PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: zanzibar on September 21, 2006, 03:18:13 am
-
This is from today's Guardian:
We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam
The Pope's remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic
Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian
In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. "I approach you not with arms, but with words," he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, "not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love." Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the "bestial cruelty" of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? "I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree," he expostulated, "worse than cattle if I assent!"
Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such "love" might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope's words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended "to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam".
But the Pope's good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.
Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.
The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.
Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.
In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope's denigration of Islam have accused him of "hypocrisy", pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.
Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.
We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.
With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.
The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.
But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History
-
I don't think many people lump together regular garden-variety moderate Muslims and extremist death-cult terrorists who happen to cloak themselves in the trappings of Islamism. This idea that reactions against terrorism and bombings and people shouting "Death to America" can all be labeled "Islamophobia" is really just a form of denial as to what people out there really are fighting against. There are people that hate the West, hate the way women have rights, hate that a certain country (Israel) exists on the planet, and so forth. They use the rhetoric of Islam to justify their actions and to incite people to feel righteous in following their cause.
They also consciously use it to take advantage of the multi-cultural white guilt that thinkers like Karen Armstrong appear to wallow in. If you don't think they are that smart, then perhaps you're a racist.
I'm not Islamophobic. I'm suicide-bomber-phobic. No matter the religion or the trappings surrounding it.
- Vengeance
-
"islamaphobia" sounds like a new word to demonize anyone who speaks out against islam. people who use it are really just playing right into terrorists hands.
i am worried to an extent by islam. Its also sad for me personally to see where i am growing up quikly turning largly islamic.
Im obviously not worried about the kind muslims (mostly indonesian) that i work with.
im not just randomly running around bashing peoples heads in or rioting just to 'hate muslims be racist/anti religous blah blah .
I fear for our culture, for our safety and people. saying that doesent make me an 'islamiphobe' and maybe the term isnt directed at people like me (though some would like to call me that)
western countries have their priorities mixed up when they put someones freedom to move here (being muslims) way above our own freedoms and security as a whole and a nation.
I am scared of suicide bombings, which is a new and growing problem and i know this problem is getting worse worldwide as a direct result of immigration.
to put it really bluntly id rather be safe and free than multicultural, not for racist reasons but because at the present time its not really a good idea to mix 2 kinds of people just for the sake of saying we are diverse and all that stuff.
well theres my say on the matter, didnt mean to go on there.
I know large majourity of muslims hate suicide bombings and love western freedoms and all that.
-
See, i don't like the words that intermix Islam with extremists or terrorists.
Why is religeon mentioned, i mean we've went through the KKK, crusades, and hitler, without a word on christianity.
The case is the same here, religeon should not be mentioned, let's call terrorists, terrorists, and leave it at that.
We don't use the term christans and fascism or extremist or killers, but we do it for islam, and i really don't know why, it makes everyone in the media look awefull, especially when that's all they report.
I mean just look at these chrstians and tell me why no one was in an uproar when these comments were made:
Pat Buchanan:
Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.
Speech to the Christian Coalition, September 1993
David Chilton:
The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers - the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1984)
Ann Coulter:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Newspaper Column, September 2001.
Tom DeLay:
Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) at the First Baptist Church of Pearland, Texas, on April 12, 2002
Hitler:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Speech in 1922
Jerry Falwell:
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc. are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.
USA Today. Quoted from: The Religious Freedom Coalition.
Jeff Fugate:
If you don't want a Christian nation, then go to one of the many nations that are heathen already, rather than perverting ours.
You're welcome to come, but leave your religions, your bibles, all your other things back where you came from.
Islam and America are opposites. They hate us. They want to kill us. I'm not anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic. I'm anti-Islam because that religion right there is anti-American.
Jeff Fugate, pastor of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, July 3, 2002.
D. James Kennedy:
This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.
Character & Destiny: A Nation in Search of Its Soul (1994)
Francis J. Lally:
The Church has through the centuries, understood that ideas are really more dangerous than other weapons. Their use should be restricted.
Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor. Interview with Mike Wallace, 1958.
Joseph Morecraft:
Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol.
Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech delivered on August 21, 1993 at the Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference.
Gary North:
So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
"The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.
Randall Terry:
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
The News Sentinel, (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993
James Watt:
We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.
James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981.
CNN article about Pope Benedict XVI:
During his address at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday, Benedict quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.
"The emperor certainly knew that Sura 2, 256, reads: 'No force in matters of faith'. It is one of the early suras, from a time -- as experts say -- in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened.
"However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors -- in a surprisingly brusque way -- with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence.
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement released Thursday, said it "regrets the quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as 'spreading' Islam 'by the sword.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
You would think we would have used the term Christian Extremists long before islamic extremists, being that we have seen so much of their work for so long.
Yet you can hardly find an article about it past 1990.
It's hardly mentioned, and only when islam is mentioned do people use the term extremists.
My point: We all have extremists, but using the term exclusively for one religeon is wrong.
~~Datruth
-
Very good points Datruth.
however some of those quotes are completly out of context.
I do agree there have been many sickening things done in the name of Christianity.
Edit: It seems strange that on at least 4 other forums I use, Religion is a very hot topic right now ???
