Religion
Related: About this forumIt's fortunate for the people of Brussels that Islam is the 'Religion of Peace',
Otherwise there would be more than a mere 34 people dead in today's suicide bombing.
My heart goes out to these poor people. Perhaps an Islam apologist can explain to us why this has nothing to do with Faith?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)or something. 
Or was it DAWKINS!!!11!!1!!!
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)the blasts were caused by Islamic State?
and there is never mourning for the innocent victims.
am I not supposed to be concerned now when I see someone clad in black with no face showing walking into a crowded area?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Here are the Brussels airport bombers checking in:
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Seriously? They couldn't be dressed like that to just, oh, I don't know, throw people off?
You do know why they have gloves on their left hand, yes? Why not just have the bomb trigger out in the open?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Maria said:
am I not supposed to be concerned now when I see someone clad in black with no face showing walking into a crowded area?
I was pointing out that the terrorists aren't dressing like that, but in normal civilian clothes.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)
hueymahl
(2,890 posts)Nice slur of a billion people.
I mean really? You see twisted monsters using religion as an excuse to expound their evil hatred, and your first response to to blame an entire religion?
REALLY????
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)hueymahl
(2,890 posts)Your position is that, what, some mysterious dark force in islam is using these poor misguided souls for its evil, nefarious purposes??
What exactly are you saying?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that command or condone violence against nonbelievers. It is wonderful that the vast majority of Muslims don't take those seriously, just as it's wonderful the vast majority of Christians don't take the orders to execute their disobedient children seriously.
But that doesn't change the fact that those verses and teachings are still there, and lots of believers take them quite seriously.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)not the religion nor the cultures it inhabits as such.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and the fanaticism and unquestioning devotion it engenders, there would be nothing so damaging to "take seriously" in the first place, now would there?
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Wicca, Satanism, Taoism, Discordianism, Neo-Druidism, Golden Dawn, and the Illuminates of Thanatos all have nonviolent holy books, if I remember correctly. I haven't read all of the Buddhist Sutras, but the ones I have read were nonviolent.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)without being very familiar with all of these, I would see them less as organised, in the political, temporal sense, religions; more as metaphysical schools of thought.
Good point, though.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Nor is it anything outside humanity or anthropomorphic in any way.
But any cause, ANY cause that states something can ever be more important than human life, peace and freedom is very much dark, even evil. When that cause, be it a religion, a national identity, a political party or a cult of personality, is expressly designed to say that others are lesser than us, must be like us or submit to us or die, then people who take it very seriously are one step away from horrors like this.
Islam is not unique here. It's causing more trouble globally right now than other options and only the hopelessly naive or wilfully deceptive would pretend otherwise, but there are plenty of other isms out there playing backup, waiting in the wings, and with past history far worse.
I'm no fan of religious belief. Guilty. Big fan of the philosophical and sociological abstractions thereof, but that's irrelevant. Religion though is not unique here either. Pol Pot needed no religious motivation for one terrible example. It is however uniquely placed to be able to engender such evil extremes. Only a very rare human leader can generate the loyalty and devotion needed to make followers commit atrocities. But get somebody to believe that a divine power who made and commands the universe not only wants them to commit atrocities but will reward them for eternity for committing them, far more than any earthly tyrant could offer, and it's way too easy a lever to apply to make those atrocities happen.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)any religion provides an important glimpse into what the religion is all about. isn't that a religion that promotes death, not peace?
hueymahl
(2,890 posts)Just like politics, folk stories, moral norms, language, society, etc. All are created by the minds of mankind.
There is quite a difference between pointing out that a religion has parts of it that are faulty, wrong or even evil and doing as the OP did by disparaging an entire religion based on one tiny sect of people who may or may not be true-believers (and if they are true-believers, are almost by definition mentally ill).
It is really no different than saying because the American Military committed atrocities, every American believes in a societal system that is evil and flawed, and therefore they are evil and flawed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The OP suggests that title is not applicable to Islam, because of the violence some of its adherents are certain it supports (and they do have verses and teachings to back them up).
"Disparaging an entire religion" seems like a ridiculous charge here. I would think that would be a more appropriate accusation if someone said "Islam is pure evil" or whatnot. And I don't see how the OP said anything like that. Could you explain your point of view?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is raging bullshit. There are countries where either a majority or a substantial minority of the Islamic population approves of the use of violence against those who insult their faith.
The attempt to attribute religiously motivated violence solely to mental illness is also debunked bullshit, not to mention deeply insulting to people's sincerely held beliefs. Why would you do that?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)who are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But it certainly gets untrue in other places pretty rapidly
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)possible type of violence carried out or advocated by Muslim extremists.
https://carm.org/islamic-muslim-statistics-on-violence-rape-terror-sharia-isis-welfare
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)To avoid accusations of deception, note this is measuring UNFAVORABILITY. However the inverse numbers are startlingly high for "tiny minorities"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That number makes sense, given the frequency.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
true-believers are almost by definition mentally ill.
