Facts. Not "stereotypical ethnic centric thinking". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts A new Pew Research Center study finds that seven of the ten countries with the worst grades for government restrictions on religion are Islamic states, as are eight out of the top 10 countries ranked for social hostility involving religion. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/countries-worst-religious-freedom-grades-are-mostly-islamic http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion.aspx
That's your argument? Wow. Either you're the worst lawyer ever, or you really are just a copy boy at a law firm.
I didn't grow up being taught that Muslims are the root of all evil. Some of you guys obviously grew up being taught that Jews are. Mathloom even posted it himself: People around him told him from an early age that Shiite Islam was "invented by an undercover Jew". If that statement doesn't tell you a lot - you are probably indoctrinated yourself.
This statement reeks of prejudice. History has shown that when countries were ran by the Vatican, dogma, etc, the same atrocities were committed. Our forefathers understood this danger very clearly and that is why we have a separation of state and religion. It has nothing to do with Islam, it is when a country is governed by laws that are drawn by fundamentalists that these things happen.
I agree that a separation of state and religion is of utmost importance. Does Islam allow a separation of state and religion, in the eyes of most Muslims in the Middle East? Is there a separation of state and religion in the Islamic countries in the Middle East?
You are missing the point. Islam does not dictate separation of state and religion. It is the founders of their constitution who decided this not the religion. I am sure you can find many Christians who would want our country to abide by the laws of the bible but lucky for us, our forefathers were smarter. Why do keep on picking on the Middle East? Looks like you want to ignore Indonesia who has the largest Muslim population and they are not a religious state. It all boils down to who makes the decision on what laws they want to follow.
That's incorrect. You cannot ignore Islam's role in this. The founders of their constitution say so because they believe that Islam mandates it. Because Israel is in the Middle East. But since you bring up Indonesia: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/indonesias-rising-religious-intolerance.html?_r=0 http://www.voanews.com/content/indonesia-experiencing-increase-in-religious-intolerance/1531496.html And to bring this thread back to Israel: I disagree with their settlement politics. But to pretend - like glynch - that a one state solution would lead to a fair outcome for the Jews in Israel is just disingenuous. That is the point of my posts about Islamic states in the Middle East. Don't pretend that they would respect minority rights, because every indication from all neighboring states is: They do not.
You are absolutely correct they believe that Islam mandates it. If you ask a fundamentalist Christian, I am sure you will get the same answer. Luckily for us, they do not define our laws. I brought up Indonesia because you asked if Muslims can have a separation of state and religion. I have shown you that even on countries, that have a very high population of Muslims, they have a constitution that is not bound by religion. I am sure you remember the story of Mary Magdalene and why she going to be stoned. People were justifying that act based on the same belief.
bongman, While I agree with much of what you're discussing, don't forget that this is not a religious issue. This is a political issue. In a single state where rule of law is established, assuming Palestinians would just go ape**** crazy and attack Jews at will (a laughable notion at best) those people would be arrested and sent to jail for their crimes. If anyone is at a disdvantage at the beginning of the establishment of a country, it is the poorer and the less educated. History (including American history) shows that making up ground on this starting point may take centuries. That's not to say the starting point is necessarily illegitimate 100% of the time, but we have a good precedent to follow. Taking this laughable notion and putting it to a real example, IIRC upward of 25% of Israelis are Palestinians and most of them Muslim. These Arab Israelis, as they're called, have been the least of Israel's problems and as with minority status in many countries they are discriminated against vigorously and their crimes blown up by public media to incite hatred against them. Despite that, I think the experiment has gone shickingly well considering what people thought of it before, and considering what some people hilariously predict would be the outcome of a single state solution. One could very easily argue that Israeli Arabs form a bridge between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis which is beneficial to both sides. One could argue that if there were any genuine interest in a one state solution then Israeli Arabs would be the perfect platform for proving to both populations that peace is not about erecting a wall between each other, as many civilizations in East Asia, Europe, and other places have found. The people of both countries will have peace and stability once their fear for each other is gone which in turn would evaporate their leaders' ability to manipulate them with it. Moreover, it is a flawed argument to assign blame to Muslims for the behavior of governments they do not choose or control by any reasonable comparison. There has basically never been a civilian Muslim government even in the way it exists in the United States, France, or the United Kingdom for example. At least that level of citizen participation is necessary to be able to make comparisons which could assign blame to those citizens. You don't blame prisoners for the policies that come out of the Warden's office. Disdain for Israeli policies is high throughout the world and is higher among Arabs because the problem is in their yard. Today these things are changing. A two state-solution is the best realistic outcome. A democratic secular one-state solution is much better IMO. A one-Jewish-state solution can become a serious nightmare, but a nightmare with long-term potential higher than that of a two-state solution if external forces don't intervene. If religion is at all valid, it establishes that both parties want the land and have historical roots there. There is a political solution for both of them having it. But alas, this is not a religious issues, it is a political one and politics is kind of like... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GGXzlRoNtHU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You have already stated that you were raised to hate Jews. And it shows in your posts. So all that drivel is useless.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212191395430251.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-palestinians-israel-usa-un-idUSBRE8BI1KF20121219 This part was hilarious: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20793138
While I agree with you that this is currently a political issue, I will have to disagree that religion had nothing to do with it. I don't want to derail this thread any further by discussing the history of this conflict but I think you know what I mean by that. I just wanted to present my views in opposition to the idea that Islam is the cause of atrocities in the middle east. Cheers
Not the sole cause, but since it dominates everyday life so much in countries that have so many issues, you cannot say that it/its cultural adaptation/its extremist versions are not a cause at all.
Do we really have to go back in history to show you that this type of behavior is not a trait that Muslims only posses? For purposes of discussion, let's hypothetically expand the membership of the West Baptist Church to let's say.. 150 million. What do you think the American political and moral landscape would look like?
I never said that only Muslims possess these traits. But Islam demands to be more all-encompassing than other (reformed) religions in this day and age. And your hypothetical is extremely hypothetical. Fortunately.
I am afraid you are incorrect on both your assertions. All religions demand that you conform with the script provided by their holy text. Folks just choose to ignore some or most of it while others take it literally. In the context we are discussing, the political and religious leaders in the current Muslim world chose the latter. Just look at Leviticus. Gay rights opponents would justify that this is immoral based on those scripts but are very comfortable ignoring the laws about how to treat your child, woman, slaves, war prisoners and survivors. The bible is has prescribed laws that are just a vile as the Quran. It is up to the individual to follow it or not. You are correct that it is hypothetical but the Salem witch hunts, inquisition and crusades just to name a few, proves that any religion can ? I don't know if you are religious, but I can only suggest that before you slam a particular religion, check out the history of all of them. I apologize for derailing this thread so I will leave this at that.
I don't think we disagree very much. I agree with you that almost any ideology/religion can be abused, and that most have been, including Christianity. I think we both agree that this is currently more the case in the Muslim world in the Middle East. Your argument is a historical one. Yes, witch hunts, yes inquisition, yes crusades - they happened - in the past. But I am concerned about what is going on in the world now. I don't live in the age of witch hunts and inquisition, but I live in the age of stonings (in the Muslim world), oppression of women (in the Muslim world), violent intolerance towards members of other religions (mostly in the Muslim world) and bombings (by members of the Muslim world, in the Western world, directed against the Western world - in which I live - in fact, it happened just last week, in front of my parents' house: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...pected-after-bomb-found-at-bonn-rail-station/). So that is my concern now.
I am glad that we agree on this and I also deeply share your concern. I just feel that in order to resolve this, we need to focus on the issue on what is causing all of this. IMHO, it is the political leaders (not the religion)