-
I'm pretty sure Vengeance just called someone a racist. I'm not sure who though.
I think Datruth said it pretty well.
-
lol i knew someone would do that.
hitler this hitler that white man this.
ignoring the matter at hand.
if you believe in world atrocoties why let them happen again, via immigration.
dont justify suicide bombings and such with hitler.
just a query though, why dont people stick up for their own kind and nation for once, and stop making it 'justifiable' in a way and sticking up for terrorists.
see world war 2 was in the past and cannot be changed immigration is a thing of today WE CAN PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING THIS TIME :P
understand what im trying to say guys
-
nah i read the article but my posts are mostly off track from the article and more onto what other people where saying.
calling terrorists terrorist is stupid, ALOT of terrorists are islamic. home grown terrorists like timothy mcveigh are harder to prevent and carnt really be avoided easily, but closing the floodgates on islamic immigration id say would help alot on future attacks.
-
nah i read the article but my posts are mostly off track from the article and more onto what other people where saying.
That's not true at all... no one here is defending terrorists. Your post is pretty much dedicated to attacking people who are defending terrorists. So... no. Your post isn't a response to what other people were actually saying.
calling terrorists terrorist is stupid, ALOT of terrorists are islamic. home grown terrorists like timothy mcveigh are harder to prevent and carnt really be avoided easily, but closing the floodgates on islamic immigration id say would help alot on future attacks.
What floodgates? ???
-
calling terrorists terrorist is stupid, ALOT of terrorists are islamic. home grown terrorists like timothy mcveigh are harder to prevent and carnt really be avoided easily, but closing the floodgates on islamic immigration id say would help alot on future attacks.
Ya, good option.....Sarcasm*
1 in 4 people on this earth is a member of the religeon of Islam.
Do you seriously want to ban that many people from getting into America?
Are you serious or was that a joke?
I mean you would have a public uproar, do you really, truly, understand what you are saying?
And the point about, "alot of terrorists are islamic", i'd like to see your proof on that.
You made a statement and i disagree with it.
If you look at the extremists versus the number of Muslims in the world, you get something like a VERY small percentage.
-
Not only that, but the American government is guilty of quite a bit of terrorism itself.
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm
-
Not only that, but the American government is guilty of quite a bit of terrorism itself.
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm
Great point zanzibar.
But i have to say, central and south america has been hit the Hardest by the U.S.
The Roosevelt cooralary, hope i spelled that right, Was basically the establishment of a Police force of the Americas, by the U.S.
I blame the deaths of the poor Central and south Americans on their Currupt Governments and the Rise of such by intervention through the U.S.
Oh, and did anyone notice we own the Panama Canal again? What a coincidence. :woot:
-
People like Bin Laden don't actually see US citizens as innocent. They view Americans as wilfully ignorant and as actively supporting an evil government.
If you want to go into more detail, here's an interview with Bin Laden from 1998. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
He's insane and evil, but also usually mischaracterized by the mainstream media.
@Datruth: Activities in Central America are largely a money making scheme involving the World Bank. Support local militias, have them fall into great financial debt, then have their nation pay interest to you for eternity. The fact that these militias overturned democratically elected, progressive, populist, socialist, anti-globalizationalist goverments is just icing on the cake. We destroyed their social programs and then we sent in international corporations to fill the void.
-
Religions are NOT peaceful things. Christianity or Islam, both are tools for political control. You cannot separate states and religions no matter what the laws say. Priests and politicians are different sides to the same coin. Both the Bible and the Koran and have passages devoted to peace and to war, to tolerance and to intolerance. No matter what is written in the books, the social processes that uphold these institutions are dedicated to controlling people and the way they think by whatever means necessary. Usually through fear and intimidation, either regarding physical needs, or based on threats (and lies) about some fable of a life beyond death. So that you will be rewarded if you are "good" and punished if you are "bad". Islam is as guilty of this as any of them and they are all ultimately useless to us. Yes, I said USELESS. As in pointless, without purpose, gratuitous, et cetera. So I am not going to defend Islam OR Christianity. They get what they deserve for huckstering people for centuries to fill their coffers with blood money and ill-gotten gains.
BTW: One does not call Judaism "Jewism" and the Roosevelt corrollary is referred to as the "Monroe Doctrine". :)
-
[Sorry for the wrong spelling of Judaism, I was too lazy to look up how it's called in English]
Well, I only made my point very basically. Of course Christianity wasn't completely founded by just taking Judaism culture and adding a bit. But you do prove my point that practially all religions are tightly bound together, they all connect, that's why it's nonsense to fight eachother in the name of your religion.
About atheism:
I don't need a God to make my life have purpose.
There are thousands of possible purposes in a life better than living up to what that guy up there might've said.
If your life is totally meaningless without the possible existance of a God, I pity you.
Just to throw in some quotes:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
--Epicurus
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
--Isaac Asimov
-
Oh, I forgot about slavery! That's a good example. Purely based in greed, and the Bible was used many times to justify it.
-
The bible, and many other holy books, were written so vague they can be used to justify anything.
Oppression of women
Oppression of non-white people
Oppression of other religions.
etc.
