Correct. You’re right about me not caring to go back into history and assign barbarism, cruelty, murder, etc. to all the different religions. I think many religion (most?) can, and have, been the rallying cry for much ugliness. But I don’t live in those times. I live now. Of all the significant religions in the world, Islam stands apart as being used an excuse for unacceptable, murderous, and inhuman behavior. If we lived in the 12th century, we would be have a different discussion. But we don’t.
And you are correct. In my opinion that is how I would characterize anyone who states:
Now that I read it again I admit there is another possibility. Since this is what you “believe”, you can be just mind-numbingly wrong. Now you have three choices.
Thank goodness. Because that person is dealing with facts in the real world. I really don’t see what you’re arguing about in the three statements you quoted.
Huh. You don’t consider the ‘troubles’ in Ireland to be a contemporaneous example of how religion can be used in bad ways? Or the abortion clinic bombings?
Except that Christianity is essentially unchanged since it’s days of barbarism. They still use the same Bible, they still believe that Jesus said the same things. But three hundred years ago, they were using those exact teachings are a reason to rape and pillage their way through Thuringia. And now they’re not. So it’s clearly not accurate to say that there was something inherent to Christianity that made the Christians of that era into murderous psychopaths.
But that’s exactly the argument you’re making against Islam today. You’ve even admitted that, when Christians throughout Europe were gleefully slaughtering each other in the name of God, Muslims were far more advanced and enlightened. But the Koran used at the height of the Ottoman Empire is the same Koran used in the caves of Tora Bora. If Islamic terrorism is caused by something intrinsically disordered in Islam, how is it that Islam has not always been just as barbaric as you claim it is today? And more importantly, if there’s something intrinsically disordered in Islam, why has it only infected less than a third of practicing Muslims worldwide? If Islam is, by its nature a barberous and dangerous faith, why aren’t all Muslims dangerous barbarians?
You think I’m a blinkered idiot and an Islamic apologist who doesn’t live in the real world. I think you’re a prejudiced little hick whose attitudes are a far bigger threat than Islam. Shall we leave it there, or just continue to go round in circles?
I think in both cases some of the less savory aspects of the historical development of doctrine and code of moral behavior are being used as justification for inhumane cultural behavior. A scholarly Quaker online friend on another forum used to refer to this as “playing the God card” – “I win, because it says right here that God’s Will is to do what I’m arguing for.”
Jesus (generally, and badchad will enumerate the clear exceptions) and Mohammed (ditto, with one of our several anti-Islamicists handling the job) taught a code of humane behavior towards others coupled with enlightened, altruistic self-interest. But the axe-grinders in both faiths can pick up on those exceptions, rationalize by extrapolation and “interpretation” of teachings to mean something other than what they appear to mean in context, etc., to “play the God card” to seemingly justify the most abhorrent of behavior.
I’ve given up on trying to find a solution for this trait. The best I can do is pattern my own behavior after what I believe to be right, and let others do likewise, calling the God-card players on it when they’re most egregiously wrong.
Notice the word you used, “essentially”. While the tenets and the books they are based on have been consistent, the interpretation of what it means to be Christian has changed. You might have noticed the lack of babies being smashed upon rocks.
You misunderstand my position. I don’t care what the religion is or what it says. If virtually every terrorist act visited upon western civilization was committed by people belonging to the same religious or philosophical group, and 30% of that group thought that such barbarism okay, I think it wise to view that group with wariness. And I don’t care if that group made up of is Quakers or Mennonites or Buddhists or Boyscouts or Elks or Red Sox Fans or Whateverists. If Islam can be interpreted to be this religion of peace and adherents aren’t encouraged to kill non-adherents, fine. Let’s see it. Let Islam clean up its own stable. We’ve had this discussion before. All these good Muslims have not been near vocal enough. If they’re fine with their religion being portrayed the way it is, maybe there’s a reason. Maybe they don’t fully reject such barbarism. Maybe they just don’t know how to do the PR. Either way, I am left to deal with the world as it is.
To recap: there is something in Islam—more than in other religions—that encourages people to be murderers and barbarians. The proof is the people who are coommiting such atrocities in the world, and time, we live in. That and the study. It’s getting harder and harder fopr the apologists to just handwave them as a bunch of fringe loonies. Wake up, Miller, wake up. Suspending judgement prevents you of identifying the threat. If this is what our ancestors did we wouldn’t be here. It’s one thing to let the dog into the cave, it’s quite another to let the bear in. Even thought their both four-legged furry meat-eaters with sharp teeth and powerful jaws.
Yeah, I did notice that. It was sort of the cornerstone of the argument I was making in the post you just quoted.
