Yeah, there’s question. Cites, please.
Westboro Baptist Church?
Islam teaches it, huh? See, I could say Christianity teaches it, if I found just one example. I would stick with mosques and/or imams, if I were you. And yes, some seem to. What should we do with that information?
Understatement of the year?
You have no idea what you’re talking about!
And most Muslims can honestly make the same claim.
A very small percentage of Muslims worldwide preach violence.
You don’t think that Christians currently preach hate and violence and do so directly from the Bible?
I can find cites for abortion bombings, the killing of homosexuals, wars, etc. that were done in the name of the Christian god in modern times if you like.
The muslims? In fact, I work with a Muslim who denounces all violence… particularly anything involving fire, like suicide bombs. Perhaps his mosque is some sort of anomaly, but I seriously doubt it, at least for American mosques. Have you been to a mosque? Have ever you heard an imam call for violence? Or are you basing your estimation of an entire religion on what you assume is the rhyme and reason of middle-eastern terrorists?
By the bye, I’m a Catholic. Do you blame me for the bombings in Northern Ireland and London by the IRA? Do you blame Hindus for the actions of the RSS against Muslims?
Christ, does every practitioner of a religion have to answer for the acts of extremist members of his sects? :rolleyes:
Okay, maybe I misunderstood you. So let me give you the opportunity to clarify yourself. Making the assumptions I put forth in my preceding post, should anything be done? Can you offer any steps or measures that you would deem wise and reasonable. Again, making those certain assumptions.
I’m hoping you can offer something here, since you seem to be of the mind that a dismissive shrug of the shoulders would, in fact, be “ludicrous”.
Wait. Intentional or not, this makes it sound as if that was the entirety of my argument. I listed instances of murder in the name of Islam, including the kiling of Christians in Africa and Asia. So, if you accept that that was not the totality of my argument, why would you not mention specifically (“single out”) the clear and deliberate killing of Christians in Africa and Asia?
If the chistian church promoted killing I certainly would blame the church.
The teaching in the islamic religion of killing is common.
However in the Koran it does instruct the people to live among the infidels without incident until they are strong enough to kill.
so it does not surprise me that a muslim would tell a christian he denounces violence.
Did you know that the london bombers…you know the doctor and the lawyer also denounce violence ?
what was the percentage of muslim kids who said it was ok to use suicide bombings that killed civilians…oh yea 68%
why dont you take a look at an undercover look at the islamic faith
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=923759196750871367&hl=en
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=923759196750871367&hl=en
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7134286674402163481&hl=en
I thought I had clarified myself. And thinking something important doesn’t necessarily mean I must have an answer; nuclear energy is important, but you wouldn’t want me in charge of a power plant. 
I’ll give it a go, though. What should be done? I would say a look at free speech/inciting to violence laws, to see if they require any changes. I haven’t heard of any arrests of this kind in the U.S., which may just be ignorance on my part, but there have been arrests of people thought to be inciting violence here. Other than that, i’m not entirely sure what can be done, to be honest. The way to remove the more unpleasant facets of religion in the past seem to been to add improve general circumstances and then wait it out, which isn’t all that helpful here, or to persecute or decimate the faithful considerably, which seems pretty immoral and again not all that helpful. What are your ideas?
I apologise for making that seem like the entirety of your argument, which it wasn’t. I do think it was a specific mention, though, since while you did mention other horrible things one of them wasn’t the deaths of non-Christians in Africe and Asia; you singled out one group from the other, apparently… Why would I not specifically mention Christians in Africa and Asia? Well, why would I? If I just said “people killed in Africe and Asia” that encompasses a considerably larger group. And I don’t see any difference morally between the killing of a Christian and a non-Christian (while one or the other may be a more/less moral act, I can’t tell just from that). It would be like me saying “painters in Africa and Asia killed”, “left-handed people killed”; yes, it’s true, but I don’t really have any reason to single out these groups.
And if the bible promoted killing would you blame the Bible?
That’s the second time you made that claim. When are you going to provide chapter and verse?
But he’s really lying?
Is that a worldwide figure? Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
I’m pretty sure that the Koran also says not to be dishonest. But hey, in the Bible it says it’s ok to kill if God commands it. Are Christians secretly lying in wait until that day?
Which doctor and lawyer? None of the London bombers were doctors or lawyers, as far as I can tell. One of the Glasgow aiport bombing suspects was a doctor, but for denouncing violence i’d ask for a cite.
I actually seem to recall something along these lines, but i’m going to ask for a cite anyway. I have one, hooray; percentage of American Muslims who feel unfavourable towards al Quaeda ranges from 75% to 67%. Not as high as would be liked, but quite a way off 68% towards suicide bombings.