That stuff isn't in the Bible, still the Bible was used to "prove" those practices time after time, even today.
-
I never said the Bible didn't contradict itself on those points. Here's an entertaining website: http://mindprod.com/religion/biblestudy.html
-
Note: Posts of a Political, Religious, or Sexual Nature
Such posts are considered trolling, as they incite personal attacks and flaming, and the latter may be inappropriate for all ages. Do not make them. There are many places on the Internet that welcome such discussions; the PlaneShift forums are not one of those places.
Keep religion out of this forum.
*edit*
I am serious. This whole thread has become one giant sprint for rule-breaking. Replies concerning general religion without discussing the original topic will be deleted. If you want to reply to a point someone else made about vairous religions beliefs, use PMs.
-
Sorry karyuu lol , didn't notice your post, let's get back on topic.
-
datruth: look at the name of this topic. look at karyuu's post. carefully compare the 2 ;p
-
*shrug* I've approached things from a historical perspective, not a religious one.
-
I don't think many people lump together regular garden-variety moderate Muslims and extremist death-cult terrorists who happen to cloak themselves in the trappings of Islamism. This idea that reactions against terrorism and bombings and people shouting "Death to America" can all be labeled "Islamophobia" is really just a form of denial as to what people out there really are fighting against. There are people that hate the West, hate the way women have rights, hate that a certain country (Israel) exists on the planet, and so forth. They use the rhetoric of Islam to justify their actions and to incite people to feel righteous in following their cause.
They also consciously use it to take advantage of the multi-cultural white guilt that thinkers like Karen Armstrong appear to wallow in. If you don't think they are that smart, then perhaps you're a racist.
I'm not Islamophobic. I'm suicide-bomber-phobic. No matter the religion or the trappings surrounding it.
- Vengeance
That was....beautiful...
EDIT: took out religious stuff...after Karyuus post scared the hell out of me.
-
Ok I have edited the thread to take out anything that was purely an opinion about one religion or another. Terrorism and how to label it seems like a fair subject for a thread here if we can stay civil. Religion bashing or religion boosting isn't going to go anywhere or help anything, so it is deleted.
Advice for Datruth and Zanz: Please quit posting huge quotes of entire things into the forums. Just link to the page with the article or the page with all the Christian quotes instead of filling up our browsers with posts a meter long that no one will read.
- I think it is certainly a valid point that the "vast majority" of Muslims are not terrorists but that does not disprove the converse. Almost all of the current terrorism problem in the world is being caused by people who are Islamic. As a percentage of the entire Muslim world, a very *small* percentage, but if someone is a terrorist they are almost certainly Muslim.
- If you need "proof" that "a lot of terrorists are Islamic" then you have your head in the sand to a point where it is pointless to discuss this any farther. U.S.A. - Bombed by Muslims. Indonesia -- Bombed by Muslims. India -- Bombed by Muslims. Sudan -- Genocide by Muslims. Bosnia -- Genocide by Muslims. Kosovo -- Torn apart by Muslims. Chechnya -- War by Muslims. Philippines -- Rebellion by Muslims. Sri Lanka -- Rebellion by Muslims. UK -- bombed by Muslims. Spain -- bombed by Muslims. Germany -- bombing attempted by Muslims. Canada -- bombing attempted by Muslims. Reactions by Muslims worldwide when they hear of successes in these other places? Dancing in the streets and great ululation.
- If you think the hateful and twisted page from Zanzibar's link explains why they hate US, then why do they hate India and Canada and Sudanese farmers?
- If you have another label which fits them and somehow leaves out their religious commonality, I'm all for hearing it. Until such a moniker is found, "Islamic Radicals" is no less a fair term than calling the Branch Davidians "Christian Radicals", and certainly does not brand the entire religion as radical any more than describing something as "red paint" means that anything which is red is also paint. The only other likely modifier to "radicals" would be "Arab" but they aren't all Arab. Iran is Persian and Sudanese or Chechnyan Muslims aren't Arabs either.
- Admittedly, if Hugo Chavez joins them, we'll have to come up with a broader label. :-)
I guess what I don't understand at a higher level here is the rush to defend them and the rush to blame anyone but them. You both sound like defense law students arguing some academic case in a moot court. The fact is that they want us dead and tell us this every chance they get. They celebrate wildly at every success. Whether they have reason to hate me or not, I prefer to remain living. That makes them my enemy and yours, whether you know it or not--unless of course you're on their side.
If I'm wrong about all this, and you obviously believe that I am wrong, what is the alternative you are advocating? Worldwide dhimmitude, forced conversions by the millions and Taliban rule in America? Are you advocating that they will all shut up and become peaceful if we simply stop doing a certain thing? Aside from saying "USA=Bad" what are you suggesting should happen and what do you predict the result would be if you got your wish and we did what you require?
- Puzzled Vengeance
-
I've said it before and I've said it again: No one here is defending the terrorists, including the writer of the article.
- Actually, quite a few people read what I posted.
- The article didn't say that there aren't a lot of Islamic terrorists out there. The article was about how Islam itself is being painted unfairly and without attention to historical truth.
- The links I've posted haven't been hateful or twisted, unless you see history as inherently hateful and twisted.
