What I think it is wierd that everyone seems to believe that ANY major religion advocates violence, hatred towards women, etc. Have any of you guys actually looked at the history or taken the time to dig into the theology? There are basically four major religious groups in the world: Abrahamic, which includes Judiasm, Christianity and Islam. Near east including Hinduism. Asian including Buddhism, Taoism and Confusionism. Pagan including Wicca, Paganism and tribal religions like Native American. Built into all of these religions is a profound respect for life and a reverence for the world around us. None of them advocate hatred, fear or violence. In fact, just the opposite, they all advocate compassion, love and peace. Throughout the histories of every major religion, there is violence and hatred. But, if you dig into those histories, you find that the problem was created not because of theology but because of ideology. Whether it be Islam's Jihad or the Christian Crusades or the Hindu Caste System or whatever, there is bloodshed and violence to be found among all religions and they all have in common the desire of theif leaders at the time to have control over the masses. Realizing what a powerful tool religion could be, they manipulated it into a way to make people afraid. But, as powerful as fear could be, love is more powerful. All religions ultimately return to the love and compassion and peacefulness of their prophets and saviors. Christians have Jesus, Muslims have Mohammed, Jews have Abraham, Hindus have Ghandi, Buddhists have the Buddha and on and on. They have the peacefulness and love of their sacred traditions to guide them. There is no question that religion can be twisted into something violent and obscene. But, to suggest in any shape or fashion that the religious belief, as a whole, advocates hatred, fear and violence signals either an extreme prejudice or a tremendous lack of understanding of the holy practices of these ancient religions. Instead of arguing over why a particular religion is good or bad, why not actually look at the real problems that exist that allowed it to be twisted as it has? In the case of Islam, look at the situation. If you lived in abject poverty, watched your children often suffer and die in childbirth, had little or no education and even bordered on starvation, it would be understandable if you were frustrated and sorrowful. It would be equally as understandable if someone in a position of power, someone with all the things that you lack, was able to convince you that you were the victim of some imperialist dogma and that dogma isn't just wrong, it is evil. In that case, dying and having how ever many virgins waiting for you may be a better alternative to growing up and watching your family and friends suffer and die while others in the world SEEMINGLY rub their wealth and happiness in your face. It is sad. It is tragic. But, it will remain that way until we look past our myopic views of religion and beyond our simplistic black and white answers and see the reality that other human beings in this world are suffering needlessly. When I look a suffering person in the eyes, I cannot possibly see evil or hatred. All I see is someone in pain and if that doesn't move you, I don't know what will.
as my business partner says all the time..."i have found that I can't dislike someone once i meet them face to face and look them in the eye."
Well said Jeff. However, I fail to see how Mohandas Ghandi is a religious figure. The most peaceful of all Gods in Hinduism is probably Ram.
I was trying to pick human figures rather than dieties. Ghandi was more a political figure for India and a symbolic figure for Hinduism, but he is considered a great spiritual teacher and a prophet by many.
I agree with you to a point. But how does this explain the 19 guys who did NOT grow up in abject poverty who flew planes into the WTC? Palestinian suicide bombers? Ok. I think you may have a point. Filthy rich Arabs who's religious belief leads them to support expanding terrorism? Don't see it.
