Islamic People are Insane

[predator CA]

I'm as atheist, and don't like to say that I discriminate against one religion to another, as far as saying one is more wrong than another. But, after Muslims' reaction to those Dutch comics of Muhamad and their recent reaction to the Pope's comments, I cannot help but have the opinion that these people are truly insane. They may actually be sane individuals and their life experience may have made them the way they are, but either way, they do certainly have irresponsible and highly radical believes.

These people, as a whole, are certainly far more dangerous and crazy than any other religious group. They offend beyond words, and I have two questions. Why are they so rediculously insane, and what can we do about them. I would also love to hear anyone else's specific complaints about these people.

[primitivefuture]

The brilliance of you analysis never fails to amaze me :rolleyes:

Muslims use a similar logic to show atheists are insane.

[SLD]

I'm as atheist, and don't like to say that I discriminate against one religion to another, as far as saying one is more wrong than another. But, after Muslims' reaction to those Dutch comics of Muhamad and their recent reaction to the Pope's comments, I cannot help but have the opinion that these people are truly insane. They may actually be sane individuals and their life experience may have made them the way they are, but either way, they do certainly have irresponsible and highly radical believes.

These people, as a whole, are certainly far more dangerous and crazy than any other religious group. They offend beyond words, and I have two questions. Why are they so rediculously insane, and what can we do about them. I would also love to hear anyone else's specific complaints about these people.

The problem isn't individual muslims. The problem is groupthink. I've lived in an Arab country, and found the people very nice - individually. But they'd also get in groups and turn almost violent.

Religion screws with people's brains. All religion. Christianity has mellowed some over the years, but there are many out there who aren't much better - see Fred Phelps in particular and many of Roy Moore's followers down here in Talibama.

Violence against those who disagree with us always lurks beneath the surface. It really only takes a leader to set it off - "those others aren't right -it's ok to kill them." Religion provides a ready made excuse - it's not just me -it's the creator god himself who wants those infidels dead.

Worked for the Crusades. Works now for islamic terrorism.

I would suspect though that in the next 100 or so years, Islam will also mature. The world is too interconnected for them to just shut themselves off from the rest of us. Many, many arabs don't want any part of violence and even quite a few are secularists (at least in the closet). Judaism was violent when it started, Christianity was violent once it got into power. Eventually they morphed into something else (for a good portion of their leadership anyways). I would prefer that we get rid of all of them. But I'm not holding my breath anytime soon.

SLD

[Mace]

Groupthink in general can turn people violent. I guarantee you put the right amount of atheists in a situation where they're worked up and they'll start a riot.

Extremist attitudes in general are dangerous, and that just doesn't apply to muslims. Once you get extreme enough in attitude you start thinking it's right to make others think like you, and that's when I say the line is drawn.

"And you can take that to the everfucking bank, Paulie."

[SLD]

Groupthink in general can turn people violent. I guarantee you put the right amount of atheists in a situation where they're worked up and they'll start a riot.

Extremist attitudes in general are dangerous, and that just doesn't apply to muslims. Once you get extreme enough in attitude you start thinking it's right to make others think like you, and that's when I say the line is drawn.

"And you can take that to the everfucking bank, Paulie."

Groupthink is what kept Nazism alive and well for over a dozen years.

I once witnessed something similar while visiting PTL in South Carolina. It was right after Jim Baker had been ousted and Jerry Falwell was actually visiting the very day I came. Massive protests. People walking around like zombies waving their hands. It suddenly dawned on me how the Nazis did it. All you need are a few leaders and people will follow - it matters not what the message is - people just want the security of being told what to do and how all will be well. Groupthink. Gotta love it!

SLD

[David B]

I'm as atheist, and don't like to say that I discriminate against one religion to another, as far as saying one is more wrong than another. But, after Muslims' reaction to those Dutch comics of Muhamad and their recent reaction to the Pope's comments, I cannot help but have the opinion that these people are truly insane. They may actually be sane individuals and their life experience may have made them the way they are, but either way, they do certainly have irresponsible and highly radical believes.

These people, as a whole, are certainly far more dangerous and crazy than any other religious group. They offend beyond words, and I have two questions. Why are they so rediculously insane, and what can we do about them. I would also love to hear anyone else's specific complaints about these people.

Some Muslims are insane. Others might get pissed off by generalisations like yours.

Some atheists are insane.

One might question whether it is wise to believe in the supernatural - but one would be hard pressed to argue that all those who believe in the supernatural are insane.

Extreme muslim fundamentalism is dangerous and nasty - but only nastier in degree, not in kind, than those Christian fundies who will kill medical personel for legally ending a pregnancy.

To characterise all muslims as you do seems to me, frankly, stupid.

How can it pragmatically help bring Muslims into the mainstream of contemporary thought?

What other purpose can it serve?

And is it, in fact, true?

The answers I come up with to those questions are 'not at all', 'none good' and 'no' respectively.

David B (awaits refutation with relish)

[BH]

I have a story to tell.

I was visiting a very hardline Church of Christ one time. This church was so hardline they thought using more than one cup in communion was a sin as well as Sunday School.

For some reason the issue of freedom of religion came up and I asked the preacher and visiting preacher (they had a Gospel Meeting going on) what they thought about it. They said they believed freedom of religion was unscriptural and if a Church of Christ member ever came to power it would be his duty to use the force of the law to silence all "false teachers". Now, in the Church of Christ a "false teacher" is anyone who doesn't preach Church of Christ doctrine.

The world is a scary place.

[Lilyofthevalley]

A very good exposition of groupthink is found in the novel Lajja by Taslima Nasreen. I couldn't put this book down.

[predator CA]

Some Muslims are insane. Others might get pissed off by generalisations like yours.

Some atheists are insane.

One might question whether it is wise to believe in the supernatural - but one would be hard pressed to argue that all those who believe in the supernatural are insane.

Extreme muslim fundamentalism is dangerous and nasty - but only nastier in degree, not in kind, than those Christian fundies who will kill medical personel for legally ending a pregnancy.

To characterise all muslims as you do seems to me, frankly, stupid.

How can it pragmatically help bring Muslims into the mainstream of contemporary thought?

What other purpose can it serve?

And is it, in fact, true?

The answers I come up with to those questions are 'not at all', 'none good' and 'no' respectively.

David B (awaits refutation with relish)


I am an atheist. I do not deny that Christians are not as wrong as Muslims and all other religions; I am only saying thay the irresponsibility of Islam is undermining the equallity of humankind and is demonstating to the world that they are "bad people," by them asserting that they are better than any other religion.

[David B]

I am an atheist. I do not deny that Christians are not as wrong as Muslims and all other religions; I am only saying thay the irresponsibility of Islam is undermining the equallity of humankind and is demonstating to the world that they are "bad people," by them asserting that they are better than any other religion.

Wouldn't you be hard pressed to find any religion that doesn't explicitly or implicitly assert that that religion isn't better than the others?

I'll concede the Bahai. Though IMV their religion is better than most.

Those muslims who do the suicide bombings and stuff are a very small minority of muslims.

Characterising the majority who don't do that as insane does not seem to me either pragmatically a good idea, or as true.

David B

[PyramidHead]

Why is it that we can't look at the word "Muslim," pick up the book they supposedly follow, and assume that anyone who would associate themselves with such barbaric, violent nonsense is at the very least dangerously irrational? If the majority of so-called "Muslims" do not desire to kill infidels, that's fine; they are simply not Muslims by the simplest and most reasonable definition (one who follows the teachings of the Koran). This controversy only arises for religion. If I say I practice a vegan lifestyle, and you go pick up a book on that lifestyle, there's a great chance you'll be able to understand the principles of how I decide what to eat. If I turn around and say, "Well, I eat certain birds and raw fish, but don't be alarmed, the majority of vegans do that too," then you'd be right to say I'm not a vegan. But when it's a religion, somehow it's left to the outside observer to determine just what brand of pick-and-choose the believer is using, rather than the burden being on the believer to either stick to the beliefs of their holy book or come up with another name for themselves. There's a forum member here who claims to be a Christian atheist. Just how far can the term be stretched? A Christian polytheist? A Christian noncognitivist? A Christian Muslim?

[Blui]

Well the thing is, is that labels are misleading.

There are Muslims that say you can kill for certain reasons, some say you cant.

Why? their both Muslims right.

It is because even though they identify themselves as Muslims, their actions are not all motivated by their religion.

Its like, in the Bible, there are passages that regulate and endorse slavery, but we know now that most if not all Christians dont really follow the Bible completely.

So their actions are not all based on their religion (in fact most of it isnt) but some is.

Then, the key point is, can their religion influence them to do bad things? if so, does their religion support the bad acts, then the religion should change.

[Rathpig]

A "moderate" Muslim would under most definitions of the word "moderate" be an apostate.

The reality of Islam is that if i say, "Allah Akbar Boom", everyone including Muslims know exactly what I mean.

(I can't remember who here at IIDB first said this, but it remains so universally true: )

No other religion defines "moderate" as someone who doesn't blow themselves up.

I challenge those Muslims who are not insane to either force a protestant reformation or abandon their destructive religion. To remain in this hate cult is clearly insane. The Koran was written by a megalomanic for the control of a culture of primatives. It has no place in the 21st century.

Rathpig
Qabîluhu and Allah is my dog. Mohammed is my swine.

[FatherMithras]

The brilliance of you analysis never fails to amaze me :rolleyes:

Muslims use a similar logic to show atheists are insane.
For once, we agree.

[Sarpedon]

Their behavior is perfectly sane. They live in cultures that, in general, place a high emphasis on personal status. Now, all cultures do this to some extent, but in western countries status and status symbols are linked with wealth, whereas in islamic cultures it is, in general (with some significant exceptions) based on a sort of reputation.

If someone in such a culture insults another, it is seen to be a threat to the latter's social standing. Thus the latter must retaliate, or be perceived as a weakling, or as tacitly agreeing to the truth of the original insult. Its perfectly rational behavior based on the environment. Until recently, Europe had a similar culture. The rules of Vendetta were gradually replaced by ritualized dueling, and that in turn died out in favor of court action. People simply began to value money, rule of law, and safety over perceived slights to reputation. This has not happened in Islamic cultures.