- Hating the USA doesn't mean you aren't allowed to hate India and Canada as well.
- Society and the mass media do not use the term "Christian Radicals" nearly as casually as they use "Islamic ______". That's part of the point here. When a Muslim blows himself up, it's a reflection on all of Islam. When a Christian blows himself up, it's just some crazy.
- No one here is saying we should stop fighting terrorist fundamentalist organizations and activities.
- The point of the article is to outline a kind of biggotry which has developed in the West by putting recent events and ideas in historical perspective.
-
The article didn't say that there aren't a lot of Islamic terrorists out there. The article was about how Islam itself is being painted unfairly and without attention to historical truth.
The historical truth is also that (quoting a quote) "a lot of terrorists are Islamic".
Hating the USA doesn't mean you aren't allowed to hate India and Canada as well.
Hehe nice one. :D
When a Muslim blows himself up, it's a reflection on all of Islam. When a Christian blows himself up, it's just some crazy.
I disagree, because it matters why you blow yourself up. For a Christian, it's rarely to fight a "holy war" (which btw deserves to be the misnomer of the century) but rather because his wife cheated on him or something. Crazy.
The point of the article is to outline a kind of biggotry which has developed in the West by putting recent events and ideas in historical perspective.
Talking of "putting into perspective" - when did you last burn an embassy because of an insensible drawing of whatever you cherish or believe in, or when someone publically questions the ideals behind your belief?
-
Except that I'm not a fundamentalist or extremist, so why are you asking me such a bizzare question?
No religion has a good history when it comes to combining religion and violence, and Christianity isn't excepted. Look at the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland, or at the violence directed towards abortion clinics and doctors in the US. This is simple and ongoing history. Are these people representatives of all of Christianity? Absolutely positively not.
I am not saying that Christianity is more or less violent than any other religion. I am not making any comment on the worth or dignity of Christianity or any other religion. But you said that for Christians, it's "rarely to fight a 'holy war'", but I'm not sure if it's as rare as you might think it is.
-
No religion has a good history when it comes to combining religion and violence, and Christianity isn't excepted.
Someone said it before in this thread - history is history. I cannot say I feel guilty for, say, the crusades. But I can learn from that past. The radical elements, no matter what religion they claim to follow, also learnt from that - but apparently they learnt something different.
I am not making any comment on the worth or dignity of Christianity or any other religion.
Well, if you ask me, the whole concept of "praciticing religion" is an insult to human dignity, since the only common ground that all religions can find is the phrase "we are right and you are not", wrapped in pretty words. This is bound to cause hostility, since dogmatically all new or different ideas are wrong... I'll stop there since this goes beyond this topic.
Except that I'm not a fundamentalist or extremist, so why are you asking me such a bizzare question?
This is my point, let's assume you are a Christian, and maybe a "good one" (as in "strong believer") - you would maybe be insulted if something like this was said about holy figures in your religion's history. But would you go rampaging in the streets? It's not the indignation, but it's proportionality I despise.
(In the most recent case) especially, since the phrase that contained the "blasphemous" words was taken out of context - he actually focused on the "religion + violence = no no!" part, and not the "muslims bad haha" part. A quote and speech that were translated over and over again. A quote that far too often wasn't even recognized as a quote but as the words of Benedikt himself. Causing a radical response among thousands of people in more than just a handful of countries. So I think the question (or general cogitation) of how many muslims actually follow the peaceful image that the moderate followers of this religion constantly draw for the "western world" (should also be a candidate for this century's misnomer ;)).
-
Why would he put that quote in his speach if he didn't agree with it? Especially if he didn't then go into why it was wrong? This is a tangent though.
And there are religions out there which believe in tolerance and acceptance... Christianity and Islam are two examples.
-
Why would he put that quote in his speach if he didn't agree with it? Especially if he didn't then go into why it was wrong? This is a tangent though.
The title was "Faith, Reason and the University - Memories and Reflections", the quote was called "gruff", he used the quote and the source's elaboration of why spreading religion through violence should be condemned, he concluded the speech with "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.", ...
Need more? You seem to be focussing on the quote itself and not on "the whole picture", which is a mistake in my opinion. Because I agree, the words themselves in the part he quoted are provoking and probably ill-chosen - when you forget about the context.
-
Why would he put that quote in his speach if he didn't agree with it? Especially if he didn't then go into why it was wrong? This is a tangent though.
The title was "Faith, Reason and the University - Memories and Reflections", the quote was called "gruff", he used the quote and the source's elaboration of why spreading religion through violence should be condemned, he concluded the speech with "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.", ...
Need more? You seem to be focussing on the quote itself and not on "the whole picture", which is a mistake in my opinion. Because I agree, the words themselves in the part he quoted are provoking and probably ill-chosen - when you forget about the context.
His use of the quote is part of the big picture.
-
His use of the quote is part of the big picture.
Oh really? Thanks for pointing that out, must have slipped my mind...
I start to doubt that you even heard or read the speech, apart from the paragraph in question, making serious argumentation pointless.
-
I've replied to parts of the quote in the quote; all my words are in between the Brackets []. (They are now seperated)
I addressed the parts that are underlined, or in bold, or that are directly above said comments.