I agree with that. True-believers who follow faithfully or obediently any kind of dogma or creed.
I say this without wishing to hurt anyone's feelings.
Dogmas and creeds, coming down to us as they do from the past, on the flow of, as Marx put it, History - but usually slow, reluctant to be changed or transformed in the process - often, too often indeed recommend the use of violence in certain contexts and against certain others. A violent true believer therefore does no more than follow his or her creed. It is this following that is the problem.
We probably all know here that all three of the Abrahamic religious creeds contain exhortations to employ violence in certain contexts and against certain others, yet the societies that have evolved in the shadow or in the light of these creeds are not, with some variations, especially violent, not when compared to the truly-believing extremist. Most people take the religion that informs and has inspired their culture with a pinch of salt, picking and choosing as suits, and get on with life: the most vital thing.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2016, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)
The religion IS at fault, and needs disparaging. As do most of them with which I am familiar. Certainly the larger ones. Jainism? Go for it; better man than I if you can. Wicca? Sure I guess if you ignore the silliness. But the big boys? Every single one of them is tailor made to divide humanity into us and them and then demean, marginalize and render inhuman the "them".
You're the only one extending that to all followers. I'm sure most Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews trundle through life culpable only for perfectly trite and universal human failings and you'll seek in vain for any statement or even implication I've made to the contrary. But take Islam, or any of the big three desert monotheisms, as the full lieral and perfect truth and you're a Bible verse or Qur'an Sura away from doing something like this. Damn right it's the religion's fault. We are saved from global religious wars because a thankfully small portion of followers have the unchallenging gullibility and misquided devotion to sufficiently follow what their religion says (to be fair the same is true of their religion's undeniable nicer parts. I suspect about the same ratio of Christians give all that they have to the poor as shoot doctors and let kids die of simple infections because only God heals).
Just because they are human constructs does not stop them being motivations for monstrosities. Your own example is a human construct too. The US and its military obssession, (likely an example of cultural insecurity and inferiority complex common among individual bullies) is just a secular example. My guilt for it lies simply in an inability to stop it, an inability certainly shared by most Muslims who might prefer not to blow up airports in their name (although the support for such actions should embarrass apologists for Islam, another commonality eith US militarism) That does not stop the pathetic jingoism of 'Murrika Fuck yeah!" from being a motivator of monstrosities just like Islam is.
If silly lines on a map were all as abstract as longitude, and religious folktales were all as fully credited as tales of Zeus, the world would be a much nicer place. Bringing up one of them doesn't take the blame off the other.
lhecker51
(7 posts)....is that Islam according to the Quaran, hadiths, and clarified positions of Islamic scholars and clerics, believes the following core belief:
When an Islamic army conquers a region the following options are given to the conquered non believer:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Pay the jizyah tax and be subjugated (Second class slave with limited rights)
3. If one refuses the first two options, they are put to death
This is a FACT. Given this fact that is still FULLY supported and cannot be denied by any Muslim, scholar, or cleric, how can ANYONE of rational mind accept that this is not evil?
Do you know the timeline of Islam and where Islam is on that timeline today regarding the establishment of a Global Caliphate? They are many years off but they have entered in to a clear and well delineated phase that has been in active progress for the last couple of decades.
Islam is not Christianity. It is a system of government and power. Under Islam, there is no such thing as a fundamental or moderate Muslim. There are only Muslims. To be a supposed moderate Muslim would be to not accept the entire teachings of the Quran. Moderate Muslims are considered apostates because they have denied portions of their faith and treat the Quran as an menu to pick and choose the beliefs that make them feel good and are not in contradiction with their lifestyles. These "westernized Muslims" do not bother me. Muslims believe in last days prophecy just as Christians do and they both believe we are in the last days. The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam demands the violent establishment of a global caliphate and that it MUST be done to fulfill the end times prophecy.
The Quran demands the overthrow of all world governments. I fail to see how one could invite them in and expect they will never try to make good on what they believe to their very core.
I doubt I will see any reply from you as many commenters see you for what you continue to prove yourself to be: An uninformed Islamophile.
Christians that go from moderate to fundamental do not wage a bloody war against non-believers. Muslims do.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Do not forget the historical context nor cease to hope and work for further and more widespread enlightenment. The vision of the holy world order is common to all three Abrahamic religions.
In any case, what is the point in excoriating an entire religion, culture and society? To attempt genocide?
muriel_volestrangler
(105,510 posts)and you can have a go at finding any justification for what you said - OK?
"It's fortunate for the people of Brussels that Islam is the 'Religion of Peace',
Otherwise there would be more than a mere 34 people dead in today's suicide bombing.
My heart goes out to these poor people. Perhaps an Islam apologist can explain to us why this has nothing to do with Faith?"
What it is doing is knocking down the idea that Islam is "the Religion of Peace". It's obvious from the military conquests of Muhammed himself, and his immediate successors, that it never was a 'religion of peace' - it's fine with starting wars. The OP does not call anything 'evil and flawed'. But it is obvious that it is faith that drives Islamic State. They persecute powerless religious minorities for not following their particular interpretation of Islam.