I know we’ve had this discussion before. Last time we had it, I gave you evidence of overwhelming disapproval across the Muslim world of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Massive rallies, condemnation from virtually every major Muslim government or political organization. And you dismissed it as “not enough.” Because let’s be honest: there is no amount of Muslim condemnation of terrorist violence that would be enough for you to admit that you’re wrong. You don’t want to deal with the world as it is. You want to deal with a world where the bad guys are easily labeled, and you don’t have to worry about treating people as individuals.
Actually, it’s incredibly easy, and gets easier every time we have this conversation.
Who’s suspending judgement? I’m more than willing to judge people by their actions. You want to judge them by their associations. One of these positions is moral and principled, and will work in the long run to both accurately identify threats, and to prevent future threats from arising. And then there’s what you believe in.
is that the people making them almost go out of their way to ignore all the contrary evidence. The majority of Muslims who are engaged in acts that are portrayed as barbaric (as opposed to such civilized acts as using the world’s highest tech weapons to invade unthreatening countries for domestic political gain), are people who are caught up in struggles for territory or power in places where they have been suppressed–often because of their religion–or where they are squabbling for territory or control in areas where multiple groups have been dispossessed by foreign (usually colonial) intruders. There are young men in countries not so affected who will join the “movements” just as there have been men in Western societies who have joined movements to promote or oppose communism or fascism in the last century, but they only represent the young and restless youth of any generation.
Despite claims that it is Islam prompting the “bad” behavior, there is no place where Islam resides in a stable society where such barbarity is tolerated or encouraged. To use a new, if overused, phrase, Islam is the new communism. It is simply a bugbear that people who are afraid to examine issues in depth can hold up as the generalized bogeyman, making it easier to find targets to hate and fear than it would be to actually examine real issues.
Overwhelming evidence? Nope. If it was overwhelming I would be more in your camp.
Have you lost your mind? Let me get this straight, with the new information regarding the 30% you think that your argument is now stronger? Miller, I advise you to put down the hookah and let the cobwebs clear.
You refuse to make a judgement that might allow us to narrow from where the threat comes, allowing us to better protect ourselves before the damage is done. Can we say that the Amish are not a terrorist threat? Please answer that.
I’ve read about some of the sentences handed down by Imams and panels of religious elders. That is what so sick. Not the few violent men who act out on their own, the atrocities that are handed down after deliberation. I ask you, I have 100 Amish in one room and 100 Muslims in another, one person is a terrorist. Which room is he likely to be in?
This 90 lashes thing is just an atypical and untoward occurence not related to Islam in any way, other than being a product of Islamic law. Like honor killings all over the Middle East, and the practice of jailing women who make rape accusations in Iran, and suicide bombings and keeping schoolgirls trapped in burning schools because they’re not proplerly dressed for the street, and stoning women to death for adultery, and that Iranian judge who hanged an adolescent girl to death (took his time about it, too, making it a torture death) for speaking defiantly to him, and … well, it’s a mighty long list, a MIGHTY long list … well, they’re ALL atypical and meaningless occurences that have nothing to do with Islam.
Y’know, just like the Catholic hierarchy had nothing at all to do with all those instances of preists engaging in pedophilia.
No fire here. Just smoke. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of smoke.
Gee, I have two groups of 100 people with one group selected from a pool of about 200,000 people and one selected from a pool of around 1 and a half billion people. Which pool is more likely to have a terrorist in its midst?
I don’t think that really addresses his point. But aside from that, if terrorism were just as prevalent among the Amish, wouldn’t the odds of finding 1 in a 100 increase if selecting such a small pool from the whole population?
Of course not. It’s looking like people here have a lot of trouble with math. I’m no math whiz, but even I can figure that a small proportion of a billion or two would translate to an almost indiscernable proportion of a number that’s much smaller.
It could not be a simpler question. Your inability to answer it confirms my suspicions.
Wouldn’t one would expect to find as many supporters of terrorism proportionally in any population if their religions were T-irrelevant. Are there any known Amish supporters of terrorism? Supposing there are, say, 20,000 supporters of terrorism among the worldwide Muslim population and a similar number among the worldwide Christian population. Shouldn’t there be at least 2 or 3 among the Amish population?
With regards to Jesus, I would point out that he used hate speech with such frequency that it can’t really be referred to as “exceptions.” You mislead people when you imply as much. I haven’t yet read the Koran, so I can’t say if Mohammed was as much as a hate monger as Jesus was.
Well, actually Polycarp most fundamentalists (at least with regards to Christianity) have a plethora of verses to choose from, while in your particular version of Christianity, you have to winnow the bible down to only two verses to follow. As such I really don’t think you can argue that Bin Laden plays the god card in any differently then the way you do.
It’s easy, stop worshiping moral miscreants.
I can agree with that. To actually follow the bible, the words of Jesus, and I imagine the same for Mohammed, would be far inferior.
That’s simply false. Your username is so fitting because you’re like the little kid who thinks daddy is a meanie for being angry that you destroyed your toys. And so to punish daddy, you follow your little brother around and take it out on him. And you ignore the person whose correction you most fear.