So, this behavior is perfectly sane. It is also extremely dangerous. I, for one, am not willing to compromise my right to free speach for someone else's perceived right not to have himself or his beliefs criticized. Such a mismatch of ethical views may very well lead to conflict. I, of course, perceive that my way is nobler, as I feel that I can live my life here, exercising my rights, without going and inflicting physical violence against other people who have different values, in contrast to people that feel they have the right to say what they will, AND punish those for saying something different. However, they doubtless could produce an argument that says that I am immoral and they are noble. So perhaps violence is inevitable. Its useless to blame people for cultural irreconcilability, but that doesn't mean that sometimes isn't necessary to kill them if they try to force their culture on oneself.

[Izmir Stinger]

Islam doesn't breed violence, poverty breeds violence. It is hard to separate the two because some of the world's greatest concentrations of poverty are physically co-located with the greatest concentration of Muslims.

I was at the counter-protest when the Alabama Supreme Court defied (and effectively disbarred) its Chief Justice Roy Moore and forced the 2-ton stone 10 Commandments monument removed from the courthouse. I attended the day it was scheduled for removal, and the next day when it was actually removed. The numerous "put them back" supporters had spent all morning (the first day) working themselves into a lather and when the removal crews showed up objects were thrown. Stuff like that can go downhill fast, and the local cops know that. People were taken away in cuffs, fast (to the faint sound of cheering from our section).

In a society with an economy that cannot afford a professional police force, let alone courthouses to protest outside of, then the same scenario would have escalated and groupthink would have resulted in bloodshed. The Christian dominated western societies with, on the whole, healthy economies and well trained/equipped police are less susceptible to riots because the police can prevent it either by quickly nabbing the "cast the first stone" people who act as the catalyst that move mobs to violence, or if they miss that opportunity, disperse them with tear gas. Poor places don't have that safety net. Also, there must be a legitimate grievance hidden somewhere behind all that anger and we just don't have as many grievances.

A riot in Tehran over a cartoon of Mohamed isn't evidence that Muslims are bad people or that Islam is an evil ideology (compared to other people and competing ideologies). It is evidence that Tehran is a crappy place to live. The absence of a riot (despite the potential for one) on the steps of the courthouse that Friday isn’t evidence that Christians are naturally more well behaved than Muslims, they aren’t; its evidence that Alabama is a safer place to live than Iran.

[Sarpedon]

A very wise post from Izmir.

But don't police forces in Islamic countries frequently stand aside for anti American, anti Israel protests, while a protest against a political or religious authority be stamped out quickly?

[Huon]

The brilliance of you analysis never fails to amaze me :rolleyes:

Muslims use a similar logic to show atheists are insane.

... or immoral psychopaths, sometimes.

[primitivefuture]

... or immoral psychopaths

Not my terminology, not my problem.

Peace :)

[TNorthover]

Not my terminology, not my problem.

Well, not the psychopath bit anyway.

[RexT]

Islam doesn't breed violence, poverty breeds violence. It is hard to separate the two because some of the world's greatest concentrations of poverty are physically co-located with the greatest concentration of Muslims.

I was at the counter-protest when the Alabama Supreme Court defied (and effectively disbarred) its Chief Justice Roy Moore and forced the 2-ton stone 10 Commandments monument removed from the courthouse. I attended the day it was scheduled for removal, and the next day when it was actually removed. The numerous "put them back" supporters had spent all morning (the first day) working themselves into a lather and when the removal crews showed up objects were thrown. Stuff like that can go downhill fast, and the local cops know that. People were taken away in cuffs, fast (to the faint sound of cheering from our section).

In a society with an economy that cannot afford a professional police force, let alone courthouses to protest outside of, then the same scenario would have escalated and groupthink would have resulted in bloodshed. The Christian dominated western societies with, on the whole, healthy economies and well trained/equipped police are less susceptible to riots because the police can prevent it either by quickly nabbing the "cast the first stone" people who act as the catalyst that move mobs to violence, or if they miss that opportunity, disperse them with tear gas. Poor places don't have that safety net. Also, there must be a legitimate grievance hidden somewhere behind all that anger and we just don't have as many grievances.

A riot in Tehran over a cartoon of Mohamed isn't evidence that Muslims are bad people or that Islam is an evil ideology (compared to other people and competing ideologies). It is evidence that Tehran is a crappy place to live. The absence of a riot (despite the potential for one) on the steps of the courthouse that Friday isn’t evidence that Christians are naturally more well behaved than Muslims, they aren’t; its evidence that Alabama is a safer place to live than Iran.
Nice post and well documented, but it is an oversimplification of reality. There are many forms of violence and many causes, poverty and dispair are among them, and this you can find any place in the world. Yet, the topic here is not violence in general, but rather, the violence of Islamic fascisim.

All one need do is look to Osama bin laden, very wealty and privileged individual and leader of one of the most violent cults today. Here, your theory of poverty and dispair falls away and we must to look other causes. Who knows what drives a man like Osama, but there is one aspect I recognize right away, and that is his hatred.

Now why would Osama be so filled with hatred against the western world? Is it because we are imperfect, no, every culture has imperfections, is it because we are wealthy and privileged, no, unless Osama hated his own wealth and privilege too, not likely. Well, we could go on guessing about this, or, we could take Osama at his own word for why he hates the west. Osama says the west is like the great satan, it is evil, full of infidels. He says that the west is an abomination to god, and that god shall destroy it. Hum...

Where do you suppose he got such ideas? Could it be that his religion, that Islam is where he arrived at those ideas and could it be that this religion promotes these feelings?

Rex

[RyMantys]

Islamic violence is a new phenomenon. Islamic terrorism is even newer. There is a direct correlation between Islamic violence and the socio-political events of these times.
Words of violence exist in the Quran, in the Bible and in the Thorah, so sorry, that's not an argument to decide that Islam is more violent a religion than the others.
The fact is that Muslims feel there is a "cold crusade" being organized wolrwide against them, that is what's stirring things up. My opinion is that a few decades earlier, Muhammed cartoons and Pope's speech wouldn't have had that effect.
You want a reason why Muslims are "violently insane"? Don't look towards their religion, look towards Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and especially towards USA and Israel.
And yes, I know, someone's gonna tell me it's oversimplificating, finding excuses and so forth...

[Agnostheist]

Islamic violence is a new phenomenon.

then what do you call this?

Quran 4:34

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.




You want a reason why Muslims are "violently insane"? Don't look towards their religion, look towards Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and especially towards USA and Israel.
And yes, I know, someone's gonna tell me it's oversimplificating, finding excuses and so forth...

In there I see persecuted jews & christians. But these folks arent violently insane.

Muslims persecute hindus too, and they arent violently insane either.

how do you explain that?

[RyMantys]

Oh, so because the Quran says that men can beat their women, that's the reason why Muslims put bombs on buses. Right? What are we talking about, Agnotheist? Stick to the damn subject or open another thread about women abuse, ok? I refuse to discuss that here (though I will tell you I am totally against wife-beaters and gods that excuses them, AND against terrorist bombers too).

So, Muslims are NEVER persecuted, is that your point? They are the evil bastards that attack everyone? Geez, sorry, I thought there were Israeli bombs falling over Lebanon a few weeks ago (falling on some christian heads by the way). I thought Israel attacked Palestine and abducted its democratically elected leaders. I thought there was an american army of occupation in Irak. I must have totally MISUNDERSTOOD who was the agressor.
And about persecuted Hindus, run a search on some places like Gujarat and Ahmedabad, before mouthing stupidities about a conflict so complex.

[Izmir Stinger]

All one need do is look to Osama bin laden, very wealty and privileged individual and leader of one of the most violent cults today. Here, your theory of poverty and dispair falls away and we must to look other causes. Who knows what drives a man like Osama, but there is one aspect I recognize right away, and that is his hatred.

It is not the greedy Sheiks or corrupt Imams or wealthy business moguls who strap a bomb to their chest and climb aboard buses, nor their sons or wives or any of their family. Bin Laden is incredibly wealthy. His home country could have a very good standard of living due to its immense natural resources, but the wealth is concentrated in the royal family and a very elite few. Osama is not going to be doing any personal blowing up of people or stuff any time soon. I'd be very surprised if he even knows how to break down an AK-47, or clear a jam. He is a leader of violent men; he is not violent. He did not participate in any riots over a cartoon. If Afghanistan had the same standard of living as, say, Italy, his organization would have serious recruiting problems. There is a very big difference between the kinds of people that can send people to kill and be killed for a cause and the people willing to do the killing and be killed for said cause.

People living in gut wrenching poverty have very little hope. Al Qaeda gives these people hope for a better life, all they have to do is die first. There is an inverse relationship between what they will do for an eternal reward and how good their life is. The radical Imams who preach violence and promise eternal reward, if the reward is that good and they are so certain it is available, why don't they go get it? Their life doesn't suck.

The relationship between poverty and violence is the same in this country; we just have the civic infrastructure to keep it in check. Do you think gangbangers hang their heads in shame, privately disparaging themselves for not amounting to anything? No! They walk tall with their heads held high. "Look at me, I'm in a gang!" The dream of becoming a big time drug kingpin and fucking all the fine ass hos is just as enticing (and just as unrealistic) as the dream of 72 virgins in paradise. You have to have a pretty crappy life to buy this kind of snake oil.

It provides them with a sense of importance they could never get elsewhere. A family, a community, loyalty of other gang members and usually an income far exceeding any realistic non-violent goal. All of the things they think they want in life but can't have because they are poor and "the man" is trying to keep them that way, they get them (or the illusion of it) from joining a gang.

There are many parallels between how a bright young man from West Philadelphia winds up in the Philly Crips, and how a bright young man from Damascus winds up in Al Qaeda. The reasons center on their personal poverty and the prevailing social situation which caused it. The young man from Philly may think he is poor and will always be poor because of racist whites. The Syrian man may think he will always be poor because of American imperialism.

They both have a precieved enemy and very little to loose.

[primitivefuture]

then what do you call this?

Quran 4:34

*


Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

http://www.towardsislam.com/dan_1988/2006/02/does-surah-nisa-434-degrades-women-is.html

Read it carefully, memorize it if you can. This will prevent you from asking this retarded question again.

Oh, so because the Quran says that men can beat their women, that's the reason why Muslims put bombs on buses. Right? What are we talking about, Agnotheist? Stick to the damn subject or open another thread about women abuse, ok? I refuse to discuss that here (though I will tell you I am totally against wife-beaters and gods that excuses them, AND against terrorist bombers too).

