That is a valid point, and worthy of discussion, especially in light of the fact that the Koran and the old testament sound alike A LOT in many parts, which was recently "proven" by the little Bible or Quran flash game that was posted. I have no conclusive answer on this, but I would agree with your point that bible and quran both have parts that one could blame (or not) - they are not THAT different in large parts (which is not surprising because I think part of the quran was surely written by people who had read the bible). I guess if you blame the quran for the current state of islam, you might as well blame the bible for the state christianity was in a few hundred years ago. You know what, I think I do. Perhaps the fact that christianity has been able to overcome its dark ages shows that it is not the foundation. But perhaps the dark ages can also come back at any time - because of the foundation. I am not sure. I am definitely blaming them - I actually don't know (see above) how much the foundation itself is to blame. But your point about the parallels to christianity is taken.
It could, it could. That's why religion scares the **** out of me. It has this mesmerizing, life-encasing effect on people and the people running it are like puppet masters. It's not unique to Islam. It's not unique to Christianity. It's an aspect of religion in general. When the puppet masters say attack... ... watch out. You can only hope enough of the followers have evolved socially to say "Yeah, I don't think so, puppet master," but you never know. I think Christianity is more likely to push back to a leader saying "Bomb place X" than Islam because it's further along in this evolution, but that's a social thing, not really an aspect of the religion itself. You can tell by many of the posters on this board that Islam is getting there -- those of the religion born in highly advanced countries (like the United States), are significantly less prone to being worked like a puppet. It's all social evolution. At least that's how I see it. I see things in odd ways sometimes, though. (I do take solace in the observation that religion seems to be losing its grip on the world and more and more atheists are appearing.)
But you just say that it's a social thing, not an aspect of the religion itself like you know it for sure. I know it is more politically correct to say that, but there are differences between islam and christianity which appear to be conceptual (stemming from the foundation). Treatment of women, homosexuals, just to name two examples. Islam also seems to be more all-encompassing and much less compatible with the concept of a secular state - which, again, seems to go back to its foundation. So while I share your concerns about religion in general, I probably differ on two points: 1) I think that despite the concerns, the positives of religion can outweigh the dangers you outlined above, therefore I do not necessarily agree that more atheists = better. Atheism has its own inherent dangers, after all, the fear of what happens in afterlife does keep some people in check. 2) I do not think that all religions are equal, not even in their foundation. I think some are inherently more or less tolerant towards others and also more or less violent than others. E.g., christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, which might seem like a completely foreign concept to certain other religions.
Eh, I doubt it. Extreme forms of Christian violence are getting a pass in this decade, but lest we forget the Church's role in Burundi, Rwanda, the Orthodox Serbs who slaughtered and raped Bosnian Muslims etc. And I guess mainstream "Christian" violence like killing old men at checkpoints and cluster bombing cities is justified because you gotta fight fire with fire, lest we forget that a nation said to be founded on the principles of God and the classic compassion of Jesus, is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians.
Was Christianity's treatment of women really that much better historically than the current treatment of women in fundamental Islam (note: not all of Muslims)? There are some pretty damning excepts from the Bible about treatment of women, so I'm not sure it was much better. This is just an example, too, as you say. But I'm far from an expert on historical Christian societies, so it's really hard to compare current events to some giant cloud of history I can't see into. I say it's a social thing because that's how I see it; I tend to blame people for the atrocities people commit. I don't often look for a higher level explanation. Dude just walked into a bank and shot 5 people. Where did he go to school? What city was he born in? Is everyone from there like that? Nah, he's just a crazy ***hole. You could call it a jaded or naive viewpoint, but that's what it is. I disagree. I think if someone wants to kill someone, they're going to do it whether the fear in the afterlife (or whatever) or not. If they don't do it, then they never really were capable of it in the first place. I think the argument that religion teaches values and morals is completely bunk. If you're an ethical, moral person, it's not because of religion. But this is not something that we can really discuss, this is merely a fundamental disagreement between how you and I view religion. And that's fine. Christians still have serious problems with homosexuality. Sure, they're not out there killing them (perhaps they would have been 400 years ago), but they still damn them pretty heinously. In 100 years, I don't think they will. I think they'll evolve past it socially, just like they have on other issues such as treatment of women or tolerance of other religions/ideas. Islam is probably just not evolved to that point. Some Islamic societies are (most groups in the U.S., for example), many aren't (see: Middle East). They'll get there. It just seems society is becoming more liberal as time progresses. Views on homosexuality are steadily turning across the country. Views on women turned earlier this century; same for other races. Society will get there, no matter what religion they follow. It just takes longer for others, sometimes. Again, that's simply my flowers-and-rainbows view and I realize people will disagree and they're free to do so. Thanks for the chat, but I have to work. I think I've exhausted myself and it's just a fundamental difference in how you and I see the world. But you know what's great? We can identify our differences in a civil manner! Humans FTW, sometimes, eh?