Can’t honestly be arsed, and the accuracy of your previous points suggests i’m not going to miss anything. Except perhaps good grammar.
You call this undercover work? This is propaganda through and through :rolleyes:
Well, I appreciate the difficulty of the task and appreciate the fact that you desire something be done. I am similarly challenged by the question, but I think that the only way change can come is from within the Muslim community. Here in the U.S. I would acknowledge that the religion in general merits more scrutiny than others. As I’ve stated elsewhere on these boards, I think it wise that we be cautious. I would mandate that any Muslim politician or celebrity who wishes our acceptance or adoration clearly and emphatically distance himself from the extremists that attempt to hijack his entire religion. The extremists need to be intellectually marginalized and turned into pariahs. Failure for any Muslim to take such a stance would be viewed as acceptance of a murderous ideology and that person should be similarly ostracized. At the same time, after a person or group has clearly and unabiguously separated himself from that murderous ideology, we should embrace him. The message that needs to be clearly sent is that your religion—whatever it is—will be accepted as long as it doesn’t embrace a murderous ideology that people are taking as instructional in today’s world.
This doesn’t give Christianity a pass. I hold it and its adherents to the same standard. If any person, or more importantly, group, seeks to live life among us while holding to some of the passages of the old testament that the rest of society does not give credence, let everyone point to him a cry “idiot”. Phelps and the hateful morons that follow him should be held as pariahs within Christendom and every Christain should be able to. hopefully, draw a distinct line between themselves and Phelps. I’d argue that I am being even more critical of Westboro as, as far as I am aware, they have committed no violence against anyone. I am not in favor of laws that attempt to read someone’s mind for hate and do not think they are needed. (I also think that it is our right to hate anything or anyone we want, but that is a different discussion.) Christian clergy, particulalry its leaders—and every true Christian— should be able to denounce Westboro as a congregation of assholes and nothing more than an abhorent anomoly.
No problem, I didn’t think it intentional. But the killing of Christians in Asia and Africa is not the same as the killing of “painters”. If painters were being killed routinely and en masse because they were painters, you’d have a point, but they’re not. Christians are neing killed by Islamist extremists in parts of those two continents simply because they are Christian. The only question I see is that is it due to Christianity itself or is it due to Christianity being viewed as a western ideology? I don’t know. But I’m not sure that particular distinction matters very much.
I think that goes a bit too far, and i’d be interested to know what you mean by “mandate”; who has the power to declare how we must treat people? I’m all for people declaring themselves seperate from the nastier parts of their religion, but i’m not sure that that’s something that must be demanded on pain of treating them exactly the same (minus law enforcement and so on), and i’m not certain how you’d actually get people to agree with you anyway.
That seems very fair of you. But again, this seems more like a theory than a plan; how can we make every Christian denounce Phelps and his ilk?
Ah, I didn’t know this. Well, the killing, sure, but I didn’t know there was an actual targeting of Christians specifically. Sure, with a focused campaign it can make sense to just say Christians, especially when (as you did) you point out other main offenses. So… fair enough. To be honest, I thought you might be saying it because you thought the killing of Christians was a worse crime than just killing people in general, so I apologise for having that bad opinion of you.
Sorry, the word “mandate” has legal connotations that I didn’t mean to imply. I mean that we, as a society, should be relentless in our scrutiny. When some unknown or little-known Muslim entity enters the public awareness, they shold be scrutinized. I think the best route for this is talk show hosts. While Hannity (who I can only take in small doses usually) does confront Islamic groups, people like Colmes, Olberman, and others on the left are all to happy to simply embrace them. what it all comes down to is the default position. In the U.S. anyway, where the Muslim population is relatively small, I think it prudent to expect a disavowal before the individual or group is embraced. One may say that this is not fair, and differetn than how every other religious group is treated. I think not. I thiink that every religious group that has 1) violence as part of its current-day ideology and 2) has thousands (forgive the conservative estimation) of adherents following through on the murderous doctrine should be similarly scrutinized. Right now, the only one I can think of is Islam.
Ask them. Make them take a position. Now, Phelps is a fringe whacko, so I’m not sure that constantly bringing up his idiocy doesn’t do him a favor at this point. But Islam extremism is on the mind of virtually every American, even if for some, just to act as an apologist for it.
As an example, how many Americans (and Englishman, I presume) think “nigger” is an appropriate term a black man? Whatever the actual number, I think you’d agree that the number was larger ten years ago, and larger still thirty years ago. We got to the point we are here by letting people who use the term—whether at the water cooler or at The Comedy Store (Michael Richards)—that they are assholes for thinking it appropriate. We do have the ability to shape our own future.