"Who may or may not be true-believers (and if they are true-believers, are almost by definition mentally ill" is a really bad use of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many may find it offensive to those with genuine mental illness, as diagnosed by a professional, rather than an armchair psychiatrist on the web.
The 'one tiny sect' is one of several sects, with varying views of the acceptability of religious violence. ISIS has attracted tens of thousands of recruits from other countries. Allied to them, Boko Haram is a significant force in Nigeria and bordering countries. Al Shabaab controls a large part of Somalia. All these attack people purely because of their religion. Al Qaeda based its justification for terrorist attacks on western civilians on the grounds that Saudi Arabia willingly hosted American troops about 1000 miles away from Mecca. Again, this is driven by religion.
64% of Pakistani Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. 53% of Malaysian Muslims think the same - even in a rapidly developing country, well away from the cauldron of the Middle East, that's the kind of religious violence that Islam can inspire. And the death penalty for apostasy is purely down to religion.
Don't forget to try and justify anything you said about the OP.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)gone through stages of internal and external conquest, then the establishment of order, civilisation and peace, followed by uprising, rebellion, and with reconquest the cycle repeats (I give you a general skerch from reading history). A prize for guessing at what part of the cycle it finds itself in now. Such is the flow of the river of History.
At the present time, in particular, demographically the Islamic world(s) is young (median age late 20s, iirc), frustrated, ill-employed and too often abused by the West. Look at these and other social factors for what ails them and us.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)There are millions of young, frustrated and ill-employed people in this country, abused by those in power. Do they use their "faith" as an excuse to murder because of it?
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)number?
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Nobody knows, certainly not I, the percentage of Muslims how are willing to personally slaughter innocents for their faith.
But there are actually currently 1.6 billion Muslims. If we round that down to a billion who are capable of both thought and deed, so excluding the senile and infants etc:
If 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful there are still a million Muslim would be terrorists. A huge city's worth.
Even if 99.99% are peaceful there are still 100,000 jihadis out there. A massive crowd at Happy Valley ready to kill and maim.
Small fractions of Muslims; huge problem for the rest of us. These are not competing claims.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)if they were, the muslim community would destroy the radicals. There is tacit support or indirect support - that's why so many become radicalized. In the last few radical muslim related attacks on innocent people, the attackers had recently become more devout and mysteriously radicalized.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But we do have to be rational and accept that if it were a universal or even majority view that the West should be bombed inot dhimmi-hood, we'd be seeing far more of this than we already are.
There are about 1.8 million Muslim adults in the US. What havoc would we see if even 1% of them - about 18,000 people, were ready and willing to plant bombs and shoot up innocents?
We also have to draw the distinction between 3 levels of support. There is a steep pyramid distribution between:
1) Bomb DC? Sure, strap 'em on me and buy me a one way ticket tomorrow!
2) I support the goals but cannot be a martyr. Here's $1000 to fund the operation
3) Not going near this plot but I can see where it might be an acceptable idea.
Are more than a few percent at stage 3? Quite probably. Stage 2? Hmmm... lack of well funded successful missions lately makes it a question. Stage 1? If >1% of US Muslims were there the NY subway and every mall would sound like the 4th of July.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Intelligent police work should find these.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What was their "real reason"? Where did their hatred of Belgians come from? Are they on a crusade to Save the Mussels? Do they hate frites that much?
And why aren't people of all other religions, and atheists, doing the same damn thing, if this has nothing to do with Islam?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)see here, for example: http://www.debatingislam.com/___islamic-state
By the way, Huey Mahl wrote some nice books.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)They seem to cheerlead their extremist militant murdering arm and with very small exception of an isolated imam here and there you hear no denunciation of the murderers or their attacks. I am sure there are some dancing in the street somewhere like was televised in 2001 and beyond. Till your described billions come out firmly and loudly against this butchery you can expect blanket condemnation as the silence from them is deafening in its apparent agreement with their militants actions.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)in the Islamic world, I have seen reported in Spanish and British press.
lhecker51
(7 posts)I put to you that you cannot state one way or the other that Islam can or cannot be blamed until you educate yourself. I have not only read the Quran and ALL hadiths, but also the respected commentaries and books by Islamic scholars.
I will therefore state that Islam is a religion of domination through force and death.
Your response MUST provide support that it is not, otherwise you are commenting about that which you know nothing, or very little of.
I blame the religion. Note that I am not indicting believers, but the religion itself. Would you call it a slur to blame the Nazi ideology for the holocaust?
Yes, REALLY.
Go ahead and teach me something.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Not indicting believers, but the religion itself.
Do you therefore indict all Moslems and would have them put to death?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Own it ....
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Xipe Totec
(44,466 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who knows what they might have done?
Don't even get me started about the Quakers and their fanatical violence.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Xipe Totec
(44,466 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)And please note that it has not happened again.