I can follow it from the viewpoint of a family in Pakistan that has a <i>madrassa</i> school available, but you aren't looking at the financial funding of the <i>madrassas</i> from countries such as Saudi Arabia. Would the wealthy contribute if they knew that there was going to be a broadbased education offered to the poor in Pakistan rather than a narrow one with the focus on Islamic studies? There is an opportunity in that situation for a more secular education than what was offered and it is only through prodding from: U.S. government -> Pakistan government -> madrassas that change in the curriculum occurs. Musharraf mentioned that the madrassas must change in his speech made in January 2002, but why has the Pakistani government dawdled so long on that issue? <A HREF="http://www.newsday.com/news/ny-saja3.story">Reining In Militants</A> Even the regular educational system in Pakistan has room for growth in comparison to the Western model. <A HREF="http://web.mit.edu/bilal/www/education/hoodbhoy3.html">The Menace of Education</A> <i> The Menace of Education by Pervez Hoodbhoy posted: December 12, 2001 From brain size and hair colour to the shape and texture of toe-nails, every characteristic of an individual is totally determined by just two twisted strands of human DNA. A similar cultural DNA - a society's education system - contains within it the detailed genetic blueprint determining what that society is destined to become tomorrow. Forward oriented or fixated on the past, democratic or authoritarian, egalitarian or elitist, peaceful or violently engaged in civil strife - the choice between such options is made when one generation passes on to the next one its values and preferences. So what are the values currently being transmitted and communicated in Pakistan's schools? Obviously there is some variation across rich and poor schools, between villages and cities, and across provinces. But the basic road-map is provided by the school curriculum. Lest there be any confusion the reader should know that, by an act of Parliament passed in 1976, there is one and only one allowed road-map, prepared by the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan. The usefulness of having a national curriculum was soon recognized by General Zia-ul-Haq. In 1981 he decreed that henceforth Pakistani education was to be totally redefined and history rewritten according to his vision of Pakistan. From now on the struggle for Pakistan was no longer to be shown as a victorious struggle for a Muslim homeland. Instead, it was to be depicted as the movement for an Islamic state run according to Islamic law. Even if it conflicted with reality, the heroes of the Pakistan movement - Jinnah, Iqbal, Syed Ahmed Khan - were to be projected as Islamic heroes. Furthermore all subjects, including the sciences, were to be speedily Islamized. ---------------------------------------------------- EXCERPTS FROM CURRICULUM DOCUMENT FOR CLASSES K-V National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks Federal Ministry of Education, 1995. At the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to: · "Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan."[pg 154] · "Demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah." [pg154] · "Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat" [pg154] · "Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan." [pg154] · "India's evil designs against Pakistan." [pg154] · "Be safe from rumour mongers who spread false news" [pg158] · "Visit police stations" [pg158] · "Collect pictures of policemen, soldiers, and National Guards" [pg158] · "Demonstrate respect for the leaders of Pakistan" [pg153] ----------------------------------------------------- Two decades later the mindset of the Zia era, and the release of a pent-up religious rage, continues to reflected in Pakistan's currently enforced curriculum objectives [see Box] for primary school children. Sadly, while many Pakistanis are aware that there is something wrong with the nature of our schooling, only a few have access to public documents such as those reproduced here and which expose us to international shame, condemnation, and ridicule. [Interestingly, in the foreword this curriculum document acknowledges that "support was provided by international organizations, in particular UNICEF, USAID, GTZ, and World Bank". Shame on them!] Consider the impact of the national curriculum objectives on a 12 year-old child in his last year of primary school. Instead of a future that is joyous, and a peaceful country that offers hope to all, he is told that life is actually about battling invisible enemies. Fear is ever-present because beneath every stone lurks a venomous snake and Pakistan is under the siege of sinister forces which the child must learn to acknowledge, identify, and fight to death. What mental space can remain for this child's innocence when he or she must learn to make speeches on jihad and martyrdom? And what scope exists for being tolerant and accepting of beliefs other than your own? ........Some of the curriculum objectives present more than just a slight difficulty of implementation. To "demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah" certainly left me stumped, but surely some wise reader can think of ways to grade a child on this......... Could any part of what has been quoted in the Box be false? It all sounds so utterly bizarre that the reader may well raise this question. Indeed, at the ALIF education conference in Islamabad, held in April 2000, the head of the Curriculum Wing, Dr. Parveen Shahid, flatly denied that these points formed part of the present curriculum document. In front of a full audience of over 200 people she stated - as may be viewed on videotape by anyone interested - that no document in her department exceeded a few pages whereas the page numbers I had quoted were 153 and higher. A few days later, as a member of the government appointed Education Advisory Board, I brought my copy along to her office. It has 211 pages in all. At this point she informed me that she had multiple copies of the same document (containing exactly the points listed in the Box). She did not need my copy! What I have related above is but one example of how bureaucrats of the Federal Ministry of Education, and particularly the Curriculum Wing, brazenly pursue their narrow and destructive agenda, unfazed and undeterred by those seeking change. Knowing that governments come and governments go but they will stay on forever, the education bureaucracy has closed ranks to protect their mutual interests. Therefore demands by Education Advisory Board members that certain parts of the curriculum be dumped, as well as numerous strong reform proposals for school education, have been opposed, ignored, or mutilated out of recognition........ The conclusion one reaches is an unhappy one. The CW must be dissolved and curriculum development be rescued from the clutches of the Federal Education Ministry. One possibility is to entrust this work to certain of the country's universities. In doing so, Pakistan will not be doing anything out of the way. In Britain, universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, and London, define the curricula for school-leaving examinations. There are numerous other models: in the United States, every school is free to have its own curricula but college entrance examinations (the Scholastic Aptitude Test) enforce some standardization of learning. India and Iran also have no national curriculum. If so many countries have demonstrated that they can exist and prosper without a national curriculum, there is no reason why Pakistan must be fixated upon having one. Textbooks is another area needing radical reform. A comparison of Matric and O-level physics and mathematics books reveals a world of difference in the clarity of explanations, quality of questions and exercises, and choice of examples. Sadly, vested interests have successfully appealed to nationalist feelings and thus prevented a wider use of internationally available books. I have yet to understand what "Pakistani physics" or "Pakistani mathematics" means, unless this is meant to denote something shoddy and sub-standard. Not surprisingly it is the Textbook Boards, together with their favoured authors, which promote this fake nationalism. In fact many individuals make huge profits by producing substandard and badly written books filled with conceptual, pedagogical, and printing mistakes. That their monopoly, under the protection of the state, should have been tolerated for so long is tragic. Under intense pressure from international education experts there had once been some movement on this issue -- in principle the Government had agreed to let private publishers compete and allow multiple textbooks to be used. Unfortunately the Education Ministry manipulated matters so as to empower the Curriculum Wing to select books. A former head of the CW - incidentally one of the most "patriotic" ones - had a certain fixed percentage for approving a book, to be deposited into an overseas bank account. So back to square one! Where lies the way out? The answer needs to be given at several different levels. First, at the most basic level, there has to be a clear realization of the difference between the goals and methods of modern education as opposed to the madrassa system of Nizam-ul-Mulk of the 11th century, together with a clear statement of preference of the former over the latter. Without this precondition, progress or lack of it, carries zero meaning. Pakistan needs modern, not madrassa, education. At the second level lie reform issues related to the curriculum, textbooks, examinations, teacher training, school adminstration, etc. Here, instead of re-inventing the wheel, we need to speedily begin the process of implementation after critically evaluating the detailed reports and recommendations made by specialist teams, international and national. Over the last decade every major educational issue has been the subject of numerous costly and detailed studies. Some have been excellently done while others are only fair. But whatever one's opinion of the final recommendations made in these reports, the professionals who authored them set out the problems in clear and concise terms, marshalled data from various sources, and identified various options. To my astonishment, no such study was referred to at any time in any meeting of the Education Advisory Board although these studies had been commisioned by the Ministry of Education. Thirdly, devolution of authority and resources is imperative. It is civil society which is the beneficiary of education and which, in our unique situation today, may best be entrusted with this task. A moronic, incompetent, self-obsessed, corrupt, and ideologically charged education bureaucracy today squarely blocks Pakistan's entry into the 21st century. We cannot entrust the future of our country to those who cannot write a single straight sentence, and for whom good education means passivity, blind obedience, and indoctrination. We must also do battle with those who insist that Pakistani children learn in at least three languages - Urdu, English, Arabic - and often the mother tongue as well, which is usually different. This linguistic burden alone is sufficient to cripple children's minds. While there are no quick fixes to a problem that has compounded over five decades, not a moment should be lost in beginning the slow process of rehabilitation and reform of the education system. A country suffering from xenophobia and hatred for others harms primarily itself. Therefore, instead of being virulent and aggressive, Pakistani patriotism must be identified with civic responsibilities such as paying one's fair share of taxes, acceptance of Pakistan's diversity of cultures and peoples, assurance of social justice, preserving the environment, and so forth. Without this change we have no future. </i>
I think you guys missed the point. The point is that you are blaming the RELIGION when it isn't the religion that is at fault. It is those who are in charge of dissemenating the information about the religion and their feelings are based on societal norms and conditions, not the religion itself. If Islam was the problem, the 3 million Muslims in America would be suicide bombers. If Islam was the problem, the millions of Muslims who live in Europe and South America would be terrorists. It is not the religion that creates the problem. The religion is simply the vehicle that fanatics use to get their message across. I used "poverty" as an example because of Palestine. There are plenty of rich fanatics too of all kinds and of all religions. However, blaming Islam is like blaming a knife for cutting your finger. It isn't the knife that's at fault. It's user error. We don't blame all of Christianity (at least we shouldn't) for cross burning or White Supremecy or guys who bomb abortion clinics. Same thing.