So, Muslims are NEVER persecuted, is that your point? They are the evil bastards that attack everyone? Geez, sorry, I thought there were Israeli bombs falling over Lebanon a few weeks ago (falling on some christian heads by the way). I thought Israel attacked Palestine and abducted its democratically elected leaders. I thought there was an american army of occupation in Irak. I must have totally MISUNDERSTOOD who was the agressor.
And about persecuted Hindus, run a search on some places like Gujarat and Ahmedabad, before mouthing stupidities about a conflict so complex.

Finally, someone with intellect speaking.

[Draconis]

All god believers are insane, to an extent. How can Atheists be insane? We're not the ones believing something that doesn't exist actually does.

[Rathpig]

All god believers are insane, to an extent. How can Atheists be insane? We're not the ones believing something that doesn't exist actually does.

It is rather amazing that anyone who believes the moon-god (et.al.) punishes them or rewards them for human behavior would have the arrogance to call anyone insane.

But it seems there are those who would attempt to excuse the obvious and well documented misogyny of Islam.

It seems there are those who overlook the Medieval reality of 21st century Islam.

It seems there are those who excuse the barbarity and pedophilia of their illiterate criminal prophet-god.

It even seems there are those who think the opinions of the superstitious theists hold weight to those who follow logic and reason.

It seems that all theism is somewhat insane. To which degree this insanity varies by the poor individual fools who worship their shadow gods, felonious holy men, and ignorant religious doctrine.

The Muslim stands out as perhaps the greatest of fools. So similar is the Muslim to the Morman and the Scientologist: Fools of the great con-man cult.

Rathpig
Laughing (mao) as each new Jihad finds IIDB, good luck Mohammadeans.

[Craigart14]

Isn't the problem that some members of each religion insist on reading their "sacred" books literally and on forcing their view of the supernatural onto the real world? Are the Muslim extremists not the logical equivalent of Christian apologists who insist that the Bible is inerrant even if they have to redefine simple words like "day" (which really means a thousand years) or invent tortured "logic" to explain away all the contradictions in the Bible? Even before I became an atheist (I was perhaps the most casual of Presbyterians, certainly not a fundamentalist), I was well aware that whatever my opinions of the supernatural might be, I had no right to force them on anyone else in any way. I might be right or I might be wrong, but there was never any doubt that shooting or stabbing someone of another opinion would cause that person to bleed and perhaps die, and that death was a) bad and b)irreversible and c)certainly beyond my right to inflict. It was either Montaigne or Voltaire who said "A man must put a high price on his conjectures to burn another man alive." Most of us, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, and Hindus (and even, I suspect, many Muslims) would agree with that. We have every right to believe what we choose, to follow whatever religious teachings we choose, to pray as we choose, etc., but not to inflict our beliefs on others. Yet there are some people who believe that they and they alone know what "sacred" books really mean and who take upon themselves the authority of God, pricing their conjectures far above the value of human life and happiness. Of course, a thousand years ago, the leadership of the universal (Catholic) Christian church did exactly that, too. Yet today most of us in the West do not; people come before conjectures.

So what happened? The Reformation happened, freeing people from the princes of the Church, allowing them to read the Bible for themselves, to thnk critically about what they read, and to draw different conclusions. Has Islam been through a Reformation? The Renaissance happened, and people in the West began to realize that their happiness--not just their subservience to the Church and the aristocracy--was a worthwhile goal, and suddenly we had humanism. Has Islam had a Renaissance that resulted in the spread of humanism? The Enlightenment happened, and science slowly began to overturn superstition. Yes, the Muslim world gave us algebra, etc., and preserved much of the lost wisdom of classical Greece and Rome, but has Islam ever allowed science to overturn its superstition?

There are some things we believe that simply don't hold water. "Crime does not pay." Well, in many cases it pays pretty well, and the police only solve about ten percent of all crimes. Should we teach the sentiment or the facts in sociology or political science? "For every drop of rain, a flower grows." Nice idea, but has anybody counted the raindrops and the flowers? Should we teach this idea in science class? I heard a man (Kirk Cameron's father, actually) say with perfect sincerity on the Daily Show that gay men drink each other's urine. Should I teach that to my children?

Thomas Jefferson, in defending religious freedom, pointed out that his neighbor's beliefs are really of no concern to him. "Whether he believes in one god, or many gods, or no god, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Well, sometimes it does. Sometimes churches receive tax-exempt status despite owning millions of dollars worth of real estate and raking in millions of dollars in donations. Sometimes the federal government gives millions of dollars to "faith-based" organizations and exempts them from federal eeoc hiring standards, thereby financing discrimination. We're paying higher taxes partly because they don't pay any. Sometimes religious zealots do break your leg--or blow your entire body to smithereens.

Why is it only the zealots? The Old Testament features many episodes of Yahweh-sanctioned violence and genocide, so why don't all Jews and Christians stone adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, and rebellious, drunken sons? Answer: Humanism. Most of the West has realized that OT laws are too barbaric for the good of society. To let these laws go, we must realize that they are not literally the word of an almighty God who is going to send us to hell for disobeying, but rather the laws of primitive men trying to hold a primitive society together. Some have not. Most of us believe that violence and genocide are wrong, that adultery is not the business of the State, that homosexuality is not, that apostasy is not, and that rebellion and drunkenness may be wrong, but they should not be punishable by death. And religious freedom has kept any one religious group from imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. Put Fred Phelps in power and give him the red button. See how many minutes pass before global carnage results.

So what's with Islam? Power, for one thing, entire countries ruled by clerics, and extremists who want the entire Muslim world ruled by a single Caliph. No freedom of speech. No tolerance for other views. Remember all the riots in Europe and America when Khomeini issued the fatwah condemning Salman Rushdie? Remember all the bombed mosques? The West accepts free speech--well, most of the West. And we do have our hot buttons. But look at the violence in the Muslim world over the Pope's ill-advised remarks. Are all those rioters extremists? Al Quaeda must be bigger than I thought. And they're demanding an apology? How about their apologizing for the burned churches and the murdered Westerners? Remember the riots over the beauty pageant in Lagos? The spark there was a newspaper article defending the pageant by saying that the contestants were good women and that the Prophet might even have married one of them. There must be a lot of Muslim extremists around if riots can occur so quickly. Of course, there have been times in Western history when riots occurred over an offensive word or speech. Most of the West has accepted the idea that the only right response to speech you don't like is more speech.

I guess I'm rambling here, but I've got Al Franken in my ear, which is sort of a distraction. It seems to me, though, that even people who would say that they hate humanism are influenced by it, and by that I mean the moderates and liberals of all faiths. Enforcing religious laws as originally written would bring disaster to any society. In the case of fundamentalist Christians, even
they cherry-pick among the Mosaic laws, though most won't admit it. Even Fred Phelps, who advocates executing gays, has said that he doesn't want to execute drunkards.

I'm sure many Muslims hate the West (specifically, the US) because of our bumbling and disastrous foreign policy. (Indians hated the British, but handled their situation somewhat differently.) Palestinians want their land back--though they have conveniently forgotten that they left voluntarily because their leaders promised to destroy Israel in 1948, while Jews in neighboring Arab countries were forcibly expelled--and certainly they hate the US for its support of Israel. But does the rest of the Muslim world care about the Palestinians? Bin Laden seldom mentioned them. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran--how many refugees have they absorbed? The 700,000 expelled Jews were absorbed into Israel, the US, and some European nations; they weren't left to fester in "camps" for sixty years.

Extremists in any religion are dangerous precisely because they value their conjectures above human life. Islamic violence is not new; Islam has been spread by the sword since 632. Terrorism may be new, but so is the technology that allows a handful of men to destroy skyscrapers. Christian violence is not new, either; what is new about Christian fundamentalists is their political savvy. The shariah (Islamic law) has been enshrined as secular law througout the Muslim world. Suppose Christian apologetics became the law of the land in the West?

They're all dangerous in their own way. If the West stands FOR anything, it will have to stand AGAINST them.

Craig

[Oikoman]

In there I see persecuted jews & christians. But these folks arent violently insane.

Muslims persecute hindus too, and they arent violently insane either.

how do you explain that?

Christians aren't violently insane? Where were you during the last world war? Does "Gott mit uns" not sound familiar?

[Agnostheist]

http://www.towardsislam.com/dan_1988/2006/02/does-surah-nisa-434-degrades-women-is.html

Read it carefully, memorize it if you can. This will prevent you from asking this retarded question again.

Read your link before you go making such an idiotic response. from your site...

Beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage.


what a lovely excuse for domestic violence.

[Agnostheist]

Christians aren't violently insane? Where were you during the last world war? Does "Gott mit uns" not sound familiar?

they were just behaving like everybody else back then.

violently insane is what the islamist insurgents are doing to muslim civilians in iraq, killing them by the thousands in just the month of july. its insane because they blow themselves up to blow to kill bystanders and children.

[expatlady]

http://www.towardsislam.com/dan_1988/2006/02/does-surah-nisa-434-degrades-women-is.html

Read it carefully, memorize it if you can. This will prevent you from asking this retarded question again.

Oh, I see. It's only a light beating. That makes it ok. Where do I sign up? You're joking, right?

[nick73]

The whole issue of muslims and their apparent intollerance, I find very tricky.
When I watch the news I can feel myself getting drawn into the intended stimulus / response syndrome of ...what kind of religeon shoots a nun / bombs a train etc. I do genuinely have to remind myself not to castigate and enire religeon based on the actions of a few (i know its a well worn cliche)

What I would like to know is where are all the moderate followers of Islam? I mean, if extremists exist, they must be extremem relative to something, so then moderates must also exist right? So where are they. They are never on the news, or make public statements that are reported in any depth.

I keep thinking either there are no moderates, or the media is deliberatly ignoring them. I'm not sure which i find the most worrying. At best Islm has an image problem, and the moderates need to speak up, at worst there are no moderates, and F"%^ knows where that will leave us. I remember my PhD Supervisor teling me 8 years ago that we would see

"running battles in the streets of britain between us and muslims in my lifetime".

I thought it was the ramblings of a bigoted old soak, but Im getting less and less sure

Finally, I'm not isane, I know for a fact ..God told me himself.