Also, I'm not sure why you single-out "the Christians" as being responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It seems you're simply looking to pick a fight...
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)only a few crap.
vdogg
(1,385 posts)Hard to believe I'm seeing a post like this on DU. 
blm
(114,415 posts)Surely you wouldn't want to describe Daesh with the name they WANT to be called, do you?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
Nitram
(26,991 posts)Christianity is supposed to be a 'religion of peace', is it not? Yet untold numbers of indigenous peoples living in the New world were enslaved and murdered in the name of Christianity. The Nazis were Christians in good standing with the church. The 1994 Rwandan genocide was committed by Christians. Northern Irish Nationalists committed murders in the name of independence. Yet we are able to distinguish between zealots who commit crimes in the name of religion, or who can reconcile their actions with their Christian religious beliefs, and the message of peace in which the majority of Christians believe. The vast majority of Muslims are people of peace. You can't blame their religion for the actions of a radicalized few.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Because many millions of Muslims in many countries around the world applaud or condone this type of violence, even if they don't carry it out themselves. They gladly give the violent ones legal and political cover, without which they would find it much more difficult to operate. There is much more than a "radicalized few" Muslims responsible for this sort of thing.
What's more, their religion mandates this type of violence against blasphemers and infidels (in ways that Xstianity doesn't, btw). Those who don't carry it out or support it are acting in spite of their religion, not because of it.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)Or are you really totally ignorant of the history of Christianity and the sanctions for those crimes clearly spelled out in the Bible? Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
The violence practiced by Islamic extremists has a great deal more to do with political, economic and social factors than religious ones. Most leaders of Islam have condemned terrorist attacks launched under the cover of religion, pointing out that Islam does not condone the murder of innocents. Exactly like the Bible, the Qur'an is a hodgepodge of both violent and compassionate writings of different authors from many centuries ago.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Institutionalized in the foundation of that idea, are times and circumstances under which it's hunky-dory to murder people.
MOST muslims do not act on those bits. A small number do.
Christianity suffers from the same ingrained-violence issues, but a smaller number act on it. Dr. George Tiller isn't any less dead, for having been murdered by a Christian, driven by his direct, literal reading of the foundational texts of his religion. But the proportion of Christians that act on such precepts is smaller.
Islam will get there someday as well on the proportion/ratio. Small comfort though, to those of us that see religion as a man-made construct with no basis in reality.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)
Are you including in the calculation people institutionalised in US armed forces, in the USAF in particular, are inculcated with religion?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And is a fair point. Conceeded.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Thanks. They are many thousands. Angels of death.
lhecker51
(7 posts)There are the believers of religions and then there are the articles of faith. Do not confuse the two. Islam demands the overthrow and subjugation or conversion of ALL non believers and their governments. No other religion demands this. Do you know the options for non believers in Islamic nations? Let's see you qualify your comment by rebutting mine.
Your statement that you cannot blame their religion for what is happening is supported how? Get ready to be taken to school on this.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Why, then, was this not done during the times of al-Ándaluz? There was Overthrow, yes, but subjugation only in terms of tax rates, access to certain professions and the like. Moslems, Jews and Christians lived in a mixed society and practised their religions separately.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)Two things to remember, if you really want to understand the Q'uran. Many writers added their opinions over time. All scholars of the Q'uran insist that the commentaries should be consulted to understand the meaning of the Q'uran as it applies to the modern world. Anyone can cherry pick offensive passages, but the majority of scholars see a clear and consistent message throughout the text. It is a message of peace and harmony, not violence and war.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)You really should self-delete this bigoted POS post.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because it's not bigoted. It notes that as long as Islam has hateful verses in its holy book, and violent teachings from leaders, it's not exactly right to call it a "religion of peace." Sure, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. That they are is more in spite of their religion than because of it, however.
Oh and Christians murdered and enslaved people. I wouldn't call Christianity a "religion of peace" either.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)precepts.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Those religions began with an angry, vengeful, violent god. Is it any wonder they can end up with angry, vengeful, violent followers?
Secularism, enlightenment, and human reason (along with a lot of time!) have smoothed the edges, but the nasty stuff is still there waiting for people to take it seriously.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)...is especially unnecessary.
I'm an atheist, I have huge problems with organized religion, I have huge problems with the Religions of the Book in particular, and I still think this OP was totally out of line. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Is it better to lie? When can the truth be told?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If you dare.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I'm confused by jurors 2 & 7 - to me their comments look like reasons to hide, but they voted to leave it.
-----------
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Pushing a bigoted line of thinking. Atheists commit school shootings, christians bomb abortion clinics, etc. None of that defines the entire group of people. I don't, for example, feel I need to apologize on behalf of all atheists when there is a school shooting by an atheist.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:44 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Inflammatory and informed by the same logic behind all forms of racism.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have to think from reading this forum once or twice that this is allowed in the Religion Forum. I would think you need to address your concerns and comments in the thread. If it's not proper for that Forum, the Host can lock.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like any post to condemn an entire religion or people. I'm not religious. But the anti-Islam bigotry spread by right-winger such as Donald Trump should not be spread here by anyone claiming to be progressive or a liberal.