You people with your big words......fornicate.......what tha.........I might as well bust out my big word that I learned today in English.......and Jim begat Bob and Bob begat Mary......wait wait teacher what's "Begat"?..............oh......ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I'm havin a Holden day.......
<b> I think you guys missed the point. The point is that you are blaming the RELIGION when it isn't the religion that is at fault. It is those who are in charge of dissemenating the information about the religion and their feelings are based on societal norms and conditions, not the religion itself</b> So religion has no influence on societal norms? Everything that I have read from numerous sources, mentions the much greater influence of religion in the daily life of the people in Islamic countries than it does in the daily life of the people on Western countries. <A HREF="http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal2/geasia2.pdf">The Roots and Societal Impact of Islam in Southeast Asia</A> <i> .......Q Finally, let us discuss something less specific to Southeast Asia and more associated with Islam in general. The word “ jihad” has been used extensively to describe the actions leading up to September 11th. The point has been raised that there are two kinds of jihad: originally, it was meant to be an internal spiritual struggle, but recently the term has been invoked to describe so-called “holy wars.” Is it true that there is such a distinction? No. In my opinion, it is not a valid opinion. Let me explain why I believe it’s wrong. We in the West have a culture in which religion is set off to one side. Many other religious traditions – ways of life – don’t make the distinction between the spiritual and the social. They are indeed one. In Buddhism and in Islam, for example, there isn’t a distinction between what we in the West call the secular as opposed to the religious. We’re talking about a way of life. In that way of life, the jihad that is about spiritual values – the struggle with one’s self, to live the right kind of life internally – must also be a struggle in society as a whole. The individual is an instant of society. So, if I don’t live my life the way I’m supposed to, as a good Buddhist, a good Muslim, or as a good Jew – then how can society be good? And equally, if society isn’t organized in that way, how can I lead a good life? What we call fundamentalism is a Western concept. It’s a concept that is made possible by this very sharp division we make between the spiritual and the secular, between the inner spiritual life and the external social life. We like to make the distinction in Islam between the internal jihad and the external jihad. And Muslims who are speaking to Westerners make that distinction as well, because it makes us feel better. But frankly, I would be inclined to find certain respects in the idea of the consonance between the social and individual to be rather interesting in creative and productive life. </i> <A HREF="http://www.pak.org/person/iqbal.html">Dr. Muhammad Allama Iqbal</A> <i>.......New middle class Basically, Iqbal's public was the rising middle class of the Muslim community of the sub-continent, particularly the new intelligentsia-a product of the Aligarh Movement. This new middle class and its intelligentsia was deeply conscious of the separate entity of Muslims as a minority community. The feeling of separate entity had its foundations not only in religion and culture but also in history because Muslims generally identified themselves as inheritors of the traditions of Muslim supremacy for more than 700 years. The Hindus who constituted the majority community organized themselves politically under the banner of the Indian National Congress, and developed the concept of composite nationalism which was supposed to be broadly Indian embracing all religious communities, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and the rest, However, Muslim separateness in the cultural sphere was recognized even by the so-called nationalist Muslim who accepted the theory of composite Indian nationalism at the political level. This is apparent from a book of Prof. Mr. M. Mujeeb of the Jamia Millia, Delhi, "The Indian Muslims" written some 20 years after the partition of the sub-continent. This is not the place to go into the history of Hindu-Muslim relations during the 90 year period, 1857-1947. Suffice it to say that the mass of Muslim community did not accept the concept of composite Indian nationalism. Iqbal was perhaps the single major influence in sharpening the feeling of Muslim separateness on the basis of religion, history, tradition and culture. He gave his community a massage of faith hope and struggle. He believed in a dynamic rather than static view of life. Activism, which was the corner stone of Iqbal's philosophical thinking, had a direct relationship with the aspirations of the rising middle class of the Muslim Community............ Iqbal gave the lead in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League at Allahabad in December 1930. He argued that the principle of European democracy could not be applied to India without recognizing the fact of communal groups. He voiced the demand for a separate Muslim state because <b>"The life of Islam as a cultural force in this country(India) very largely depends on its centralization in a specific territory." He specified the territory by saying: "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India." Iqbal was at pains to explain that the creation of a separate Muslim state was in the best interests of India and Islam. For India it means security and peace resulting from a balance of power for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism, was forced to give it, to mobilize its law, its education's its cultural and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times". </b> Two fold purpose It is apparent from the above that the purpose for the creation of a separate Muslim state was two-fold. It was to end the Hindu-Muslim conflict and also to enable Islam to play its role as a cultural force. Iqbal believed that Islam as a world fact had a commitment to history. In the context of the Indian sub-continent this commitment could only be fulfilled by the creation of a separate Muslim state. It may be of interest to recall that Iqbal was greatly impressed and inspired by Kemal Ataturk's Turkey. In his lecture on "The principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam" which forms a chapter of his book. "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam", Iqbal paid glowing tributes to modern Turkey and approved its freedom of Ijtihad with a view to rebuilding the law of Shariat in the light of modern thought and experience. He wrote: "The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained self-consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom: she alone has passed from the ideal to the real." Iqbal thought that most Muslim countries "are mechanically repeating old values, where as the Turk is on the way to creating new values." He than goes on to observe: "If the renaissance of Islam is a fact, and I believe it is a fact, we too one day, like the Turks, will have to re-evaluate our intellectual inheritance. So in Iqbal's view Modern Turkey was the only Muslim country which was trying to fulfill Islam's commitment to history. She could serve as a model for us also. It would, there fore, quite valid to suggest that the inspiration that Iqbal received from Modern Turkey was perhaps responsible for his demand for a separate Muslim state .......Having posed the question in such candid terms Iqbal goes on to observe: "After a long and careful study of Islamic Law, I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at least the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state of states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as secure a peaceful India". In the same letter Iqbal discusses socialism or social democracy. He use these two terms synonymously. He argues that Jawaharlal. Nehru's socialism could not be accepted by the caste-ridden Hindus society. "For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal principles of a revolution but a return to the original purity of Islam. goes on to reassert that in order to make it possible for Muslims India to solve modern problems, poverty being one of them, "it is necessary to redistribute the country and to provide one or more Muslim state with absolute majorities." .......<b>In summing up one could say that in the Pakistan of Iqbal's concept Islam was to play its role as a cultural force and fulfill its commitment to history.</b> The new country was to solve modern problems by exercising the freedom of Ijtihad and in accordance with the original spirit of Islam and the spirit of modern times. The problem of poverty was to be solved by the acceptance of social democracy in a form consistent with the legal principles of Islam. Finally Iqbal's concern for mass contact underscores his faith in the people's power and in their right to participate and share in the shaping of their destiny. It also implies that power should rest where it belongs. </i>
I just think that is such a stretch. What is religion? Is it ONLY the original book someone wrote? Something static and time bound, or is it the people who live and advocate the faith? Is Christianity just the Bible? Religion is not like a Platonic Form, some ideal that can neither be imperfect nor touched. Somehow you absolve the religion by saying it is the followers that are the problem. I think that's just semantics. OK, ok. For the sake of this point I'll change my stance. We should not have a poor perception of Islam as it was originally intended, only as its practiced in the Middle East, North Africa, and the subcontinent (and maybe East Asia). Now how does that change anything? Uh, no. Many many posts have already dealt with this. Modernity in the West moderates religion. It does it with Christianity and with Islam. If poverty was the 'real' cause and religion wasn't, then there would be plenty of South American terrorists flying planes into buildings. There aren't. What is the difference? South America is predominately Christian. The Middle East is primarily Muslim.