[Huon]

In France, there is an official organisation named :
Conseil Français du Culte Musulman (CFCM)
French Council of the Muslim Cult.

This Council is presently managed by a President, named Dalil Boubakeur.
Since this organisation has to negociate with the legal authorities, about the building of mosques, the muslim sectors of the cemeteries, the organisation of the religious celebrations, the formation of the imams, etc... this organisation has to show a law-abiding behavior.

Frequently (once a year ?) Dalil Boubakeur shows himself, along with the Cardinal of Paris, and the Great Rabbi of Paris. Sometimes there is also the Protestant representative.:cool:

[southernhybrid]

I'm sure many Muslims hate the West (specifically, the US) because of our bumbling and disastrous foreign policy.

Yes they do. They have been the victims of the imperialistic policies of the West, not just the US, for many years. Additionally, one gets the impression that Muslim immigrants have been purposely isolated and alienated by their adopted countries. They see the West as exploiting their resources, and treating them as less than equals.

Additionally they have extremely different cultural values than those of us in the Western world. They are offended by our open sexuality and by our excessive materialism. That certainly doesn't justify some of the violent reactions in recent years but it feeds the fire of hatred that probably began due to the feelings that may have been initially generated by our policies.


I think the spread of violence in the Muslim world is very complicated, and not simply related to poverty. Many of the perpetrators of the 911 incidents were highly educated and certainly not poverty stricken. I think it may be fair to say they were merely religious extremists. Of course that begs the question, how did this particular religion become so legalistic and extreme when it has had periods in its history that were very different from now?

[Oikoman]

they were just behaving like everybody else back then.

violently insane is what the islamist insurgents are doing to muslim civilians in iraq, killing them by the thousands in just the month of july. its insane because they blow themselves up to blow to kill bystanders and children.

Wow... the Canadian education system has really tanked, hasn't it? :banghead:

See... long before you were born, there were a bunch of people in a central European country who felt they were doing Gods work.....

[Oikoman]

I remember my PhD Supervisor teling me 8 years ago that we would see

"running battles in the streets of britain between us and muslims in my lifetime".



Let me guess... University of Leeds?

[Agnostheist]

See... long before you were born, there were a bunch of people in a central European country who felt they were doing Gods work.....

so did everyone else at that time. so tell me how that classifies as "insane".

[Oikoman]

so did everyone else at that time.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. :rolleyes:

What other countries were deliberately exterminating Europes Jewish population between the years of 1939 and 1945?

For that matter, what religion was responsible for the regular slaughter of their jewish neighbors throughout the last 1000 years, and for bonus points, what countries were peacefully coexisting with them for that same period?

[nick73]

Let me guess... University of Leeds?
Good guess, and i can see why...but cardiff

[Pavlov's Dog]

Christians aren't violently insane? Where were you during the last world war? Does "Gott mit uns" not sound familiar?

You don't even have to look that far back. Look at the violence in Northern Ireland. Look at the bombing of gay bars, abortion clinics and execution of abortion doctors in the United States over the last several years.

[Rathpig]

You don't even have to look that far back. Look at the violence in Northern Ireland. Look at the bombing of gay bars, abortion clinics and execution of abortion doctors in the United States over the last several years.

Though this is true, it seems you equate very infrequent, very isolated events (even in the Irish troubles) with daily life in the Middle East and the overwhelming attitude of Muslims as taught by their schools, clerics, and governments.

It is simply impossible to honestly say, "Christians do it too!", and have that mean anything in the current world. Some may flirt with Godwin's Law in an effort to equate German National Socialism with a "Christian" movement however this is boldly disingenuous. Why seek to disclaim Islam by these impoverished references to another religion. Even if accurate, and they are not circa 2000, it wouldn't excuse the utter depravity of the Muslim superstition.

Christians are fools in totality, but Muslims are violent in majority, fools in totality, and dangerous to themselves as well as others. No need exists to equate one groups rather benign stupidity with that of the obviously more dangerous cult.

I see no justification for the apologia that seems so frequent in certain Western political ideologies. Fuck Islam. Fuck Muslims. Fuck their swine god and pedophilic prophet. This should be the only response of the enlightened West.

Rathpig
Qabîluhu

[cajela]

But rathpig, IMO you're shooting yourself at least in the foot, if not in the head, by that approach. Some Muslims are indeed peaceful people, and some are not. Christianity, with its violent book, has its Fred Phelpses and its Quakers. So does Islam. The peaceful ones need encouragement, not abuse.

As I see it, Islam is in very bad need of a rennaissance, and any signs of it should be encouraged. Lumping them all together as evil terrorists does not help anyone except the terrorists. It lets them say "see, we were right, the west hates us all". Wonderful for recruiting. Crap for effecting positive change.

[geddit?]

Christians are fools in totality, but Muslims are violent in majority, fools in totality, and dangerous to themselves as well as others. No need exists to equate one groups rather benign stupidity with that of the obviously more dangerous cult.

I see no justification for the apologia that seems so frequent in certain Western political ideologies. Fuck Islam. Fuck Muslims. Fuck their swine god and pedophilic prophet. This should be the only response of the enlightened West.

Rathpig
Qabîluhu

Exactly what do you think should be done to ALL muslims?
When you say fuck 'em - that could be interpreted in alot of ways.

[Rathpig]

What my goal, via rhetoric, has become is to seek a swinging of the pendulum to one side so that an increasing number of people will realize the central point: Islam must be forced into Reformation. The only way this can be induced from the outside is to threaten the basis of Islam, which is ignorant obedience.

Now I know that Rathpig will have no actual influence on the Muslim world, so I don't fear that my rhetoric will unbalance world affairs. (umm, if only). I present my opinions and hope that this will perhaps cause one or two persons to think about the subject and realize the stupidity of even the "moderate" Muslim. When the majority of the non-Muslim world looks upon the Muslim as a mere fool, then Reformation is the only path the "moderate" element of Islam can follow. This isn't in anyway similar to the Reformation of Christianity except the fact that it must be internally forced.

I also take great delight in the fact that so many otherwise enlightened people feel a need to "defend" Islam and the fools that are Muslims. It doesn't matter to me that a nonviolent Muslim is somehow a "moderate". The very fact that they follow an ignorant and retarded doctrine is enough reason to call them fools. Likewise those who defend them.

Muslims, like Mormans, like Scientologists, like Christians, like Wiccans, like those who believe in Bigfoot or alien abductions, or all theists and the superstitious in general, are without reservation stupid people. I see no other way to describe their mental problem.

Please bang your apologia drums because it allows me a sounding board for my drum of reason.

Fuck Islam and the Muslim, both literally and figuratively, with the sharp stick of enlightenment.

Rathpig
less than a nice guy

[RexT]

It is not the greedy Sheiks or corrupt Imams or wealthy business moguls who strap a bomb to their chest and climb aboard buses, nor their sons or wives or any of their family. Bin Laden is incredibly wealthy. His home country could have a very good standard of living due to its immense natural resources, but the wealth is concentrated in the royal family and a very elite few. Osama is not going to be doing any personal blowing up of people or stuff any time soon. I'd be very surprised if he even knows how to break down an AK-47, or clear a jam. He is a leader of violent men; he is not violent. He did not participate in any riots over a cartoon. If Afghanistan had the same standard of living as, say, Italy, his organization would have serious recruiting problems. There is a very big difference between the kinds of people that can send people to kill and be killed for a cause and the people willing to do the killing and be killed for said cause.

People living in gut wrenching poverty have very little hope. Al Qaeda gives these people hope for a better life, all they have to do is die first. There is an inverse relationship between what they will do for an eternal reward and how good their life is. The radical Imams who preach violence and promise eternal reward, if the reward is that good and they are so certain it is available, why don't they go get it? Their life doesn't suck.

The relationship between poverty and violence is the same in this country; we just have the civic infrastructure to keep it in check. Do you think gangbangers hang their heads in shame, privately disparaging themselves for not amounting to anything? No! They walk tall with their heads held high. "Look at me, I'm in a gang!" The dream of becoming a big time drug kingpin and fucking all the fine ass hos is just as enticing (and just as unrealistic) as the dream of 72 virgins in paradise. You have to have a pretty crappy life to buy this kind of snake oil.

It provides them with a sense of importance they could never get elsewhere. A family, a community, loyalty of other gang members and usually an income far exceeding any realistic non-violent goal. All of the things they think they want in life but can't have because they are poor and "the man" is trying to keep them that way, they get them (or the illusion of it) from joining a gang.

There are many parallels between how a bright young man from West Philadelphia winds up in the Philly Crips, and how a bright young man from Damascus winds up in Al Qaeda. The reasons center on their personal poverty and the prevailing social situation which caused it. The young man from Philly may think he is poor and will always be poor because of racist whites. The Syrian man may think he will always be poor because of American imperialism.

They both have a precieved enemy and very little to loose.
You don't have to convince me, I do not disagree with you. Poverty and dispair are huge factors in violence. The point I was trying to make is that merely pointing to poverty as the cause of violence is an oversimplification of the problem. The world is very complex; poverty alone is not the cause of violence. There are millions of poor in the world who are not violent, I was once poor, but I was not violent. THere is no one factor that is the cause of violence.

Some want to blame mid-east violence entirely on the Islamic religion, and yes, it too is part of the problem, but it would also be an oversimplification to claim that religion causes violence; alone it does not. Complex problems require complex solutions, while simple solutions merely exacerbate the problem.

Rex

[Pavlov's Dog]

What my goal, via rhetoric, has become is to seek a swinging of the pendulum to one side so that an increasing number of people will realize the central point: Islam must be forced into Reformation. The only way this can be induced from the outside is to threaten the basis of Islam, which is ignorant obedience.

Yes, I think the Christian Reformation was forced from the outside by the Buddhists and some atheists.

[Rathpig]

Yes, I think the Christian Reformation was forced from the outside by the Buddhists and some atheists.

Then perhaps you think wrong, but you must realize that this is not the 16th century. There is not a direct connection between the one known event and a future possible event. Perhaps, again, you should look to an objective point uncoloured by your relations and biases in favor of this superstitious Mohammadean breed.

(Please notice my sarcastic smilies)

Rathpig

[geddit?]

