I do not care.
I live in the Bible Belt. I was raised in the Bible Belt. I am sure a lot, lot, lot, more than 13% of the people in this town are Evangelicals.
Bible Belt:
The Bible Belt is an informal term for a region in the south-eastern and south-central United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism plays a strong role in society and politics, and Christian church attendance across the denominations is generally higher than the nation’s average.
Yes, you can, if it is in fact what the book says. If it is what - the book - says, you can most definitely say it is a central teaching of that religion.
If it says it - in the book - what else would you call it — but — a central teaching?
This is a very commonly stated bit of propaganda from the Islamic public relations handbook, but it is not supportable. Mo preached his new religion in Mecca for an entire decade before he was run off. He gave no other religion nearly as much tolerance once he was in control of the city. Go there now and preach some paganism. See if you can get away with it for ten minutes, let alone ten years, then tell me about Islam’s religious tolerance.
He advised the use of violence in self-defense. That doesn’t mean that you can only fight defensive battles, it means you only fight those who’ve attacked you. Winning a war without counter-attacking is somewhere between “very difficult” and “impossible”. To tie it back to my earlier analogy, the U.S. was perfectly justified in attacking the Japanese Empire, they were not morally limited to hunkering down in Pearl Harbor and waiting for the next strike.
If you’re fighting a losing battle and don’t surrender, you’re probably going to get killed or injured. Non-pacifists generally don’t have a problem with this.
That’s certainly possible - the fervor of the new convert is powerful stuff. If you’re claiming that non-Muslims were exterminated, though, I’ll need a cite for that.
I simply don’t know what to say to this…it’s so far removed from my moral reasoning that you may as well be speaking a different language. Suffice it to say, I don’t consider it morally wrong to become a leader of people, nor morally right (in and of itself) to avoid all conflict of any kind. My moral influences (Kant, mostly) don’t hold that view.
I don’t know if the civilian/combatant distinction existed at the time, nor do I know enough about the makeup of the 7th-century caravan to say whether they would be considered civilian targets in the modern sense.
Again, this is totally alien to my moral sense…you may as well be arguing for eating every third baby, so as to ensure larger fruit (to paraphrase Rick and Morty). All I can do is stare, and try to fathom the distance between our worldviews.
Sure, I’ll read what you find, but I won’t take your word for it, based on how you’ve presented other surahs.
This is in Alabama. It’s from the wikipedia page for bible belt. On I-75, half an hour south of here, I’m sorry I don’t have the picture but I swear it is true, I saw a sign that had Jesus and an attack helicopter on it. It said “God is in Charge”. I am not making this up. There were 4 or 5 like this spread over a 10 mile stretch of the highway. The one I mentioned was the most offensive. Most offensive I say… they were all pretty offensive, but, no two signs were the same.
Before you get ready to say whatever it is you are about to say, think about this:
How much do you think it costs to rent a billboard on the busiest highway in Georgia? Even, “way out in the country” it’s probably not going to be cheap, is it? Now, think about renting 4 or them.
I’d say that means people around here are pretty heavily invested in their brand of “Evangelicalism”.
I’d say your figure of 13% is pretty much meaningless in a town like this.
I am starting to get REALLY annoyed at all the apologetics on this thread. Religion - is - a force for good in many places. Just not in Alabama or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
That’s not my goal.
Why do you keep talking about Japan???
Ah, yes, of course.
But why did Mohammed - need - to go to war? Why did he - need - to evangelize his religion? Why did he - need - to be the head of a city state?
To ask the question in a alternate manner, how many less people would of died if Mohammed had used his considerable wealth and influence to raise sheep or raise camels? How many — less — people would of died if he had chosen a more peaceful path for his life? He get’s no “they were violent times” excuse for making - that - choice.
I bet it would be like, a whole whole whole lot less dead people, right?
PS- Why do you keep talking about Japan???
Other Surahs? Everything I’ve present has been from here. It looks pretty unbiased to me.
So, if I do find the passages you are looking for, what is going to be your reaction:
1- Oh, you see Robert, LOT’S of people had slaves back then, even sex slaves, in fact…
2- Yes, Robert, you are correct, Mohammed was and is an evil son of a bitch and deserves every single bit of criticism you are giving him.
Because I am not going to go to the trouble to find them for you if your answer is going to be number 1…
well, good for you
Robert163, here’s why I think you’re wrong about Islam and Mohammed – if Islam and Mohammed were inherently worse and more violent and more oppressive, in terms of the religious text and teachings and practices, then other religions, then throughout world history since Mohammed’s life Muslim regions would have been always or almost always significantly more violent and more oppressive than Christian (and other) regions.
This is very obviously false, and very easy to prove – through the centuries, there were long periods of time in which Muslim regions were not just more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions, on average, but waaaaay more peaceful and less oppressive than Christian regions. There were also times in which the reverse was true.
Do you acknowledge this, that there were long centuries in which, on average, Muslim regions were much, much better (in terms of violence and oppression) than Christian regions? If so, then why do you think this was? How were these Muslims, who certainly considered themselves as devout as any Muslims today, able to act in a much more peaceful and less oppressive manner as citizens and as leaders than the contemporary Christians of other parts of the world at the time?