If the person doesn't understand that an entire religion should not be condemned by the actions of a few who claim to speak for Islam I can only suggest they begin reading what anti-racist non-bigot progressives have said and written on this issue.
The Ku Klux Klan and other right-wing terrorists are "Christian" and claim to speak for most Christians. Does the poster also accuse Christianity of being a violent reactionary religion because of the Klan and the Christians history going back to the crusades?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the jury was confused, since the alert completed missed the point. In no way, shape or form did the OP try to define an entire group of people. It made an ironic comment on Islam (a religion, NOT a group of people) being called a "religion of peace" when it precipitates so much violence (as opposed, for example, to something like Jainism). And the attempt at an analogy with atheism is lame and ridiculous. Is there anything in the sacred texts of atheism that dictates violence against people who offend atheism? Did all of the alleged atheist school shooters commit their acts because of their atheism, or were they just people who committed crimes while happening not to believe in a god? Islam, on the other hand, explicitly mandates punishment of blasphemers and others who hurt their feelings.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)It's just a typical post from him.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)against people who murder in the name of their religion.
You should try it some time, Leo.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Show me how to be a bigot.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You've been shown how to denounce religiously based violence, bigotry and human rights violations many times. But you always attack the people who do so, instead. Instead of participating in threads intellectually, you just drop in at the end to leave little bits of inconsequential snark.
Whatever makes you feel important, I guess.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Inconsequential snark as you call it is given if that's all the post deserves. As to your comment on my always attacking people that's just bullshit and you know it but not telling the truth is what I expect from you.
bvf
(6,604 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... there's nothing they would like to promote more than the idea that this is an epic religious war pitting Islam against the West.
In reality, this has far more to do with the deplorable conditions in the ME - conditions which are intricately connected to the policies of the West.
Religion is always a convenient vehicle for extremism and violence.
The antidote for ignorance and barbarity is education and modernity.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)ISIS is doing their darndest to improve those "deplorable conditions", aren't they? 
And the Charlie Hebdo attacks were because of...what? Unemployment in Syria? Or that someone drew cartoons that offended Muslims, and Islam mandates death for that?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)on Muslim populations around the world. Look to ISIS, the Taliban and other radical Islamists for that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... religion is nothing more than tribalism.
That's what makes it such a perfect vehicle for extremism and violence.
Throw in the right socioeconomic conditions, and you have a very toxic and explosive stew.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head, because her insistence on going to school, and her cause to ensure all women can go to school, threatened that hard-right Islamic power structure.
GRANTED, we, the west have given them cause to be suspicious of anything, literally anything offered by the west. But what other path forward is there? I don't think we can progress without critically analyzing all aspects of the relationship, and religion factors into it. For them, AND for the majority of our own society.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... none of them.
But, there are more important factors that need to be considered.
Blanket bigotry is not the way.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)problems.
To say it's the ONLY problem, and that it's entirely their problem and not our problem, that would be blind, baseless bigotry. But noting that it's on the critical path to resolution, that's reality.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Tribalism" with commands from the Supreme Creator and Ruler of the Universe thrown in.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted about religion.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,510 posts)and they actively recruit fighters from anywhere they can. So to dismiss them as "nothing more than tribalism" would be a huge mistake. Some religion is "nothing more than tribalism"; but some thinks the purpose is to unite the world under a theological interpretation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Which, awkwardly enough, are viewed as "policies of the West" by the extremists of Islam. Go figure.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... these groups have learned this lesson well from the brutal despots the West has installed and enabled across the region to better facilitate control of their natural resources.
It's a viscous cycle, and we're seeing some blowback.
Believe me, I'm in no way condoning or excusing the behavior of these barbaric death cult thugs.
But, it's important to acknowledge from whence they've come.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)long before "the West" was meddling in their region. Mohammed himself was no saint - he owned slaves, he killed people, he had child brides. Would you like to try and blame "the West" for that too?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You should know better.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and he hasn't. So how could he stop?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You don't know me and I have no desire to know you.
procon
(15,805 posts)Your small minded hatreds are every bit as corrosive and self destructive as those who try to dress their bloodthirsty intolerance in the cloak of religious bigotry.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I can hardly resist such a tempting target, but I don't want to deprive you of your right...
mr blur
(7,753 posts)And if there's any left over, save it for yourself. Treat yourself to some reading comprehension lessons; you'll find things much easier to deal with when you know what's actually going on. Take care now and thanks for trying.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)bye.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who fling the label of "bigotry" at any criticism of religion, you do so without a shred of evidence to back it up.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Carried out by Muslims, in accordance with what *they* view Islam to be. No, of course it isn't what most Muslims consider Islam to be, but it's still Islamic. Look at all the horrible crap in the bible - I mean, thankfully most Christians reject the worst parts. But some don't. The man who murdered Dr. George Tiller was a Christian terrorist.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Even though they claim to be Christian, to the point of burning crosses on the front lawns of blacks.