-Has Islam been fashioned by these individuals and others like them into some kind of Jihadist sword? Yes. To deny it, I think, speaks to wanting to defend Islam more than it does to wanting to defend the actions committed, but I'd still say the defense would be wrong. -Does Islam explicitly condone these things to be done? That is arguable, and largely depends on the perspective and context you are exposed to while reading the Qur'an. However, what can not be argued, is that the precedence of violence has already been set by Muslim terrorists around the world. If they can find those loopholes, then ANYONE may follow suit. That is a problem, yes. That transcends translations, language, and culture, because the precedent is an action committed. This is why an Indian Muslim might carry out a terrorist attack, while having no anti-Western intent. This is why the Iranian government will stone a woman, though having no cultural precedent. -Are the "Islamists" here the ones largely at fault? Perhaps in this context they are, but as far as their motivations go, I'd say the European people may have played a role in creating the monster they face today. Malmo ain't exactly a safe haven for immigrants, although it has and is becoming overrun by them. Hooliganism, skinheads, racist police... are we going to act surprised when these immigrants start looking to Islam for safety, security, and as a unifying force, which they use to equate protection to fighting and violence? These are natural reactions to a population facing uncertainty, just like how the unreligious become religious when in the face of adversity; this is an example of the religious becoming fanatical when in the face of what they see as hostile waters. These are not very complex cultural interactions. If you break it down historically, culturally, and contemporarily, it becomes very easy to gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand. Europe has been for quite some time a very nationalistically driven continent, and has taken racialist viewpoints on the rest of the world dating back to the Enlightenment era. In a new globalized economy, an influx of immigrants shouldn't be shocking or surprising to the most successful nations in the world, however their culture strictly disallows for any kind of "melting-pot" scenario. Those from Islamic countries start out already by holding on tightly to their cultural ties, not just because they're in a foreign environment (and this response is consistent with immigrants anywhere in the world), but also because the culture itself is so ingrained into the psyche. Europeans may accuse these immigrants of being anti-European and non-integrative, but the immigrants will respond by saying that the Europeans are being insensitive to the natural immigrant plight. I will close by saying that people are stupid anywhere you go in this world. Yes, Muslims are responding idiotically with violence and religious fanatacism, but they're not the only ones slinging poo from across the fence. This thread just happens to focus on the Muslim portrayal of such.
I agree. The problem is this exactly. A white American shoots up a restaurant and kills 4 and injures 8, its on the news for maybe 3 hours. Then another white American shoots up an post office or work environment or flies a plane into a federal building and its on the news for at most 3 days. A Muslim shoots up a military base, and the media wonders whether it is the start of some broader plan for Muslims to kill every American. Congressional inquiries and months on end of debate of some devious goal of final solution by the Muslim. The double standard is very evident to see especially from someone living outside the States. It's more sad than funny at this point.
Exactly. I see a lot of times someone will question a Christian's belief based on something stated in the Old Testament. There is LOTS of stuff in there that is not "Christian". They are better off quoting something from the New Testament when referencing Christianity, I think that is the Christian book. At least thats what I think based on my basic understanding of Christianity. If Im wrong Im sure I could still make amends by sacrificing a Ram or something.
This whole thread is based off of a 700 Club produced news video? It must be true, since Pat Robertson clearly has no political stake in the debate and has always been such an objective, non-partisan beacon of light in the valley of doom. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
If Pat Robertson is behind this, then it must be true, how do you not know this? He's such a great guy... he blamed Katrina on the gays and abortionists as well as Haiti's revolt against slavery as a 'pact with the devil'. Did you not see those shouting A-rabs compared to the 10 white people sitting with their guitars singing, compare that stuff man.....just because you saw the same clip of A-rabs for about 90% of the video, it doesn't mean they were not killing people out there, just look at them being all rowdy.