I realize there's another set of dialogue for me to answer, but I think this fits with my point. The question here is whether the goals of fundamentalist Islam and the religious terrorists who espouse extremist interpretations such as Wahhabism have become one and the same. Has Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda come that far? Response to the Terrorists Actions (Not in its entirety...I guess imitation to Mango's quoting style is a form of flattery... ) <i> (3) We must begin to think seriously about the causes of terrorism and address its causes rather than believe that violence against terrorism will eliminate it. Long-term effective action to eliminate terrorism and other forms of violence will mainly involve positive action to eliminate its causes. Its causes are manifold: psychological, economic, political, religious, educational, and the easy availability of highly destructive weapons. Each of these causes are addressed briefly: (a) Psychological: It is important to understand the underlying motivations and cognitive perspectives of both the leaders and also the followers of organized terrorist groups. At a deep level, it has been well stated that "violence is the expression of impotence grown unbearable." At a more direct level, the leaders of terrorist groups such as those connected with the drug traffic are mainly seeking to protect and promote their illegal business. <b> In contrast, the leaders of such groups as bin Laden's are seeking to promote a political-religious ideology under conditions in which they feel impotent to achieve their objectives through peaceful means. Osama bin Laden apparently seeks to destroy the modern, secular, democratic, dominating, globalizing capitalism as symbolized by the United States and return to a more medieval, pre-capitalistic theocratic world (such as found in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan). The leaders of terrorist groups are often well educated, from backgrounds of upper-middle or higher social-economic backgrounds, but often of marginal, disrespected ethnic, nationalist, or religious groups within their society. They often harbor deep resentment against the leaders of their own society and those who are allied with them. The active followers of the terrorist leaders are often alienated, educated people from petit bourgeois families who are seeking a power and prestige-enhancing self-identity as well as the emotional and economic support of being a member of a close-knit group. The political-religious ideology of their leaders provides them with an acceptable moral justification for their violent behavior. </b> (b) Economic: During the past decade, the United States has gone through a period of considerable economic prosperity but many people throughout the world, as well as in the U.S., have not shared in this prosperity and a considerable number have seen their economic situation worsen. Some believe that those who have prospered have done so because they have exploited those nations and people who have not. There is considerable envy and resentment toward the U.S. as a result. To overcome these feelings, as well as for other good reasons, it is important for the U.S. to take an active, leading, and visible role in improving the economic well being of those nations and people who are suffering economic difficulties. (c) Shortsighted policy-making: In the past, we were so anti-Communist that we supported any group (including bin Laden's and the Taliban) that fought against the Soviets whether or not, they shared any of our other values. Our bombing of Sudan was seen to be an unjustified terrorist attack against a Muslim state which, in turn, justifies an attack against us. Apparently, our limited foresight can produce policies which are destructive to our own interests. (d) Political: Political violence, to paraphrase, grows out of unbearable political impotence. In other words, political violence is less apt to be stimulated in a democracy where one has the freedom to express one's political views and to openly try to persuade others to elect to political power and leadership those who represent your views and interests than in the dictatorial nations of the Middle East. Dictators are, often, able to prevent internal violence by severe, repressive controls and by deflecting the pent-up rage on to other targets. The United States, partly because of its support of Israel as well as its leading role in the modern globalizing world, has become a handy target for this displaced rage. It is evident that the U.S. has much to gain by supporting the development of democratic institutions and leadership to replace the backward autocratic governments in this region. (e) Religious: The central tenets of all the major religions - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish - respect the sanctity of human life. They all oppose violence against innocent human beings. However, there are deviant radical "fundamentalist" groups in some of the religions who distort the basic teachings of their religion to condone and, even, encourage politically inspired violence against innocent victims. <b> Although this has been particularly true, recently, in the Middle East, where deviant "fundamentalists" have legitimized and even glorified people who have engaged in terrorist violence, it has also occurred in the United States, Israel, Ireland and other countries. The United States should encourage the religious leaders of all religions to take very active leadership in de-legitimizing violence against innocent victims. </b> (f) Educational: Education in many parts of the world, as well as in the United States, does not provide students with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to become active participants in - and advocates of - a peaceful world. Too often, it is narrowly ethnocentric, glorifies violence by one's own group and dehumanizes members of out groups. It predisposes students to use zero-sum power strategies and tactics in conflict wit