What my goal, via rhetoric, has become is to seek a swinging of the pendulum to one side so that an increasing number of people will realize the central point: Islam must be forced into Reformation. The only way this can be induced from the outside is to threaten the basis of Islam, which is ignorant obedience.

Rathpig
less than a nice guy

(Sorry - don't know how to do the post hiding thing so I cut it down)

No issue at all with your goal. I asked for some clarification to prevent making an ass out of myself - so thanks. My initial reading of the post painted a much grimmer picture.

Where I disagree with you would be the all muslim statement. I look at the individual to make the determination of "benign or not".

I also disagree with the classification as christianity as practiced here and now being benign(paraphrase).

Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE&mode=related&search=

Thanks to poster WCH for finding this.

I don't know how large this movement is or how big it would have to be for you to change your mind but it's things like this which keep me to the "take it one person at a time" approach. I have to admit a deepseated mistrust of of groups in general though.

geddit?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Then perhaps you think wrong, but you must realize that this is not the 16th century. There is not a direct connection between the one known event and a future possible event. Perhaps, again, you should look to an objective point uncoloured by your relations and biases in favor of this superstitious Mohammadean breed.

(Please notice my sarcastic smilies)

Rathpig

Oh, maybe you should look to an objective point uncolored by your biases against Muslims. We can play this game all day.

I have no biases in favor of Muslims or against Muslims. I like some Muslims and I dislike some Muslims. I like some Christians and I dislike some Christians. Their religious beliefs and superstitions are all bunk to me. That is not bias. Your disdain for all Muslims no matter what they say or do is bias.

[Rathpig]

...I also disagree with the classification as christianity as practiced here and now being benign(paraphrase).

I really don't believe Christianity, per se, is a "benign" religion, but for the most part even Christians think the majority of their religion is bullshit. (I'm serious, ask your otherwise "Christian" friends about the more serious aspects of doctrine and they will equivocate like mad.)

The problem with Islam is that a vast majority of Mulsims actually believe the bullshit. (I'm serious, ask them and experience the double speak, the al-taqiya (even sunni ver. 2.0), experience the fact that Islam is more of a serious culture than the casual meaningless of modern Christianity.)

Now I haven't recently discussed the stupidity of the Christian superstition or it's validity as a threat because Christianity is a declawed and neutered cat: It can make alot of noise, but it doesn't really cause much more than the occasional shit outside the normal box or a puked-up hairball in your shoe.

Islam has become a crack-head pitbull: unfed, mean, bred for pain - unpredictable.

Leash laws should be enforced for both, err.. pets.

Rathpig
animal enforcement officer

[MHF]

Rathpig:

If you want to fight violence, you have to understand it.

Portraying "them" as insane only serves to make sure that we don't understand
it. Keep in mind that even if we're not currently doing it, history shows that
we're certainly capable of committing brutalities ourselves. That may not have
much bearing on the current conflict, but still, to understand something, one
has to have a broad look at things.

When violence comes from certain groups, you want to divide those
group (the wedge strategy), you want to drive the less violent members
away from the more violent ones. This would have been possible after 9/11
because there were plenty of Muslims that didn't like us but that also felt
that 9/11 went too far. We could have driven a wedge between those
ones and the ones that feel that indiscriminate killing is OK. Even then, we'd
still have to combat the more violent ones, but the point is that there would
have been much fewer of them.

The strategy of our government is the exact opposite: they aim to drive all
the various factions together so that instead of having a bunch of small
groups that don't get along, we'll end up with a big united front,
united in their hatred towards us. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on the
part of our government (after all, a war president needs a big war) or whether
this is accidental due to incompetence.

[Rathpig]

... Their religious beliefs and superstitions are all bunk to me. ....

Then please for God's sake quit defending the fucked-up and foolish Muslims. (I will bash Christians and other religions in due order to prove my "bias" is universal.)

Rathpig
equally biased

[Rathpig]

...The strategy of our government is the exact opposite: .... incompetence.

Agreed. The current U.S. Presidential Administration is incompetent (to put it mildly).

And criminal to put it exactly. One fool doesn't excuse another.

Rathpig
no "W" sticker on my SUV!

[Pavlov's Dog]

Then please for God's sake quit defending the fucked-up and foolish Muslims. (I will bash Christians and other religions in due order to prove my "bias" is universal.)

Rathpig
equally biased

I am not defending their beliefs, but I am also not going to buy into your hyperbole and generalizations. You can make a fine case against Islam without exageration, generalizations, or crazy conspiracy theories. People will take you more seriously too.

[Rathpig]

... People will take you more seriously too.

People "taking me seriously" on an internet message board is perhaps the greatest priority in my life: >insert sarcasm smilie<

Rathpig
Seeking a fandom: please worship my seriousness

[Pavlov's Dog]

People "taking me seriously" on an internet message board is perhaps the greatest priority in my life: >insert sarcasm smilie<

Rathpig
Seeking a fandom: please worship my seriousness

I wasn't refering to just on this message board, but if you don't care if people take you seriously that is fine with me. It doesn't really make for a good discussion when people think one of the participants is some type of angry lunatic.

[Oikoman]

You don't even have to look that far back. Look at the violence in Northern Ireland. Look at the bombing of gay bars, abortion clinics and execution of abortion doctors in the United States over the last several years.

And then of course there was Rwanda, where the local (catholic) church had an active role in encouraging and facilitating the genocide.

Add to that the rampant pedophilia within the catholic church, it tacit approval of Fascism in ITaly and Germany, official support for repressive regimes in Latin America (Liberation Theology notwithstanding), and I could rant on like Rathpig about how all catholics are evil and we should 'fuck-em', teach them a lesson, etc. and come across like some damn idiot.

Because of course most catholics are not evil, just like most Moslems are not evil - and while the catholic heirarchy like many of the Imams is corrupted and evil, it would be unfair, and completely counterproductive to beat every catholic with the same stick. Better to show them the corruptness of their leaders and let them draw their own conclusions, than demonize them like Rathpig would do with Moslems, thus uniting factions that otherwise oppose eachother. One would think that after the disaster in Iraq, we would have learned that violence only unites the oppressed (Saddam, hated by IRaqis pre-2003 is a hero, Iraq, once secular, is now run by popular fundamentalists, etc.).

Unfortunatly, some like Rathpig just can't quite grasp this basic but vital lesson. Thus, we have Christian hotheads and fanatics screaming for yet another war in Iran.

[Rathpig]

So the question remains is Islam similar to the Catholic religion with it's great list of historical crimes and abuses, or is Islam closer to a fascist movement and the known crimes and abuses of these ideologies.

I still have yet to see anyone defend the concept of "moderate" fascism.

It seems people are more than willing to make generalizations against entire groups when it befits their pet ideologies, but these same people make great strides towards apologia when it fits their viewpoint. Ahh, the great subjectivism reigns!


Rathpig

[Rathpig]

....Unfortunatly, some like Rathpig just can't quite grasp this basic but vital lesson. ....

And equally unfortunately, some like Oikoman just can't quite grasp the basic but vital lesson of taking a stand. Dhimmitude has become very popular it seems.

(I think Europe has done such a fine job of embracing moderate Islam that this "vital lesson" alone proves many of my larger points about Muslim culture. Or has this "vital lesson" escaped your viewpoint, Oikoman?)

Rathpig
non-Dhimmi

[Rathpig]

... It doesn't really make for a good discussion when people think one of the participants is some type of angry lunatic.

It doesn't really make for a good discussion when people think one of the participants is some type of spineless Dhimmi.

[dancer_rnb]

And equally unfortunately, some like Oikoman just can't quite grasp the basic but vital lesson of taking a stand. Dhimmitude has become very popular it seems.

(I think Europe has done such a fine job of embracing moderate Islam that this "vital lesson" alone proves many of my larger points about Muslim culture. Or has this "vital lesson" escaped your viewpoint, Oikoman?)

Rathpig
non-Dhimmi

I think part of Europe's problem (and mine) is that we have heard all this before, about the Jews. Someone called wolf once too often, and now (maybe) the wolf is here.

Added: and the wolf may not be exaclty as you describe it. It doesn't help to spend effort killing the wrong wolf.

[Oikoman]

And equally unfortunately, some like Oikoman just can't quite grasp the basic but vital lesson of taking a stand. Rathpig



Except your not taking a stand, your joining a bandwagon. As much as you may wish for it, reality is not as simple as you would like it to be, and by reducing a complex issue into such stark us-vs-them terms, your acting just like the fanatics and extremists that you claim to oppose.

[Rathpig]

I think part of Europe's problem (and mine) is that we have heard all this before, about the Jews. Someone called wolf once too often, and now (maybe) the wolf is here.

Added: and the wolf may not be exaclty as you describe it. It doesn't help to spend effort killing the wrong wolf.

Well I have remained on the philosophical level in my arguments and have at no time called for killing physical wolves. Here I would agree with you.

However, the analogy with Europe's Jews is misapplied because it was not the mythology of Judaism which was attacked but the physical aspect of Jewishness. That is a completely different situation, and I would condemn physical action against Muslims just as strongly as I condemn physical actions by Muslims.

What I would like to see is less deference to religion in general, but we should make no deference to the cult of Mohammad's dangerous culural practices. The problem with this "wolf" has been that we try to appease the worst aspects of Islam in an effort to appear "fair".

My views on Islam have been influenced greatly by Theo van Gogh (1957-2004). I see no reason to back off from the rhetoric. Islam is an ignorant superstition, and by association, Muslims are therefore ignorant and superstitious people. (Notice I make no reference to the underlying racial aspects of these people.)

Rathpig

[Rathpig]

Except your not taking a stand, your joining a bandwagon. As much as you may wish for it, reality is not as simple as you would like it to be, and by reducing a complex issue into such stark us-vs-them terms, your acting just like the fanatics and extremists that you claim to oppose.

When did I ever claim to oppose just "fanatics and extremists"? I thought the whole problem was my general opposition to "all" Muslims.

The only complexity in this issue is that certain parties and people, most often for political reasons, refuse to take Islam, the Koran, and the Muslim for their words and actions. The "complexity" has been added as an excuse to dismiss the reality of a Medieval superstition in the context of the 21st century.

Rathpig

[Ubercat]

Wouldn't you be hard pressed to find any religion that doesn't explicitly or implicitly assert that that religion isn't better than the others?

