religion for which it is scripture, (with the possible exceptions of The Book of Mormon and Dianetics).
We do not actually know “the words as the author intended” for any of the major religions.
You, who have demonstrated ignorance regarding every religion on which you have commented, both as to theology and as to history, are in no position to claim to know the original intent of the authors of any work. So between scholars and theologians not knowing and you demonstrating ignorance, your claim is baseless.
And your persistent misuse of the words apologist and apologetics indicates either an inability or a refusal to actually learn, further weakening the various polemics in which you engage.
Which, of course, is why there are Muslim dominated countries that are democratic–making your claim nonsense.
Your final statement is also false. Those countries are not “run directly from” the Qur’an; they are run by people engaged in politics based on numerous factors, only one of which is a specific interpretation of the Qur’an. The worst of these, of course, ISIS is in direct contradiction of the Qur’an. You are simply one of “those people” who are so entrenched in your hatred that you refuse to look at actual facts, simply repeating nonsense that you have picked up from the Internet because it makes you feel superior to people who have actually studied the facts as the hate sites you prefer echo your own beliefs.
Both the Omar led Taliban of 1990s Afghanistan and the current ISIS were/have been consistently criticized by the majority of Muslim scholars and theologians for not adhering to the Qur’an, yet you persist in claiming otherwise. When examining Islam, I am pretty sure that the people who actually live and study it are more accurate sources of information than someone, such as yourself, who constantly gets facts wrong.
The creator of the Koran was violent and his words and deeds are used to promote violence.
Self defense is not violence, it’s the prevention of violence.
There’s glory for you.
It’s really quite simple. Take your opinion of Islam and explain it to ISIS and all the other Islamic terrorist groups who base their actions on the religion.
The violence over the cartoons is just one example of the problems built into the religion. Blasphemy laws are well established in mainstream Islam and not just a handful of Muslims.
You cannot hand-wave away the 80+ terrorist groups based on Islam. There is no other religious equivalent. pretending it’s not based on Islam ignores the problem and any solutions to the problem.
Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan
So you are saying that in all of these countries, there is - no difference - between them and the USA/Europe in terms of democratic values of civil rights and safety and fair and free counts of law, courts of law - in no way whatsoever - influenced directly or indirectly by the Koran?