out groups, rather than cooperative, problem-solving methods. Clearly, if we are to have a world free of terrorism, much effort will have to be directed at educating our students to have the knowledge, attitudes and skills for constructive conflict resolution. To sum up, we are in a win-lose conflict with terrorism; we must not allow it to escalate to a conflict with Islam or Muslims. We must also prevent it from battering our democratic freedoms as we take steps to decrease our vulnerability to terrorism and to de-legitimize as well as undermine terrorist groups. And, of course, we must continue our active efforts to create a world that is characterized by a cooperative peace, social justice, and a sustainable environment. (g) Availability of Weapons: The U.S. government pursuit of an anti-missile defense program is likely to lead to a unilateral ending of an important arms control treaty and hamper the development of international agreements to limit and control the production and widespread availability of weapons of mass destruction. Our emphasis should be on developing effective international control of such weapons rather than on taking actions to militarize space unilaterally </i> I'm sure our actions in American foreign policy are directly tied with the 'non-vocal' majority of Muslims. They are probably faced with the same issues of choosing sides just like Americans are for choosing to attack Iraq or not. The irony is that oppressive authoritarian regimes are creating an environment that is condusive for the same extremist groups they are bent on cracking down. Mango's article on Pakistani education criticises their past ways. <i>"A moronic, incompetent, self-obsessed, corrupt, and ideologically charged education bureaucracy today squarely blocks Pakistan's entry into the 21st century. We cannot entrust the future of our country to those who cannot write a single straight sentence, and for whom good education means passivity, blind obedience, and indoctrination." </i> If Pakistani children are raised to be passive and obedient, isn't it in their nature to be non-vocal in some aspects? Isn't this type of education system indicative to most authoritarian regimes? None of these Muslim countries (ME, central Asia, N. Africa) are powerful millitarily compared to the west. Pakistan is a nuclear power but is locked in an arms proliferation race with India while its infrastructure needs a serious overhaul. Because of its authoritarian nature, these countries have no venue for vocal opposition. These two factors together generate a local populace who feels defenseless against the west and are given a political alternative with extremist Islamic radical groups... I view religious terrorism and fundamentalism as two distinct problems. Fundamentalism does feed religious terrorism, but religious terrorism is at another level where the group feels like they need to bring pronounced change or another epoch. They exceed the bounds of religion to justify murder, and though they wish to convey a romanticised "Robin Hood" image, their inner core myths are confined within their disciplined group. Combating fundamentalism directly in hopes of eliminating terrorism by advocating war is exactly what the religious terrorists want to achieve: The blurring in the lines of religion and fundamentalism and the eventual conflict between the religion and the aggressor. We've seen how a botched confrontation in Waco has galvanized the undergound militia community. FGM and the restriction of Muslim women's liberties will have to be a different priority.
Tell that to the people who tried to live with or around the Puritans. How about people who live near some radical Christian communities in Appalachia today. The difference isn't Christianity was more "open" to secular influences, it wasn't and isn't (many radical Christian leaders fought it tooth and nail and still do today), the difference is advancement, education, science and philosophy spread ill most all levels of society has moderated the influence of Christianity and other religions in the west. But you can still find your pockets of extremism be it Christian, Judism, etc., even in the West. I just think many of ya'll have way to ahistorical perspective on this, the West has only been as it is now (moderated religious persecution and the influence of religion in politics/wars) for century at the most. There is no reason to think with education, science, and philosophy brought to predominantly Muslim nations this would not occur there--that is why it is important for us to attack/address/work to change fundamentalist institutions in other countries (those that denying women's basic rights or denying education to a populace/group) but not Islam itself. You don't walk in and successful tell someone to change their religion, but over time you introduce them to modern Western (and some Eastern) thought and institutions to moderate the extreme influences. It changes a lot. It changes the theme from "should be at war with Islam" to "should we be at war with radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists". The latter is well less than 1% of the former--I would not call that semantics. 1st, we had an American building with a bunch of kids in it blown up by an American Christian a few years ago. We have doctors killed by organized groups of admitted fundamentalist Christians. We have Catholics and Protestants killing each other in N Ireland despite all the economic and educational advances that have occurred there. The point is not that therefore Catholicism and Protestantism in all their forms promote violence and killing, the point is radical religious/political leaders often advocate violence and terrorism for their personal causes. Also, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we get some attacks on our soil by Colombian or Peruvian extremists groups if we keep up or further extend some of our foreign policies there. I personally think we need to thread a whole lot more carefully there.