I'll concede the Bahai. Though IMV their religion is better than most.

Those muslims who do the suicide bombings and stuff are a very small minority of muslims.

Characterising the majority who don't do that as insane does not seem to me either pragmatically a good idea, or as true.

David B

I've never seen hundreds of thousands of christians rioting violently because someone claimed that they were violent. Seems like as good a definition of insanity as any other.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

A "moderate" Muslim would under most definitions of the word "moderate" be an apostate.

The reality of Islam is that if i say, "Allah Akbar Boom", everyone including Muslims know exactly what I mean.

(I can't remember who here at IIDB first said this, but it remains so universally true: )

No other religion defines "moderate" as someone who doesn't blow themselves up.

I challenge those Muslims who are not insane to either force a protestant reformation or abandon their destructive religion. To remain in this hate cult is clearly insane. The Koran was written by a megalomanic for the control of a culture of primatives. It has no place in the 21st century.

Rathpig
Qabîluhu and Allah is my dog. Mohammed is my swine.

Amen. At least when christians do something evil, you can find sizable groups of christians opposing it. Where were the muslim peace demonstrations after 9/11?

-Ubercat

[Oikoman]

Amen. At least when christians do something evil, you can find sizable groups of christians opposing it. Where were the muslim peace demonstrations after 9/11?

-Ubercat

In Iran, for one thing. Do you guys rely on Fox news for everything?

[Oikoman]

When did I ever claim to oppose just "fanatics and extremists"? I thought the whole problem was my general opposition to "all" Muslims.

The only complexity in this issue is that certain parties and people, most often for political reasons, refuse to take Islam, the Koran, and the Muslim for their words and actions. The "complexity" has been added as an excuse to dismiss the reality of a Medieval superstition in the context of the 21st century.

Rathpig

I'm not saying you oppose JUST fanatics and extremists, I'm saying that you are no different from them in your attitude. The Muslim religion is no more or less medieval than Christianity, as the past century has amply demonstrated. Just look at the recent history of Germany, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

And like the adherents of Christianity, opinions vary from the violent and the extreme to the moderate and peaceful.

BTW, what exactly are you doing to take a stand? What is your unit and how long have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Ubercat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
Amen. At least when christians do something evil, you can find sizable groups of christians opposing it. Where were the muslim peace demonstrations after 9/11?

-Ubercat

In Iran, for one thing. Do you guys rely on Fox news for everything?

I don't watch much news, Fox or otherwise. I read it on the web and in "The Week" magazine, which generally presents several sides to each issue. Were there really protest rallies in Iran after 9/11?

-Ubercat

[Oikoman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubercat
Amen. At least when christians do something evil, you can find sizable groups of christians opposing it. Where were the muslim peace demonstrations after 9/11?

-Ubercat



I don't watch much news, Fox or otherwise. I read it on the web and in "The Week" magazine, which generally presents several sides to each issue. Were there really protest rallies in Iran after 9/11?

-Ubercat

Yes.... for a brief moment, we had the whole worlds sympathy. Back then, popular support for the fundamentalists in Iran was at its lowest, and there were strong signs that the old guard were going to be swept away. Now, thanks to Bush and his supporters, the fundamentalists are stronger than ever, because they can promise their people protection against the threat of American invasion. (If that sounds familiar, its basically what Bush did to win himself a second election). Rather than toppling Islamic fundamentalism by force, Bush and those who insist on 'taking a stand' have in fact strengthened it.... something that is not a surprise to any student of history. Both Christianity and Judiasm have flourished the strongest when they have faced persecution, and faded back when they were the dominant religion. The same would happen to Islam, if the US and the UK would stop invading them every few decades.

[Rathpig]

I'm not saying you oppose JUST fanatics and extremists, I'm saying that you are no different from them in your attitude. The Muslim religion is no more or less medieval than Christianity, as the past century has amply demonstrated. Just look at the recent history of Germany, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

"The Muslim religion is no more or less medieval than Christianity"?

Though you have made reference to events in three countries you haven't shown that these events were done in the name of the Christian religion (rather than as a cultural war with religion as a mere descriptor), nor have you shown that these events were not isolated anomalies. Interestingly enough in the case of Germany and Yugoslavia the crimes committed in these countries were opposed and stopped by other "Christian" nations (to use your rather loose definition of religiousity).

And like the adherents of Christianity, opinions vary from the violent and the extreme to the moderate and peaceful.

It is here I think the "Medieval" aspect should be addressed:

No "Christian" nation, or majority Christian secular nation, supports non-majority religious taxation, misogynous legal codes, mutilation as criminal punishment, religious code enforcement police, or religious restricted areas.

No "Christian" nation is supporting, nor financing, religious-based terrorism.

Isolated incidents of terrorism in the name of the Christian religion are almost universally condemned by those of the Christian faith. No "Christian" nation celebrates violence and destruction aimed at a civilian population. Nor do "Christian" nations suppress those who protest against public policy.

A comparison of the two religions clearly shows that one side has yet to enter the modern era: Islam.

BTW, what exactly are you doing to take a stand? What is your unit and how long have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Because your argument is weak and your rhetoric weaker, you have committed a very amateur fallacy with this questioning remark. I am opposed to both these wars and think the efforts were counter productive. Though it should not be a concern of yours, or your business, I have "taken a stand" in this area on more than one occasion. Perhaps you should work on the substance of your arguments, and these fallacious questions would not be needed to bolster your points.

Rathpig

[Oikoman]

I think you need to do a bit of homework... in Rwanda, the catholic church encouraged Hutus to view Tutsis as 'cockroaches', held Hutu prisoners for torture and execution, and distributed weapons to the Hutu militias. Sounds pretty medieval to me. In Yugoslavia, the serbs justified their attacks on Muslim Bosnia based on an ancient battle fought 700 years ago which the Christians lost. They are still digging up bodies in Srebrenica. Whatever Hitlers personal religious beliefs, Christian animosity towards the Jews was used to promote the holocaust. And speaking of jews, why not look up the definition of 'ghetto' for a change? There is a 1000 year history of Christian European nations supporting non-majority religious taxation, non-majority legal codes, and religous restricted areas directed towards their jewish populations, continuing well into the last century. Hitler didn't start anti-semitism, he was a product of a long central European tradition.

Of course, it wasn't all against jews... look at Canadian and Australian history and you see active attempts by the larger Christian community to stamp out the religious beliefs of the First Peoples, including criminal prosecutions against religious services, forced abduction of children into state run re-education institutions, all continuing well into the 60's and 70's.

Want mysogeny? Ever heard of the Magdalen Asylums of Ireland? Wonder why abortion wasn't legalized until 1973 in the US? 1988 in Canada? Skim through most of the worlds Catholic countries (e.g., Latin America) and you will find the abortion is STILL illegal and that sexual education and birth control is restricted or limited. Sure, things have improved in Europe, but not in the rest of the world where the enlightenment has had less impact.

As for supporting and financing religious based terrorism, if the US really applied its anti-terrorism legislation, half of the American Irish population would be rotting in Belmarsh prison. I suppose also that you don't know about the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda, infamous for capturing children and turning them into soldiers against their own people. Or that the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah, fighting for an independant Nagaland in India, is Christian and has been responsible for almost 1000 deaths due to terrorist acts. They don't get much airtime in the West, but in India they are considered one of the most important terrorist groups. Gods Army in Burma is another terrorist group that is Christian. I'm not even including the homegrown terrorists of the US, ranging from the KKK (which up until the 60's targeted Jews and Catholics as well as blacks, and which was very much a protestant religious organization) to the more modern Christian Identity movement responsible for several assassinations in the US.

Taking only the 20th century into account, Christian countries have invaded just about every country in the middle East at least once (and most several times). Extend that back another hundred years, and you have a history of Christians coming into Africa, Latin America, and (to much less effect) Asia and forcibly converting the natives, a process that continued through into the last century until decolonization.

Hopefully now your getting the point that Christianity has equally dirty laundry, and that if 'we' are any better than Islam, it is only in the most recent generation. The flip side is that we have probably undone much of the dereligiousing progress that has been made in the Middle East... Iraq was a strongly secular nation with no conflict between Sunni and Shia, and between Islamic and Christian (many top Baathists were Christian), until we invaded and polarized the situation. During the time when pogroms were a regular occurance in Europe, the Jewish communities were thriving in the Islamic middle east... the current Jewish-Islamic hostilities date to just the last 100 years due to the forcible creation of Israel. Thanks to the civilized behavior of German Christians, there are more Jews in Iran then in some European contries.

History lesson over. :wave:

[Agnostheist]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. :rolleyes:

What other countries were deliberately exterminating Europes Jewish population between the years of 1939 and 1945?

For that matter, what religion was responsible for the regular slaughter of their jewish neighbors throughout the last 1000 years, and for bonus points, what countries were peacefully coexisting with them for that same period?

oh you really dont know what you are talking about. here let me give you a clue...

What other countries were deliberately exterminating the Armenian Christians between 1915 and 1923?

What other countries were deliberately exterminating the Chinese between 1937 and 1938?

get it?


Now tell how those things classifies as "insane".

[Agnostheist]

And then of course there was Rwanda, where the local (catholic) church had an active role in encouraging and facilitating the genocide.

isolated case.


Add to that the rampant pedophilia within the catholic church

over exaggeration.

, it tacit approval of Fascism in ITaly and Germany,

thats history. mainstream christianity had now reverted to its originally benign state.


Because of course most catholics are not evil, just like most Moslems are not evil

but moslems are largely extremists. thats the problem. the problem with islam is that it is a naturally extreme political religion. so muslims tend to be what their main philosophy dictates.


One would think that after the disaster in Iraq, we would have learned that violence only unites the oppressed (Saddam, hated by IRaqis pre-2003 is a hero, Iraq, once secular, is now run by popular fundamentalists, etc.).

what unity are you talking about? the country is close to civil war. close to 6thousand civilians have been murdered by islamists in the month of july alone.


Unfortunatly, some like Rathpig just can't quite grasp this basic but vital lesson.

And you must grasp the fact that Islam is a naturally extreme political religion.

[Rathpig]

It borders on "insane" the depths to which some people will reach to excuse Islam and somehow create a great "Christian crimes" in the present day by association with past (often long passed) events.