So I fail to understand why all Muslims are to be blamed for Daesh, especially given that they're by far Daesh's most common victims.
That said, unlike most DUers, I really think Daesh needs to be killed with far less compunction. To borrow a southern phrase, some people just need killing. And they're it.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Command his followers to burn crosses on the lawns of black people? Do Christian nations pass laws making it illegal, punishable by death, to be black?
Getting the difference yet?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)There are plenty of horrific passages in the Bible, equivalent to what you read in the Quran. Specifically, the Mark of Cain was long interpreted to mean darkened skin, giving rise to an excuse for slavery.
The problem isn't adherents of any religion. It's that religious views used by demagogues, who twist the core beliefs into one of hatred. Torturing in the name of Christ is in opposition to everything Christianity stands for, yet it's happened time and time again.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)e to be cursed, by your reference to Cain.
An example of Christian bigotry (subsect) and hope for other religious-dominated cultures to advance.
It wouldn't have been bigotry to observe the Mormon Church was racially bigoted, in 1977.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)And don't forget that in a very short period of time the LDS church did a complete 180. Pretty good for a relatively new religion.
- and no, I'm not a Mormon booster, I'm just pointing out the obvious...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A: Making them an 'other'. A distrusted, out-group. Hint they are less valuable and or inclined to evil. Treat them as less than you are.
I'm not aware of an organized effort of Mormons to historically injure black people, but it was a close thing. All the prerequisites were in place, and they most certainly were discriminated against.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)CONVERT or DIE - which ISIS seems keen on wanting to exercise these days.
Is there some other religion in the world that is demanding the infidel to convert or die?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For simply saying he didn't believe in god, around orthodox Christians, this man will spend a year in jail.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/russian-atheist-faces-year-in-jail-for-denying-existence-of-god-during-webchat
I hear Russian jails are nice places to go. Considering one for my summer vacation.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)you divert by claiming the ROC is actually a threat?!
And notice the words: "controversial law" - in other words, it's being debated. And more importantly, do you think any of the "debaters" are worried about being bombed by their opponents the next time they go to the airport - or start their car?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That haughty 'ok you can't produce' is mis-aimed.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)the same pot making the claim "well, youse guys do it too".
Sure, you could do an exhaustive search and probably finds folks from every religious group acting atrociously - killings, bombings.
But the question is, are we talking about the exception - or the rule? If you graphed the number of people killed in the last 100 world-wide acts of terror committed by a so-called religious group, what do you think the distribution would look like?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)in schools. Don't think of yourself as so advanced, that shit was happening less than 200 years ago. It took 30 years after the ratification of the constitution to even allow (male) Catholics to vote or even own property in all US states.
Christians may not be doing a lot of killing over religion now but it's not been so terribly long since... Christians had some 2000 years to learn to get along, Islam's been around what, 900 years?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)was no wide-spread killings going on this country about which bible to use - though there has been lots and lots of DEBATE. And (again) the bible doesn't teach convert or die.
Yep - Catholics, along with many others were treated atrociously over the years - by some. But were there wide-spread church-sanctioned killings in this country? No. If there were any - it was the exception, rather than the rule.
And yes, what is happening NOW is the problem. However, from what I can see your solution seems to be...patience.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Really, if there were 'any'? Have you ever even touched a book on American History?
Anti-Catholicism[edit]
Anti-Catholicism reached a peak in the mid nineteenth century when Protestant leaders became alarmed by the heavy influx of Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Germany. Some believed that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.[26]
In the 1830s and 1840s, prominent Protestant leaders, such as Lyman Beecher and Horace Bushnell, attacked the Catholic Church as not only theologically unsound but an enemy of republican values.[27] Some scholars view the anti-Catholic rhetoric of Beecher and Bushnell as having contributed to anti-Irish and anti-Catholic mob violence.[28]
Beecher's well-known "Plea for the West" (1835) urged Protestants to exclude Catholics from western settlements. The Catholic Church's official silence on the subject of slavery also garnered the enmity of northern Protestants. Intolerance became more than an attitude on 11 August 1834, when a mob set fire to an Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts.
The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics.[29] This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. Irish Catholic immigrants were blamed for spreading violence and drunkness.[30] In the late nineteenth century southern United States evangelical Protestants used a wide range of terror activities, including lynching, murder, attempted murder, rape, beating, tar-and-feathering, whipping, and destruction of property, to suppress competition from black Christians (who saw Christ as the saviour of the black oppressed), Mormons, Native Americans, foreign-born immigrants, Jews, and Catholics.[31]
Civilization is actually a fairly recent development, and a thinner veneer than you imagine.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Yes, you can find factionalism. Yes, you will find jerks in every walk of life. Yes, you find folks rioting over their favorite football (soccer) teams!
But what you are arguing against Christianity is the exception, you are describing short-lived movements led by the whims of a few egoists. You are not describing systemic problems.