Enjoy :)
Ok I have edited the thread to take out anything that was purely an opinion about one religion or another. Terrorism and how to label it seems like a fair subject for a thread here if we can stay civil. Religion bashing or religion boosting isn't going to go anywhere or help anything, so it is deleted.
Advice for Datruth and Zanz: Please quit posting huge quotes of entire things into the forums. Just link to the page with the article or the page with all the Christian quotes instead of filling up our browsers with posts a meter long that no one will read.
- I think it is certainly a valid point that the "vast majority" of Muslims are not terrorists but that does not disprove the converse. Almost all of the current terrorism problem in the world is being caused by people who are Islamic. As a percentage of the entire Muslim world, a very *small* percentage, but if someone is a terrorist they are almost certainly Muslim.
[Datruth: That was the most opinionated, politically wrong answer i have ever heard. But i'm glad atleast you take a stand, alot of people waver and occillate but you, venge, take a stand, Although IT is 100% wrong, i still enjoy that you take your stand. ;D
1) China, by far, is the worlds biggest terrorist organization, They have the most Government regulated Deaths in the WORLD as well as RE EDUACTION for people who don't conform to their rule. Basically, you have all of your Basic freedoms taken away from you and you work for the betterment of the "group" when in reality it's the betterment of the Government and most of people are dirt poor.
Watch any documentry about china, read any book about in depth life in china, and do any College project about China, and you will find the underlying truth, IT is an oppressive government that enslaves its people and takes away BASIC human rights.
2)Besides china, we know for a fact that the Khmer Rouge was one of the most Barbaric Governments the world had ever seen. Al qeada is a pittance of an organization compared to the Khmer Rouge based on power, effect on people, and size.]
3) Soviet Russia, Killed about 20 MILLION of it's own people, that's 3 or 4 Jewish Halocausts. They were and always will be the Strongest, Most efficient, Terrorist organization the world has ever seen.
4) The drug trade in Central and South America. It isn't one single organized entity but it needs to be discussed. Millions of pounds of drugs get smuggled in the U.S and other countries through Central and south America. Nearly 80% of the murders in Southern california were Drug related and perpetrated by Gang members.
Here's more stats relating Drugs and California: http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/california.html
Although you can't say it's all organized, you know that 100's of terrorist organizations, known as Gangs, smuggle, sell and extort people every single day, right in our backyard, and WE HAVE LITTLE EFFECT on it.
Why no one mentions the Drug trade in America and the 100's of terrorist gangs that profit from it is odd to me, but i definately see them as a threat, more so than any organization thousands of miles away, having hit us once, and even that is being questioned.
5) Al-Qaeda and Bin laden, Hardly killed 1/4th of any other contender listed here, not nearly as organized as them, and is slowly being removed from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, by American intervention.
[li]If you need "proof" that "a lot of terrorists are Islamic" then you have your head in the sand to a point where it is pointless to discuss this any farther.
[[LOOK AT ABOVE ANSWER... They harldy leave a dent in our historical text books]
U.S.A. - Bombed by Muslims.
[Along with the Japanese, not so long ago, and look where the Japs are now. By the way we owe them 75 billion dollars, as a trade deficit. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_tradetestimony
And guess what, the Japs killed more, i'm talking, HUGE amounts of Americans, and yet they stand Free now.]
Indonesia -- Bombed by Muslims.
[Bombed by ALOT Of countries, besides Muslims, let's try THE U.S! :whistling:
"1965 American-backed Genocide of the Indonesian People
Estimated civilian deaths: 500,000 - 1,000,000 people.
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately – of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above – was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured.
"It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "
Added note: To this day, Indonesia's military and police forces continue to be one of America's best customers for weapons, training, and torture devices." ~~Taken from why they hate us article mentioned in thread]
India -- Bombed by Muslims.
[Agreed, but that was because of tensions between India and Pakistan and their seperation. Just like the Catholic/prodestant or English/Irish tensions that lead to deaths on both sides.
Remember, indians bombed Pakistan too, and there is blood on both hands. This is not a 1 sided problem. Both sides are at fault.]
Sudan -- Genocide by Muslims.
[BAD muslims, not good muslims, Being a muslim is very simple, just like being a Christan is. Say you believe in God and his messenger and you're in, explains the Big club. Christians on the other hand wish to take in the belief that Christ is their Lord and Savior, also a big club. That said, IF the U.S.A and ENGLAND both teamed up, they could easily fix this problem in 2 months, 1 YEAR max.
They stand by and let Poor people suffer, die in the hundreds, and they DON'T do a thing.
A person who allows a women to Get raped is just as Responsible as the person who is doing the Raping.
Right now Sudan's innocent people are being destroyed, and AMERICA AND ENGLAND, are allowing it to happen. This isn't a muslim problem, it's a Western problem, ALL western countries are to blame. ]
Bosnia -- Genocide by Muslims.