I have never excused Christianity for the destruction this superstition created throughout history; however dealing with current events and current Muslim crimes is not excused by saying that past guilt of the one makes the present crimes of the other equal.

Apologia is a hard area to practice because it automatically assumes that you are being forced to apologize.

As I am well versed in the facts of history, I will make, nor have made, no attempt to apologize for the behavior of one superstition to counteract another. Wrong is truly wrong. I have no need for Apologia in my worldview. What puzzles me greatly is why others feel the need to excuse wrong behavior by reference to yet more wrong behavior (even if only the most tenuous connections can be made).

Perhaps those who feel the need to give history lessons should examine their individual motivations for their Apologia.

Perhaps those who feel the need to give history lessons should examine the post to which they responded and answer the questions which are related to current events.

Perhaps those who feel the need to give history lessons should rely less on propoganda and examine the facts of the various events which they cite in a one-sided manner.

The reality of the present world is that Islam is an insane superstition followed by an increasingly insane group of Muslims. It isn't the only insanity in the world, but it is a large part and problem of this insanity.

Rathpig

[Oikoman]

Perhaps those who would pluck the mote from their brothers eye, should first remove the plank from their own.

[Rathpig]

Perhaps those who would pluck the mote from their brothers eye, should first remove the plank from their own.

Since I am not, nor have ever been, a Christian or a Muslim, I reserve my objective observer status.

I do find paraphasing religious aphorisms somewhat a concession, or at least an indication, of resignation.

Rathpig

[Agnostheist]

Perhaps those who would pluck the mote from their brothers eye, should first remove the plank from their own.

Perhaps it is your plank, brother. I am not a christian.


Religions are not invented equal. Admit it, Islam is the worst of them.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It doesn't really make for a good discussion when people think one of the participants is some type of spineless Dhimmi.

Well, I don't see how that has anything to do with a good discussion. I am not going to argue with hyperbole or propoganda. I will still keep pointing out the lies and untruths that you spread, as I am sure other will too.

[Rathpig]

Well, I don't see how that has anything to do with a good discussion. I am not going to argue with hyperbole or propoganda. I will still keep pointing out the lies and untruths that you spread, as I am sure other will too.

Would you care to point to a single "lie" or "untruth" that can be attributed to me.

Concerning gross generalizations and grand hyperbole, I will gladly admit to my authorship; however you will not find a single untruth in my statements. The only effort one must make to discern my truthfulness is watch the evening news or read the daily paper (of their choice).

Please support your accusation or remove it.

Rathpig

[Pavlov's Dog]

Would you care to point to a single "lie" or "untruth" that can be attributed to me.

Moderate Muslims are a myth that was created by the media. Islam defines being a moderate Muslim as someone who does not blow themselves up. Etc. Etc. My statement applies to past and future deceptions on your part.

Concerning gross generalizations and grand hyperbole, I will gladly admit to my authorship; however you will not find a single untruth in my statements.

Hyperbole tends to make statments untrue. You can't deny your dishonesty, by saying, "I was only exagerating the truth."

[Rathpig]

Moderate Muslims are a myth that was created by the media.

Is a true statement.

Isn't it interesting that the "moderate Muslim" is one of the most referenced and least seen creatures in politics.

Islam defines being a moderate Muslim as someone who does not blow themselves up.

Is a true statement.

Even a casual reading of the Koran shows that the Jihadist are following the correct version of the religion per their holy book. A casual knowledge of Islamic Apostasy literature also makes this case.

Etc. Etc. My statement applies to past and future deceptions on your part.

In other words you have nothing to offer as proof but a difference of opinion which you equate to untruth. Now because you are making a claim: support your claim or stand down.

Hyperbole tends to make statments untrue. You can't deny your dishonesty, by saying, "I was only exagerating the truth."

Truth is absolute. It is either true or untrue. It is a literal binary switch. "Exagerating" (Exaggerating) on or off doesn't change the quality or quantity of binary. Hyperbole doesn't change the issue by exaggeration.

Pavlov's Dog posting on IIDB doesn't make the rules of evidence or the rules of truth. These lie outside of your limited purview.

Now do you wish to support your claim or remove your slander?

Rathpig
I rant, therefore I am

[Pavlov's Dog]

Is a true statement.

It is an untrue statement, i.e. an untruth.

Isn't it interesting that the "moderate Muslim" is one of the most referenced and least seen creatures in politics.

Rarity does not make something a myth. I guess the animals on the endangered species list are as mythical as the unicorn and hydra? Like I said, that is an untruth.

Is a true statement.

That is an untrue statement, i.e. an untruth.

Even a casual reading of the Koran shows that the Jihadist are following the correct version of the religion per their holy book. A casual knowledge of Islamic Apostasy literature also makes this case.

That sentence is not really an outright lie, just a deception. But going to your original statement, does the Koran say anywhere that moderate Muslim is on that doesn't blow himself up? Do the Muslim clerics even say that? Or did you say something that was untrue? Where does Islam define moderate Muslim's as ones who do not blow themselves up? You and others may define them that way, but Islam does not describe itself that way.

In other words you have nothing to offer as proof but a difference of opinion which you equate to untruth. Now because you are making a claim: support your claim or stand down.

Truth is absolute. It is either true or untrue. It is a literal binary switch. "Exagerating" (Exaggerating) on or off doesn't change the quality or quantity of binary. Hyperbole doesn't change the issue by exaggeration.


I did support it. All it takes is one moderate Muslim, to prove that your statement that they are myth to be untrue. There are a lot more than one, whether they are a small minority or not. That is not a difference of opinion, that is fact. What you do is exagerate something to the point where the statement is no longer the truth. That is a dishonest untruth, i.e. a lie.

Now do you wish to support your claim or remove your slander?

I already supported it. Any new untruth you post will be met with a correction, just as the past ones were. Get used to it.

[wiccan windwalker]

i dont understand the level of hate here...you are bashing islam the same as fundies bash atheists...why the hypocricy?

[Rathpig]

i dont understand the level of hate here...you are bashing islam the same as fundies bash atheists...why the hypocricy?

Greetings wiccan windwalker,

Welcome to IIDB and the entre' into the fray:

I am not a hater. I love every Muslim toward apostasy and every IIDB Muslim apologist toward enlightenment.

You have really entered into a conversation that best belongs in PD (Political Discussion) where hate isn't common but the level of rhetoic is greatly elevated.

Rathpig
lover, brother, friend

[Timberline]

Islam defines being a moderate Muslim as someone who does not blow themselves up.

I think it's more a case of non-Muslim "apologists" defining a moderate Muslim as someone who does not blow themselves up. At least, it sure seems that way.

There's huge concern about the conservative Christian influence on the U.S., socially and politically. Just look at all the threads and discussion about creationism in schools, Ten Commandments plaques, abortion, civil unions, submissive women in Christian marriages, fundamentalist End Times beliefs affecting foreign policy, aggressive proselytizing, etc., right down to a couple personal anecdotes about vandalism of Darwin fish decals on cars. We don't automatically call a Christian a "moderate" and treat him with kid gloves just because he's not currently shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

There are entire Islamic countries and communities that are at least as socially and politically authoritarian/conservative as the U.S. Bible Belt, if not more so. And Islam is just as much a proselytizing religion as Christianity. But whenever a new thread about Islam crops up, someone almost immediately says some variation of, "I hope you're not blaming a billion peaceful Muslims for the actions of a few thousand bombers and terrorists, you bigot." As if direct physical violence was the only issue. It's not.

[geddit?]

Greetings wiccan windwalker,

Welcome to IIDB and the entre' into the fray:

I am not a hater. I love every Muslim toward apostasy and every IIDB Muslim apologist toward enlightenment.

You have really entered into a conversation that best belongs in PD (Political Discussion) where hate isn't common but the level of rhetoic is greatly elevated.

Rathpig
lover, brother, friend

You in turn horrify me and have me LMAO.

And that's a really good thing.


geddit?

[The Arbiter]

I don't think Islam is worse than Christianity. You see, the fundie Muslims are only trying to kill me. The Fundie Christians are successully assimilating the most powerful nation in the world.

Who would you rather deal with? A pack of Klingons or the Borg Collective?

[hinduwoman]

One of the reasons why Muslims are quick to perceive insult and go on rampage is because Islam does promotes mindless groupthink and the grip of clergy is tighter in an Islamic state than in Christian West. It is always easier for the poor and desperate in those communities to believe that ‘others’ are against them rather than look at solutions within.

On the other hand, there are lots of educated wealthy young men who join the jihadis. That is because they want to follow a great cause and become someone. Take Laden: I would say that his jihad a deeply personal aspect. He was the neglected son of an unpopular wife (her husband grew so bored with her that he stopped visiting her when she fell pregnant and never returned --- a disaster in a harem where both the wife and child’s status is affected by the amount of attention one gets from the master) who grew up knowing that his other brothers are the favoured sons and he is unimportant. Now however, he is more important than his father.

As for why so many of them behave so ‘insane’ that is because in Islam obedience to God’s law is more important than self-control from within.

The only flexibility you get is in interpretation of what God’s law is. But some of the laws in Koran are so detailed and clear that no other interpretation is possible. For example you can after a great deal of stretching certain verses ban polygamy. But as primitvefuture’s own reference shows, a Muslim can beat his wife and banning it is not possible on Islamic grounds.

More Muslims deeply and seriously believe in their religion literally than Christians do. That is a very serious problem.

[hinduwoman]

I've never seen hundreds of thousands of christians rioting violently because someone claimed that they were violent. Seems like as good a definition of insanity as any other.

-Ubercat

When Jerry Falwell called Muslims terrorist, a muslim group in India demonstrated their protest by attacking Hindus on the streets, there being no local Christians available. [shrugs].
There is probably a medical name for that kind of thinking disorder.

[hinduwoman]

According to a letter in a newspaper by an upset Bangladesh atheist, in Bangladesh schoolchildren are being taught in some of the more militant madrashas that when Hindus speak of peace and co-operation with all religions it simply means they afraid of Islamic Jihad who are anyday going to conquer whole of India. So good little muslims need not listen to all this crap but realize that they are rightful rulers of kafir.

So what do people who think the West is to blame for all Islamic violence tell a Hindu to do? Or would they not have taught this if only Israel had not taken Palestinian land?