The problems we are seeing with groups like ISIS is that the factionalism transcends individuals - it spans generations even centuries. And the heart of the matter is a systemic problem - that there is language in their texts that the infidel must convert - or die.
Yes, it is going to be difficult to resolve...
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)did to the Native Americans?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do you seriously not know that?
Not to mention the cultural genocide. And the "convert or we will let you die of starvation" attitudes.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)by Christians that settled this country is "not systemic"?
Kind of cuts into your credibility with this argument.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Whose example in scripture were they following? What specific texts were they using to give them the "authority" to commit their acts?
No, what you are describing are racists, committing heinous acts - not Christians followings the examples and instructions of scripture...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'Discovery', Manifest Destiny, 'American exceptionalism'.
Do you seriously not know how these are linked together, and how they are sourced to a culturally Christian people?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I am thinking it's best for that gem to just sit there for all to see.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(105,510 posts)in the colonization of the Americas:
We grant you (Kings of Spain and Portugal) by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.[3]
Wilhelm Grewe finds Dum Diversas essentially "geographically unlimited" in its application, perhaps the most important papal act relating to Portuguese colonisation.[13] Although undefined, Richard Raiswell finds that it clearly refers to the recently discovered lands along the coast of West Africa.[12] Portuguese ventures were intended to compete with the Muslim trans-Sahara caravans, which held a monopoly on West African gold and ivory.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
By 1513:
Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be lord and superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction.
One of these pontiffs, who succeeded St. Peter as lord of the world in the dignity and seat which I have before mentioned, made donation of these isles and Terra-firma to the aforesaid King and Queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there are in these territories,
Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world,
But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Requirement_of_1513
jonno99
(2,620 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Now, apply that to 'islam'.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please pick up some US history books, at your earliest convenience. You have some light reading to do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Those that did not convert at government-installed missionaries in 'reservations' could not leave. Can't leave, the place is economically poor, little food, yes, that killed people.
You realize that Islam and Christianity are the same basic religion, right? Both stem from the Abrahamic origins of the bible. The Muslims just don't accept Jesus as god, they consider him a prophet, like Mohammed. Islam is just a slightly revised version of the new testament, and then a new continuation, like Mormonism at its core.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)is really nothing to discuss except for me to agree that yes, Abraham was the father of both Isaac an Ishmael.
Beyond that, trying to resolve your lack of understanding even the key tenants of Christianity or Islam is a task insurmountable for discussion on this thread.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Are you for real?
Theodosius declared Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. Charlemagne converted the Saxons at the point of a sword. The Spanish ordered Jews and Muslims to convert, accept expulsion, or die. Portuguese forced conversions in Goa under the threat of torture.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)accord? Or, did they use some scripture as the basis for their acts?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)perish the thought! I do however find your curiosity curious...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Wailing and gnashing of teeth, and all that jazz?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because:
1) If you say yes, you're an asshole. And you're pretty much admitting that dehumanization of the other is an essential component of Christian theology.
or
2) If you say no, then you admit religion is more than the contents of its scripture, and thereby concede at least the possibility that religious people can be religiously inspired by beliefs aren't explicitly listed in their holy texts.
So, yeah. There's the door. Bye, now.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Because:
1) You don't have an answer
2) You don't like my answers
So:
Let's shoot the messenger (what does that make you?).
Thanks for your time, bye...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)My answer is Islam is not a religion of peace, and neither is yours.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It has enabled and dissuaded just as much and as little violence as theirs. It's a body of dogma and rules made by men to excuse the actions of man.
Islam is currently being used as a mantle behind which some individuals are acting violently, and they source it to the documentation of that religion. Your religion can and has been used the same. There's nothing that prevents it. Nihil Sub Sole Novum.
But yeah, turtle up and run away. See ya.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)And it's obvious that your mind is closed to the subject, so there really is no point in further discussion. Too bad.
Good day to you...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You've done nothing with them. So what's the point in talking to you?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)specific questions and I received no direct response:
Whose example in scripture were they following? What specific texts were they using to give them the "authority" to commit their acts?
You replied with:
To which I replied:
Yes, you and others have given plenty of examples of the ignorant or barbaric using "Christianity" as a cover for their behavior, but you've provided no examples of texts that legitimately support their position. And I use the word 'legitimately' because you will often see references to some historical event involving the Jews and the creation of their society, where the ignorant racist will claim "if it was good enough for those living in OT times - it's good enough for me!" - and then go on to subjugate a people group.
IOW - as I mentioned previously, men will use whatever means they can to gain power, and religion provides a convenient vehicle to that end. Is that the fault of the religion? Well, it depends doesn't it? You'd have to examine the particular texts of that religion that give explicit instruction to it's adherents to behave or act a certain way.