[What are you talking about, Christians, slavs, croats, and Russians WERE ALL INVOLVED, it wasn't Muslims that started the tensions in Bosnia, it was the Serbs, everyone is at fault by CLEARLY the serbs. This was obviously filtered information someone gave you, that frankly isn't the truth, The muslims were just in Bosnia, at the wrong place and time when the war erupted they had little to do with the tensions that actually fueled and enflamed the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_war]
Kosovo -- Torn apart by Muslims.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war
Again, do some more reading, Kosovo was another Serbian Nationalistic Problem. I'm sure if one muslim were in the vietnam war you would probably say it was a Muslim war as well..... i mean i'm really seeing a pattern here, a pattern of mis information.]
Chechnya -- War by Muslims.
[Chechnya.... yes chechnya, sounds alot like the last 2, but which war do you mean? There are 3 wars, the first second and third. In all three muslmis weren't to blame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechnya_War
You can blame Russia for destroying that region, not the muslims. Again, a pattern of Misinformation]
Philippines -- Rebellion by Muslims.
[And tell me what is wrong with a rebellion? Does that make someone evil?
To tell you the truth, i rebbelled about my right to vote when they tried to replace paper ballots with Diebolt machines in Southern California. How much destructions did the muslims cause in the phillipines? How many people died? Did anyone die?
Check the numbers and get back to me on how that was a SEVERE muslim problem.
Did you know the phillipines has one of the Largest Christain Majorities on Earth? Even larger than America? ::|
And guess what the majority of those that cause problems are christians. Does that mean that christains are bad?]
Sri Lanka -- Rebellion by Muslims.
[See above response, and again Sri lanka has had alot of problems with Indians too, not just muslims.]
UK -- bombed by Muslims.
[The Germans have caused 1 million times more damage than ANY muslim has EVER done. Does that make Germany a Destructive state? Is germany evil? They unleashed THOUSANDS of bombs on the U.K, this wasn't even that long ago, why is your mind so closed minded? Obviously the facts state that Christians have done more damage to the U.k, Therefore christians are all at fault, and they have a demonic religeon. Bad assumption right? Exactly my point, you also have a bad asumption. Historically muslims barely caused a Dent to the U.K.]
Spain -- bombed by Muslims.
[Agreed, but just as many deaths are caused by Christians.]
Germany -- bombing attempted by Muslims.
[I bet EVERY single RACE, RELIGEON, and CREED as tried to bomb Germany, for whatever crazy reasons they may have had. WHAT IS YOUR POINT VENGE? Religeon has no standing whatsoever here. The Neo Nazis have caused more trouble there than ANY muslims have.]
Canada -- bombing attempted by Muslims.
[Read last post... same issue, Christians have done more damage to Canada than muslims ever have.
Again, filtered glasses, take them off please.]
Reactions by Muslims worldwide when they hear of successes in these other places? Dancing in the streets and great ululation.[/li][/b][/u][/color]
[That is by far the most false statement on here. I'd like you to show me that a Vast majority of muslims were happy when they saw the terroist attacks. Please show me, i'm waiting. Literally EVERY muslim i know hated seeing them and detested them. It made all of them look bad and made us look even worse reporting that they were happy.
So you see one video of people in Saudi arabia dancing around like fools, guess what, Saudia arabia is a poor, bunch of un educated, enslaved people, and you assume almost 2 BILLION Muslims worldwide are Happy.
I really don't know what to say to this.... it's wrong at all aspects, and if you truly believe it, Proove it, show me where 2 billion People worldwide enjoyed watching it.
Even the Good muslmis you mentioned in your first sentance, whom you YOURSELF said were the majority, would not be happy.
I see some conflictions in your statements.]
[li]If you think the hateful and twisted page from Zanzibar's link explains why they hate US, then why do they hate India and Canada and Sudanese farmers?[/li]
[li]If you have another label which fits them and somehow leaves out their religious commonality, I'm all for hearing it. Until such a moniker is found, "Islamic Radicals" is no less a fair term than calling the Branch Davidians "Christian Radicals", and certainly does not brand the entire religion as radical any more than describing something as "red paint" means that anything which is red is also paint. The only other likely modifier to "radicals" would be "Arab" but they aren't all Arab. Iran is Persian and Sudanese or Chechnyan Muslims aren't Arabs either.[/li]
[li]Admittedly, if Hugo Chavez joins them, we'll have to come up with a broader label. :-)[/li]
[/list]
[Gee, you know what, alot of people don't even like calling them Muslims because they are as far from it as you can get. Sure they meet the minimum requirements, they believe in a God and that Muhammad was his prophet.
I'm sure the KKK also fit the Minimum Christian guidlines, but they are NEVER CALLED Christians, or even christian extremists.
So you want a wider term that includes everyone, even hugo chavez.
I got it right here, Terrorist
Try that next time. ;)]
I guess what I don't understand at a higher level here is the rush to defend them and the rush to blame anyone but them. You both sound like defense law students arguing some academic case in a moot court. The fact is that they want us dead and tell us this every chance they get. They celebrate wildly at every success. Whether they have reason to hate me or not, I prefer to remain living. That makes them my enemy and yours, whether you know it or not--unless of course you're on their side.
[The japanese wanted us all dead, the Germans wanted us all dead, the Crusades wanted all muslms dead. They all rejoiced, WHAT is your point? In historical time, the muslmis have caused far less damage to the world than Christianty has, why isn't anyone pointing a finger at them, You know why? Because we understand christans are mainly good people, they help the world, and they arn't to blame if wackoos go nuts and kill in their name.]