Dakota, I genrally agree with you re religion and a nutty level of devotion to old books. I'm not sure about your conclusions re Islam vs say Christianity, though perhaps at this historical moment,but I would chalk that down to non-religious factors. I think poverty and lack of education need to be taken into account when talking about the number of nuts in a religion qua religion.. Generally the more education and more wealth the less fanatical the relgion. We have a strong nutty Christian orientation in this country that seems to glorify war/ oppression/ capital punishment. Don't forget the near lock step approval of the Iraq War and genocide by large numbers of our evangelicals. Somme of these folks are essentially trying to take over our military and turn it into a Christian militia. Thery are being opposed by Jews in the miitary and other non fundie Christians and I am sure the relatiely small number of Muslims and other faiths in tour mliitary. When you compare the education, economic and material base that many of these US Christian folks are starting from, I don't think that you can clearly say Islam is more violent or nutty than a fair number of US Christians. I would argue that Muslims living in the USe generally more moderate than many of these fundie Christians. Of course generally speaking the educational level of these Muslims far excedes that of our fundie Christians. WRT to Islam we should also note that nutty Islam has been fanned by folks trying to keep Muslims down economically. For instance Israel has in the past fanned fanatical Muslims to keep down the Palestininan Liberation Organziation's quest for nationhood. It worked for a while but now Palestinian Islam itself provides support for the liberation movement e.g Hamas, to the extent it is religious. The US gave strong approval for the Saudis using fanatical relgion to divert their masses yearning for more economic justice relief from their feudal monarchy and control of their oil resources. The US was happy having Pakistanis and other Muslims trained in Madrassas as long as their fanatical religious training was useful in creating a nuisance to Russian plans in Afghanistan The British pushed the Muslims to create problems for India as a whole when they were doing the typical divide and conquer imperialism etc..
Google Bosnian Genocide, and Rwanda Genocide.... Excerpt from an article (http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=115) 1. Rwanda 1994: An Easter week of Bodies A Christian discussion about mission in Africa begins with the humble and painful realization that the church has been and remains deeply connected to the performance of violence in Africa. That is why 1994 Rwanda offers a natural and productive starting point in thinking about social reconstruction and renewal in Africa. In fact, every time I think about resurrection of the social body in Africa, I think about Easter of 1994. In 1994, within a period of less than a hundred days, close to 1 million Rwandans were killed by their countrymen and women. What makes this event particularly chilling for Christian reflection on peace is not simply the fact that Rwanda was and still is a predominantly Christian County – with over 90% of Rwandans claiming to be Christians. This in itself is a chilling fact, but the fact that church personnel were actively involved in the genocide is even more frightening. For as Longman notes: Church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the program of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings…. In most communities members of a church parish killed their fellow parishioners and even, in a number of cases, their own pastor or priests. (Longman, “Christian Churches and Genocide, 140) The story of the Rwandan genocide becomes more unsettling when one realizes that the notorious events of those 100 days of murder began during the Christian Easter season. April 3rd 1994 was Easter Sunday. Rwandan Christians joined Christians everywhere to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. On the evening of April 6th, President Habyar’Imana’s plane was shot down as he returned from a meeting in Tanzania. Throughout that Easter Octave (the whole week is but one Easter Day), and for the next 100 days, all one saw in Rwanda were mutilated bodies. What irony that the celebration of the Risen and Glorified body of Christ, as “…the first born from the dead;” “the one who has torn down the wall of separation…”, thus creating out of a people who once lived as enemies a reconciled community “in whom there is no more Greek or Jew, male or female…” should simultaneously be marked by the butchering of Christians by other Christians in the name of being Hutu or Tutsi!
I do not condone what this Imam did to his wife, it was heinous and barbaric! However, if he were to break several bones of Nancy"Miss America" Pelosi or Dianne FEISTAIN, I would not have any problem with that, in fact I would like to buy him a drink, but only if he is allowed to drink!
Yes it's a matter of perspective. People more familiar with culture in Christian dominated societies can see these examples as the rarity that they are, and not being caused by Christianity. Yet something more foreign like Islamic culture and Islam makes that seem more like one group, so the rare bad apples and acts seem more like it's part of the culture as a whole, especially when that's the aspect focused on by media. It paints a hugely distorted picture. Meanwhile people within a more Islamic culture are going to view the problem of extremists as something separate and apart from the mainstream.