Ah, but then you be forgetting that this conflict is not just about terrorism. Nice try, but you don't get to limit out the extent of the differences like that. Excuse me, but McVeigh was not Christian, nor did he consider himself a Christian warrior, nor fighting for Christianity. How many? You're argument about % are true for attacks on Christianity in the US, but not for our conflicts with Islam. How many doctor killers are out there? 5? First, the British HAVE BEEN AT WAR with terrorists in Northern Ireland for quite some time. That is West on West. Second, that is not an international movement. That whole conflict is contained within the Commonwealth. Third, neither the Catholics nor the Protestants are fighting a holy war against the West. Fourth, the N Ireland conflict's violence is the main issue, unlike Islam, where there are many many conflicts on many issues. You can speculate, and that is fine. But the facts remain that some theorize poverty = international terrorism, not Islam. But Islamic states are the only producers of international terrorists. Put simply, it is folly to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but equal folly to deny the linkage between Islam and the terrorists who hit the WTC and Pentagon.
one misconception that seems to keep rearing its head in here and other similar threads.... tim mcveigh never claimed to be a christian...he never claimed to be carrying out these attacks in the name of his god...in fact, his last words indicate he did not believe in a god at all, and would certainly be unwilling to submit to one. there are ample examples of idiots using christ to justify bloodshed...mcveigh is not one of those, however.
I didn't not mean to imply McVeigh carried out his attack in the name of Christanity. I did think he identified himself as Christian, if I am wrong about that strike my comment. However nontheless it shows it isn't just religious ideology that leads to terrorism. It isn't just poverty that leads to attacks. But poverty leads to the conditions ripe for violence. You put poverty with perceived or real extensive blood shed due to an external forces messing with you, some fundementalist or ideological rhetoric mixed in, and it is not unlikely that external force becomes the target even if wrongly so. You argue few #s for the the doctor killers but then ignore the few numbers of Islamic terrorists actually setting aim on US soil relative to all Muslims worldwide. You can't have it both ways. You don't blame the many for the few even if the few may have ties to a few rich people with similar religious/ideoloigcal views and powerful means to make their voices be loud. Yes all we can do is speculate. Would most of the Islamic terrorists attack us if there wasn't oil under the sand (thus we backed away from that area 50 years ago because we didn't care). Also, while some of the NE conflict clealy has been fueled/funded by international sources (it isn't just regional and devoid of religious conflicts) would the conflict had further escalated if the world's richest oil fields were there and one group wanted to sell it all to Russia or China and the other to the US? Or do you really believe the ME conflict is all about religion and hasn't been twisted and magnified regionally and internationally because of the combination of poverty, rich natural resources that could lesson the former if more equitable distributed, and other political factors there. To end, I see a whole lot more targets on American soil than Dutch soil by the Islamic fundamentalists, if it was all about ideology you would think they would start with the country ideologically most discrepent with them.
I would tend to think that 5 or so doctor killers relative to the number of people worldwide who are pro life is a hell of a lot smaller than the number of muslim extremists arrested since 9-11 in relation to muslims around the world. And thats only the ones that have been caught.
Moral relativism from a conservative??? I thought if it was wrong, it was wrong, no exceptions. Cohen: LOL! Good one. I actually thought about that as I wrote it. Hayes/Mango/et al: I can understand that you see this as a question of semantics, but I think it is an important distinction. By defining an entire religion by what one segment of that religion believes, you foster even further misconceptions and problems. I don't think there is any question that, in the name of Islam, atrocities are performed just as they have been in the name of basically every major religion. However, saying that Islam is the problem is not only an easy approach, it is fundamentally incorrect. If you removed Islam from the equation, I would say that it is likely the behavior would continue. There would be some OTHER justification for it, but it wouldn't stop. Until we actually isolate the real root causes instead of broad generalizations that don't really address the REAL issues at hand, we'll continue to struggle to find any answers.