If I'm wrong about all this, and you obviously believe that I am wrong, what is the alternative you are advocating? Worldwide dhimmitude, forced conversions by the millions and Taliban rule in America? Are you advocating that they will all shut up and become peaceful if we simply stop doing a certain thing? Aside from saying "USA=Bad" what are you suggesting should happen and what do you predict the result would be if you got your wish and we did what you require?
[I'm advocating, not mentioning religeon, it is INSIGNIFICANT, they fight for their so called religeon, but so have Christians and they are #1, numero uno, on the list of overall Deaths, killings, and terrorist attacks in their name. The church went as far as having a HOLY WAR to exterminate all muslims from Jerusalem. Do not say Muslim Extremist, Do not say Christian Extremist, Do not say Jewish or Hindu Extremist.
All i want said is, Terrorist. It is unfair to blame one religeon and i think i've widely proved that over this discussion.]
- Puzzled Vengeance
[Puzzled Datruth]
That is the most puzzling answer i've ever heard and it sounds as if you have been getting your info filtered to you from outside sources.
I'd recommend using the internet alot more, when searching for info.
No more T.V, CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, or ABC.
Listen to them if you like, but go find the information by yourself, don't let them Spoon feed you their Bias.
And i hope you liked my comments i added to your quote, i mean alot of your points were dead wrong, not in just my opinion, but factually wrong.
Hope everyone has been enlightened by this Long and Grueling post that took me a while to do. :D :thumbup:
~~Datruth
Edit: Fixed typos and spelling errors, seperated quote from replies
-
Datruth, that's a really excellent post. You've shown Vengeance's position to be nonsense in a really effective way. Can I suggest that you edit your post and format it with quotes so it's easier for people to read?
-
Very good Daruth, the same thing in China is also happening in India. Each "state" is basicly run by gangs and mass murders happen all the time. Thats a main reason why one of my best friends dad moved his family over here, there was a threat to kill them. People outside India think that they are doing fine and that they have a good government, but underneath it all, its run by terrorist gangs. Anyone can be bribed, (same with the U.S.)
-
Don't forget Russia! When the soviet union collapsed, the KGB basically joined the Russian maffia. They were trained assassins who were suddenly unemployed, and now they work for the mob.
-
Datruth does have a lot of very good points in reply to Venge there. I think that they're both correct. What is different between them is what they define as a 'terrorist'. For Venge, that would be any modern small group of people who go around blowing people up with guerilla style tatics for their own goals (and they attack the big boys and create 'terror'.). For Datruth, that would be any group, no matter how big, that goes around killing or exploiting people to enforce their own view point. (Those are really short explainations, but they'll do). If you take Venge's viewpoint, then nearly all terrorists are Islamic. If you take Datruth's viewpoint, then pretty much all governments/royal families/multinational companies are terrorists or have been at some point in the past.
The modern day definition of 'Terrorist' is Venge's viewpoint, so technically he is 100% right in what he's saying. But so is Datruth. It just depends on what scale you look at things.
(A nice example of Datruth's viewpoint is the USA's mass killing and taking the land of the native americans in the past. That was surely no better or worse than China has done and to a much lesser extent these days still doing.)
-
Xordan, you're so, so wrong. Islamic terrorists and non-Islamic terrorists operate in much the same way. Do you have any idea how many bombings there have been in Russia by "rebels"?
I think Datruth and Vengeance are using largely the same definition of terrorist. "Islamic Terrorists" are often associated with governments, so you can't say that Vengeance shouldn't take into consideration other organizations supported by governments. They use the same tactics, so you can't say that it's just about bombings.
-
ter‧ror‧ist /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sure some people want to believe only Muslims are terrorists, and they can believe whatever they want, but the truth of the matter is religeon is pointless.
I've clearly shown, if you take an un biased stance on the issue, that religeon is a meaningless factor when it comes to assessing these people.
I'm glad everyone liked my last post, i'll take zanzibar's advice and re format it, it really would look better if it were seperated.
Clearly, we can't both be right. Either, muslims are the majority of terrorists, or they arn't.
I've shown they arn't, he's shown they are, and there might be a difference of our definitions of terrorists.
So because of that, i've shown the defintion, and according to it, the vast majority of terrorists are not muslims.
I rest my case.
~~Datruth
-
Xordan, you're so, so wrong. Islamic terrorists and non-Islamic terrorists operate in much the same way. Do you have any idea how many bombings there have been in Russia by "rebels"?
Yup, nowhere near as many 'terrorist attacks' as there have been by Islamic militants. There are several bombings a day in the middle east, and there have been for a while. I don't believe there are bombings every day in Russia. I don't see many russian terrorists running into busy marketplaces with explosives strapped around themselves and blowing themselves up every day either. I don't see any evidence that right now the majority of terrorists aren't Islamic. In the past, ok, you're probably right (although that can be argued depending on the date). And if I'm "so, so wrong", then both Venge and Datruth are wrong too. :P
-
I don't see any evidence that right now the majority of terrorists aren't Islamic. In the past, ok, you're probably right (although that can be argued depending on the date). And if I'm "so, so wrong", then both Venge and Datruth are wrong too. :P
Right now, what currently affects me the most is the Drug trade. Sure it's not one organized organization, neither is Islamic terrorism, they are a myriad of smaller groups.