Doesn’t Kant Believe that things are inherently right or wrong? Like slavery, banditry, starting a war because you want their land or they have a different religion than you… an aggressive war… doesn’t Kant say some things are simply right or wrong and any reasoned person will realize this?
You don’t get the excuse of socialization or peer influence or the particular era you live in? It is either, right, or, wrong.
Isin’t that one of the major tenets of the concept of the Categorical Imperative?
Categorical imperative
Kant, Immanuel [Credit: The Granger Collection, New York] in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end.
I very well could be wrong. But I had the strong impression kant had strict ideas about right and wrong and “other people engaging in group think” is not an excuse to do the wrong thing, is it?
I’m not actually “attacking” this part of your comments. I’m actually interested in learning more about kant…
(Thank you for your response, by the way.)
Yes, of course, of course I do. I really really honestly do acknowledge that is correct.
But the inverse is also true. (Inverse - opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect.)
If there are peaceful periods then there are also violent periods. If it was all one big uninterrupted peaceful period, form inception to the present day, you wouldn’t be talking about periods of peace and harmony. The only thing you would be allowed to say, grammatically, historically, linguistically, factually, etc etc, was to describe it as a peaceful religion.
How were they able to act peacefully during these times? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, not, at this exact specific moment. How were they able to act peacefully during those periods?:
1- By ignoring the violent commands set forth in the Koran by Mohammed/Allah.
2- By ignoring the violent example that was Mohammed’s actual, real, factual life.
The New Testament has a verse here and another one here that disagree with you.
It really would be nice for you to quit using the the word fact to describe your incredibly ignorant and astoundingly wrong opinions, but I’m not holding out any hope on that score.
The New Testament says lots of things, many of which contradict each other, so go ahead, pull out all of the nice little sunshine and roses verses that you want. The harder you do this, the more you insist that I am wrong, the more you actually vindicate my position.
Now, if the New Testament was ALL sunshine and roses, lolly pops and unicorns, etc, then you WOULD be correct and I - would - be as stupid and biased and whatever else you want to call me. But, it’s not all sunshine and roses, is it, Monty?
This is fine, but it doesn’t support any argument that Islam is worse than Christianity or other religions. One could say the same for the times of ‘peaceful’ Christians – they ignored the violent commands from the Bible, and ignored the violent example of God.
QUOTE=Robert163;18753796]The New Testament says lots of things, many of which contradict each other, so go ahead, pull out all of the nice little sunshine and roses verses that you want. The harder you do this, the more you insist that I am wrong, the more you actually vindicate my position.
Now, if the New Testament was ALL sunshine and roses, lolly pops and unicorns, etc, then you WOULD be correct and I - would - be as stupid and biased and whatever else you want to call me. But, it’s not all sunshine and roses, is it, Monty?
[/QUOTE]
Who said it was “all sunshine and roses”? I’m merely pointing out your stunning ignorance.
Wow, gee, thanks!!! Thanks for quoting one of the most obvious contraindications in the WHOLE ENTIRE BIBLE as if you were actually explaining something to me that I didn’t already know.
Can you do me a favor, Monty can you get the Christians to actually start following this scripture?
But when moderators like Tom spout incredibly stupid and wrong opinions it gets a pass. Why? Because he is deflecting criticism of beliefs sacred to people who are often brown? That is the real bigotry.
Well, what you say and what are true are pretty far apart. In other words, I was already aware of the faith/works contradiction. So, I’m not sure why you are calling me ignorant. I suspect, however, it is because it pleases you to do so.
nm
The Pacific War is one that almost everyone I’ve spoken to agrees was morally justified (the remainder being pacifists). So, since much or your argument is tied to war itself being always wrong, it’s handy to make comparisons to the Pacific War to test your convictions.
If you are a pacifist, that’s different, of course…but it remains unclear whether you are or not. You haven’t self-described as one.
Because he and his followers had been robbed, ejected from their home, and some of them had been killed. If that’s not a casus belli, I don’t know what is.
Because he believed that the message he was spreading was divine, and necessary for the salvation of man.
There’s nothing immoral about preaching ideas to others, so long as they aren’t compelled to listen. The freedom to speak one’s ideas is a human right.
What was the alternative? He left Mecca with his followers in tow…should they have died in the desert?
I’m sorry, but to me that’s just a morally bankrupt approach to take. You can say that about anyone who ever upset the status quo - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, anyone.
No one is morally obligated to refrain from spreading ideas that others might not like, and which might cause a violent backlash. The immorality lies with those who carry out the violent backlash, not with someone who peacefully spreads new ideas. A moral agent is only responsible for his or her own actions.
See above.
Yes, but you present them sans context, and argue against their plain-text meaning.
Well, I’m not going to call Mohammad evil, because I don’t believe in evil and I don’t think in those terms. There’s plenty to criticize Mohammad for (though a lot less if you judge him by the standards of his era rather than today’s); I’ll add this sex-slave business to the list if it pans out.
Yes, Kant provides a framework, based on reason, for evaluating whether an action is moral or immoral. “Being a leader of people” doesn’t fail the categorical imperative, and neither does “engaging in any violence whatsoever”. Further, it provides no support for the idea that the morally correct course during violent or chaotic times is to retreat to a sheep ranch (farm?) and avoid all conflict.