[Mughal]

violence within muslim society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouztv-tRPKM

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/20/muslim_violence/

[Magic Primate]

I'm a British atheist. One of my brothers (now called Mustapha) converted to Islam about 10 years ago and we talk about religion and politics quite a bit. He is married to a woman whose family came from Pakistan.

The majority of Muslims are peaceful and benign, however there is of course a radical element - more accurately a continuum of views from moderate to radical. The extremism is driven primarily by something close to nationalism rather than being a necessary part of Islamic life. They regard their homelands as being colonised by foreign (and infidel) powers. They are paranoid and see a conspiracy against Islam. And a few of them resort to terrorism. Terrorism was not invented by Islam. The sort of suicide bombing we see now was invented by the Tamil Tigers - who are Marxist Hindus.

It is common for religious converts to become more extreme than those born into the religion. Fortunately, although my brother is very traditional, he is moderate and an out-spoken critic of the radicalisation of Islam. In fact he was effectively ostracised by the local community for speaking out against groups that harboured extremists. Although there have always been those with extreme views (as in any society) this radicalisation is a modern development, seen by some as heresy. Nevertheless, the Muslim community is insular and paranoid, tending towards nationalism. Sometimes they almost seem to want to perceive themselves as having been offended when they were not. They feel that they are under attack. Jewish people often suffer from a similar condition.

I don't see much difference in levels of justification for violence between the Qu'ran and the Old Testament. Even since Jesus supposedly revealed God as the God of Love, there have been historically huge numbers tortured and killed in the name of Christianity - including many Muslims in the Crusades. And many are killed in the name of non-religious ideologies too - and that includes those killed in the name of democracy.

Of course many of us disagree with some of the values of Islam - especially the status of women. But imposing our values on, say, Saudi Arabia is as politically problematic as them imposing theirs on us.

I think that the solution is not in demonising Islam but in building trust between local communities and in addressing foreign policy strategies which involve what is at least perceived as occupation of Islamic countries by foreigners, 'crusaders' and 'Zionists'. They do not trust the relationship between America and the Saudi royal family nor the wider motives of western forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed the evidence suggests that in at least one of these cases the real motive is profit and power rather than benevolence towards the citizens of those countries, or 'homeland security'.

Every ideology has extremists. The number of Muslims who want to impose Shariah Law around the world by force, is very small. But the way that things are going, current foreign policy is playing into their hands.

[Agnostheist]

I don't think Islam is worse than Christianity. You see, the fundie Muslims are only trying to kill me. The Fundie Christians are successully assimilating the most powerful nation in the world.

Who would you rather deal with? A pack of Klingons or the Borg Collective?

fundie muslims are common. fundie christians are uncommon.


islam is worst because the only good thing that came out of the muslim world was algebra.

christianity is better because the christian world produced countless sciences, arts, music, & philosophy. you might say that some of these achievements were created by diests, agnostics, jews & athiests. well we should still credit the christian world for allowing these people to flourish among them.

[Rathpig]

The difference between Islam and Christianity is 400 years of civilized evolution to tame the excesses of dogma and doctrine.

400 in the future Islam may have been tamed or forgotten; however the world can't exist in the same violent present state for 400 years. Advanced technology has made large scale destruction and rapid travel much too easy to allow any Medieval superstition to flourish.

(In addition to any danger from fundamentalist Christianity being subject to the controls of civilized discourse and Constitutional legality not the imposition of the sword.)

Rathpig
anti-Dhimmi

[Agnostheist]

The difference between Islam and Christianity is 400 years of civilized evolution to tame the excesses of dogma and doctrine.


mormonism is much younger that both islam & christianity and yet it is tame.

time difference does not matter when both religions are in direct contact with each other.


Advanced technology has made large scale destruction and rapid travel much too easy to allow any Medieval superstition to flourish.

medieval superstition flourishis in muslim countries despite the advances in technology.

[Rathpig]

mormonism is much younger that both islam & christianity and yet it is tame.

Nor does the Book of Mormon preach world conquest by violence, but if you oppose the economic power of the Mormons within the Mormon controlled areas of the United States you will find the violence of the state is very real as it controls your actions and seizes your assets.

time difference does not matter when both religions are in direct contact with each other.

Humans have tended to evolve away from our overtly violent social ways as time has progressed. The Western civilizations are socially evolving at a greater rate than the Middle East.

Christianity reformed itself from within, and it is a specious argument to say that the current United States or Europe are Christianity in contact with the Muslim world. Except in the mind of a few isolated Christian fundamentalists, a realistic Christianity has ceased to exist in the modern world. Those who claim the Christian religion worship the Dollar, the Euro, and the Pound as their true god.

medieval superstition flourishis in muslim countries despite the advances in technology.

And that is my point. It is insane to allow modern military technology into the hands of those who worship the moon-god and their prophet of pedophilia. part of the problem in the current Muslim world is the willingness of the civilized world to sell weapons to anyone with the means to pay the price. (As I state above: their god is money).

Rathpig
godless, after I pay the bills

[The Arbiter]

"fundie muslims are common. fundie christians are uncommon.


islam is worst because the only good thing that came out of the muslim world was algebra.

christianity is better because the christian world produced countless sciences, arts, music, & philosophy. you might say that some of these achievements were created by diests, agnostics, jews & athiests. well we should still credit the christian world for allowing these people to flourish among them."

It doesn't matter how uncommon Christian fundies are, they are still the ones gaining more power in our society. Add to that the fact that the moderates are either unable or unwilling to put a stop to their fundie brethren, and we face a real problem on our hands. A problem that far too many people, theist and athiest alike are content to ignore.

Christian fundies are sneaky, underhanded and far more difficult to villainize in the eyes of the public. Whereas the fundie Muslims act like moustache twirling supervillains, the fundie Xtians are far, far less obvious.

[David B]

fundie muslims are common. fundie christians are uncommon.

There seems to be a revival of fundamentalism within Islam at the moment. Christian revivals are not unknown, in recent history.


islam is worst because the only good thing that came out of the muslim world was algebra.

Well not quite. Their mosques don't seem to me inferior to churches, either in engineering or aesthetic terms. And they were the people who preserved what is left of ancient writings. There were some reasonable early astronomers, too, if I remember correctly. And no doubt much else. at some points in Islamic history. Lots more religious tolerance than has existed through the bulk of christian history is another thing that I recall.

christianity is better because the christian world produced countless sciences, arts, music, & philosophy. you might say that some of these achievements were created by diests, agnostics, jews & athiests. well we should still credit the christian world for allowing these people to flourish among them.

Allowing these people to flourish my butt. There is no reason to think that in some aspects of science, music, arts, the Islamic world was in any way inferior until happenstance dictated that the technological revolution happened in the west.

But most of the accomplishments of the west were done despite the resitance, rather than with the acquiescence, of the Christian establishment, as far as I can see.

David B

[bookworm14]

David B sez: "...until happenstance dictated that the technological revolution happened in the west."

I doubt it was "happenstance", which you make out to be almost like a random thing. A religious explanation can't be the whole answer because the Church repressed scientific inquiry for centuries (see Galileo, e.g.), and still does so some extent (see stem cell research, evolution, e.g.). I don't have a precise answer why the technological revolution "happened" in the West and not in the Middle East or the East, but I doubt that the answer is "happenstance".
bookworm14

[Bloodnf]

David B sez: "...until happenstance dictated that the technological revolution happened in the west."

I doubt it was "happenstance", which you make out to be almost like a random thing. A religious explanation can't be the whole answer because the Church repressed scientific inquiry for centuries (see Galileo, e.g.), and still does so some extent (see stem cell research, evolution, e.g.). I don't have a precise answer why the technological revolution "happened" in the West and not in the Middle East or the East, but I doubt that the answer is "happenstance".
bookworm14

Some people have this hubris that there is something special about the West that we are technologically superior to other parts of the world. In fact even a cursoray reading of history shows that technological progress is built on the foundations of what has come before. Different countries and cultures have been in the forefront of technology and science at different times in history. Cultures, nations and individuals have added to the knowledge from the past to advance science. Each has contributed but every one has been dependant on the knowledge contributed by those who went before them.

It is also hubris to think a country has a permanent lock on power or knowledge. And technological or cultural superiority has not been a preventative to a nations destruction in the past. Nor will it be in the future.

[expatlady]

The difference between Islam and Christianity is 400 years of civilized evolution to tame the excesses of dogma and doctrine.

400 in the future Islam may have been tamed or forgotten; however the world can't exist in the same violent present state for 400 years. Advanced technology has made large scale destruction and rapid travel much too easy to allow any Medieval superstition to flourish.

(In addition to any danger from fundamentalist Christianity being subject to the controls of civilized discourse and Constitutional legality not the imposition of the sword.)

Rathpig
anti-Dhimmi

Ok, maybe Rathpig isn't minding his (his, I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong) Ps & Qs and being very PC on this matter, but I think what he's trying to point out is that yes, TODAY there are huge differences between the Muslim and Christian varieties of fundamentalism, at least in the present and probably in the near forseable future (unless Dubya and his cult-buddies get their way).

He also states that Muslims, in general, are more violent about defending their religion than others, and that all practicing Muslims fall into the category we western non-theists would consider fundy. Well, I must agree that it looks as though more Muslims on average maintain stances and behaviors which we would never expect from anyone - in our western societies - that we would not label a fundy.

I feel, like many in this thread apparently, that much of the extremism going on in the Middle East is a result of leaders wisely (from a Machiavellistic point of view) using an explosive (pun intended) cocktail of religion and nationalism to increase their own personal wealth and power, which is exactly what the current administration is doing in the US.

The difference in how efficiently such a scheme works (Muslims, over all, seem to get more easily riled up latley), I think can be attributed to tradition more than fanatic religiousness. Now, tradition of course is 90% religion, however what I'm getting at is how important tradition is to one group of people versus another. Or how fresh it is, to be exact.

My mother grew up in Poland, and has not gone to church since 1983. She finds religion to be every bit as ridiculous as I do, but for some reason if the family is not united on Christmas to go through a bread-breaking ritual, the poor woman falls apart. I have performed the same ritual all my life, knowing only that is was some weird thing that meant a lot to my mother. My children, if I have any, may experience it through her, but it will have even less meaning to them than to me. Their children may look at family Christmas pictures from the past and wonder what the heck we're doing.