To be clear, killing a Christian or Buddhist or Sihk or Jew or Scientologist or Atheist, etc., for the reason of them not being Muslim are equally evil and disgusting, as well as an indication of extreme idiocy.
Please supply details on the various translations of the Koran you’ve read. Which suras are the basis of your arguments?
Most? Do you have any hard data to back this up?
I assume this is a sideways snipe against Islam. Do you understand that when the Qur’an refers to “infidels,” that it is referring to non-believers, and very specifically not referring to Christians or Jews? And, just for the record, I’m sure that Christian churches never promote negative actions against others in different religions. For example, Exodus 22:18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”) could never be interpreted as a command to kill Wiccans. Of course Numbers 25:3-4 (“So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them. The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.’”) doesn’t support violence against worshipers of Baal. And Christians have never blown up abortion clinics at the behest of their religious leaders.
Again, do you have any hard data whatsoever to back this up? Any real citations? Anything at all?
I find it extremely difficult to believe you’ve read the Qur’an even once, much less in eight different translations.
That’s certainly something that can be done, but how can it be brought about? How can we, as a society, be convinced that this is necessary? I’m sure there are some people who already think as you do, but how would you go about convincing everyone else (including me)?
For one thing, I think that while looking at the actions of other groups is fair, I think you’re not taking it far enough. Asking people of a group to denounce extremists of that group is a fine idea. But as for actually suspecting people, I think you may be looking at too big a picture. If your argument is that Muslims overall are more likely to be worth suspicion of violent extremism than some other groups, I think I might agree. But what about Muslims in America? I haven’t seen any statistics on this, but I would like to see numbers on how many Muslims in my own country commit crimes again in my own country. I would imagine that the comparative percentage is probably roughly the same as any other group.
Put another way; if we’re talking Muslim politicians, how many have proposed unpleasant measures, how many have enacted them, how many have extremist ideaologies, how many are corrupt or been involved in scandals? Then compare that number to the number of Christians or Jews or atheists or whoever. Who’s done the most damage percentage-wise? I really doubt that it’s going to turn out to be Muslims either over here or there, for the simple reason that people are already more suspicious of them to start off with.
Ah, but that didn’t come about just by saying “Excuse me, would you mind not using that word?”. I’m too young to have lived through it being widespread, but it seems like it followed a very long period of intolerance leading to tolerance. People certainly went out to try and change the minds of others, but what really seemed to be the key was in the general progress of understanding and raising a new generation with that understanding from birth. And besides, I can’t speak for yourself, but i’m not exactly the most prestiguous person. Who’s going to listen to me?
Fair enough. And again, sorry for thinking that of you.
I listen to you all the time.
(underlining mine)
I am not an U.S.-citizen
Nor do I foresee any time at which I will try to be one… or even live in the U.S.A. I actually try to avoid posting to any and all threads that speak about U.S. internal affairs.
But… adoration?? And “emphatically distancing” themselves from anything??
Isn’t yours the country that extols any and all types of free speech? And that separates any and all religions from intervening in the democratic exercise of political rights?
I can understand that you’d want to separate any and all people who want to use force to implement their views. But, let’s face it, any country that accepts “aryan nation” movements because they’re protected by free speech will, sooner or later, face other movements who will seek to destroy the democratic roots of their government without even going through democratic channels. And while you can act against anyone who actually tries to implement them, you’ll have to live with those who merely speak about it.
And… “adoration”??? That’s just wrong!
Maybe so, but in your case I have to split my time with God, and I think I know who i’d be paying more attention to.
those who disbelieve (8:55)
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah…And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah’s curse be on them; how they are turned away!” (Koran 9:29-30)
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)
When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)
And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)
FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)
FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)
Fun with context. I’m not sure how to correctly write Koran notations, so i’m going with **b_wad’s ** style.
That’s the reward; invisible chastisement, apparently. Fight does not necessarily imply violence.
This isn’t even the entire sentence.
Considering the “whistling and clapping before the House” part, it appears this section’s “them” actually refers to those who claim belief but are not actually believers. Note also that it appears the section refers to self-defence, rather than attack. And the end of the sentence you, ahem, neglected to post? Why, it says if they desist in their actions… Allah knows this and takes it into account.
(my bolding).
Talking about captives in war. Who in fact you do have “mastery” over. Not that you have mastery over general people.
Again, “break their oaths”, “aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle”, “attacked you first”; it’s another case of self-defence. And when they’re no longer fighting and you “remove the rage of their hearts”… Allah treats them mercifully.
You already did this one. But the capitalisation makes me agree with you! Hooray, upper caps!
Dude, you suck at quote mining. I mean, come on, it’s a thousands-year-old text. There’s bound to be some out-and-out “kill the bastards” stuff in there. There’s no need to quote things out of context, surely?