At my high school, we had Every type of drug known to man. Even worse we had them sold there as well.
I personally saw friends who fell into addiction and alot of them are poor and in re hab.
I've seen gangs who sell this stuff, who get rich off of it, make millions, and then terrorize the community.
I mean it's better now that i'm in college, most drug trafficers find that they don't want to pay money for college, so therefore we have a better campus, but we do have a percentage of drug users still present here, who have been taking drugs since High school.
I mean the number one problem in Southern California, places like l.a, irvine, orange county, santa barbara, IS drugs.
Islamic groups have had little to no effect on my daily life. We have no muslim gangs in Southern California that blow themselves up.
Actually, muslims are a positive force here, and i have about 12 muslim friends, and 3 of them i know very well. :thumbup:
So you say muslims are having a dramatic affect on you, that's fine, it may be true for you, but for me it's the drug trade and it's having a devestating effect here in California, i'm sure even Karyuu has had to face it at one time or another, so she might comment on it as well.
A great movie to watch that addresses this problem is "Blow" and that only addresses one drug, but it still shows a great portrayal.
And i'm glad you agree that if you ecompass the past, with our present, you see Islamic terrorists, as you call it, have not made much of a dent in history, in respect to total kills or violence.
~~Datruth
-
Remember, do not generalize Islam into something a fraction did. In arabic"Islam" means "Peace". Those who make war are not Muslims/Islamists, whatever you call the religion they practice.
To pose critique at Christianity. Jesus brought peace and he loved everyone. Christianity, like Islam, and many other religions, is about peace, yet we war in the name of God. Religion is to find peace, to find balance in an otherwise chaotic universe.
If religion is it's counterpart, won't it lose it's purpose?
-
A great movie to watch that addresses this problem is "Blow" and that only addresses one drug, but it still shows a great portrayal.
~~Datruth
Very good movie.
Yes, I will admit, i live in a rich neighborhood, and my parents (in my opinion) are raising me fairly well. The sad thing is, is that all these other rich kids, get tons of money from their parents, and use it to get high, or to use any other drug. My parents don't give me ANY money, they provide for me with food and bedding and with christmas and birthday gifts, but thats about it. If i want to get something, like a car, i have to work for it and buy it myself, unlike all these other snobby kids that live around me and their parents give them cars on Valentines day....
-
To pose critique at Christianity. Jesus brought peace and he loved everyone. Christianity, like Islam, and many other religions, is about peace, yet we war in the name of God. Religion is to find peace, to find balance in an otherwise chaotic universe.
Right. Religion is rarely the cause of war, but often the excuse for war. It is the people who cause the problems, not the religion itself (usually).
-
Xordan, you're so, so wrong. Islamic terrorists and non-Islamic terrorists operate in much the same way. Do you have any idea how many bombings there have been in Russia by "rebels"?
Yup, nowhere near as many 'terrorist attacks' as there have been by Islamic militants. There are several bombings a day in the middle east, and there have been for a while. I don't believe there are bombings every day in Russia. I don't see many russian terrorists running into busy marketplaces with explosives strapped around themselves and blowing themselves up every day either. I don't see any evidence that right now the majority of terrorists aren't Islamic. In the past, ok, you're probably right (although that can be argued depending on the date). And if I'm "so, so wrong", then both Venge and Datruth are wrong too. :P
- Historical perspective is key. In the past? EXACTLY.
- 1 in 4 people are Islamic.
- Your points rested on method, not number.
-
To pose critique at Christianity. Jesus brought peace and he loved everyone. Christianity, like Islam, and many other religions, is about peace, yet we war in the name of God. Religion is to find peace, to find balance in an otherwise chaotic universe.
Right. Religion is rarely the cause of war, but often the excuse for war. It is the people who cause the problems, not the religion itself (usually).
This report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM) was brought to my attention. Pay close attention at 51 seconds in.
-
Scary to say the least.... To sum it up for those who aren't able to watch it...
Jesus Camp: Extremist Christians training children to fight and die for God.
Some of the video replies are very good. Like this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-1XdRFkcjI&NR
-
The staments made in this report frighten me greatly. Although this is a news report that may be putting their own spin on things, it is still cause for concern. When the documentry is released, we will get a much better picture of what is happening.
/me hangs his head in dispair for the direction of the human race
-
the film "children of men" ties in well with all this... after seeing it myself i spent the rest of the evening completly stressed out x)
-
Nothing like a bit of that good ol' time religion to get people to kill each other in new, exciting ways! Fundamentalists of any religion scare the crap outta me.
*Goldir digs through his bookshelf for his copy of the Koran.
This discussion should be interesting.
-
The corruption of youth by fundamentalists isn't exactly new. I use the word "corruption" with intent because these youth are being programmed to believe what they're told without question and to hate and even kill those who disagree with them.
-
take a close look at 31 seconds in, the worshiping of Bush is pathetic.
EDIT:
Hows your geography ?
Find out here (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/just_fun/games/mapgame.html).
I failed miserably :(