"Convert or Die?" Which religious texts teach this?
muriel_volestrangler
(105,510 posts)Your vague bromide "men are forever looking for a path to power. Unfortunately, religion is a perennial favorite" seemed like an acknowledgment that it was the Christian religion driving it, and that you were disappointed in Christianity for it. Now it seems it was more of a 'No True Scotsman' argument, on the lines of "if involves a path to power, then it can't be real religion".
jonno99
(2,620 posts)What is a religion? Is it it's founder or founding documents? Or is it something malleable?
If you ask the men seeking power, I'm sure they would opt for the latter. Some would consider a papal bull to fit in this category (not to mention that a bull is not a religious text per se).
Leontius
(2,270 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(105,510 posts)Not surprising to find this attempt at diversion when the post asking was:
Whose example in scripture were they following? What specific texts were they using to give them the "authority" to commit their acts?
No, what you are describing are racists, committing heinous acts - not Christians followings the examples and instructions of scripture...
"So-called Christians" ... "not Christians". We've been dealing with the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy for some time. But the "specific texts" they were "using to give them the 'authority' to commit their acts" were texts written by the head of their religion.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Good to know.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's kind of a matter of perspective, isn't it?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But no "twisting" of Islam is necessary. It calls for killing people flat out.
So-called "twisting" happens too, but it's much easier to get people of any stripe to do horrible shit if they think their "god" or their sacred "faith" is commanding it in some way, wouldn't you say?
procon
(15,805 posts)Of course, we'll be waiting on you to trot out this same fatuous excuse the next time some gun nut goes on a killing spree in church, or bombs a women's clinic, or lets their babies die in agony whist they pray like murderous mad hatters, or some man of god abuses another kid, or beats some poor wretch to death in the name of god to kill the gay out of them... no, the intent is always the same, and regardless of how it's labeled there isn't any daylight between religious fanatics.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Some gun nut goes on a killing spree in church? Someone bombs a clinic and kills someone? If found guilty, kill them.
You think I'm on the side of Timothy McVeigh? Far from it. I'm glad he's dead.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Nitram
(26,991 posts)The KKK believes they are Christian, and that's enough.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The KKK are as much Xstians as anyone else who claims to be.
Try again.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to misunderstand me.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)Rather ungracious of you to ignore an apology and come back with an insult. Thanks for letting me know how you roll.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I absolutely consider the KKK a Christian org. Always has been.
bvf
(6,604 posts)what they are.
Facts can be inconvenient sometimes. Doesn't make them any less true.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)to be christian who are you or me to claim otherwise. I would go as far as saying any human construct like religion, be it christianity or islam or whatever, can be interpreted in multiple ways is not a valid concept. It does not hold up to reason. That said religion in any form does not hold up to reason.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Most Muslims are not terrorists. Most Muslims do not endorse terrorism.
That all said, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and if even only 10% endorse terrorism and only .1% partake in terrorist acts, that's a major problem that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And the fact that those who do endorse or engage in terrorism are personally convinced they are doing it in the name of their religion, we have to acknowledge that fact before we can begin to understand how to deal with it.
Closing our eyes, covering our ears, and saying "Islam is a religion of peace! These extremists are not Muslims!" gets us nowhere.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and demand he take responsibility for Brussels. He teaches engineering at our local college. I'd bet he's home. Best if I could catch the whole family. It's time we recognized there are no good Muslims in this "clash of civilizations."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Where does the OP even begin to imply anything like that?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)the sarcasm, "It's fortunate for the people of Brussels..."
the scare quotes, "Islam is the 'Religion of Peace' "
the appeal to, "Islam apologist(s)"
Not a hard riddle to crack. The sarcasm is plain, and the meaning is:
It's NOT fortunate for the people of Brussels.
Islam is NOT a "religion of peace".
Islamic "apologists" can NOT justify any defense of Islam.
Fuck that. It's a plain and simple call to abandon all reason and restraint.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What would the Brussels airport look like today if Islam were a "religion of violence"?
And if the message you took was that all reason should be abandoned in evaluating whether religion is a motivating force for violence and whether militant Islam is a threat, then you've apparently taken it completely to heart.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The Brussels airport would look exactly the same no matter which descriptive label yourself, mr_blur, or anyone else wanted to attach the Islamic faith. Your question is as inane as the OP.
Furthermore, since you've rejected my "take away" from the OP, and have yourself taken the liberty of completely recasting it as a question of "...evaluating whether religion is a motivating force for violence and whether militant Islam is a threat", let me please remind you that the specific question posed in the OP was as follows:
Please show me one real person, and not a straw man, who is making that argument? I'll wait.
Meanwhile, to the rest of your stupid questions, is religion "a motivating force for violence"? Fucks sake. Of course it is. Read Karen Armstrong's 'Fields of Blood - Religion and the History of Violence". And, is "militant Islam is a threat"? Good Lord. Too stupid a question to deserve an answer, but yes, obviously, to everyone in the "civilized" world.
Just a shitty OP in response to Brussels.
(edit : hide me. I don't care, but please look at my earlier post above.)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that both the OP and I were trying to make, and yet you still weighed in by attacking the silly straw man that the OP was blaming every Muslim in the world for the violence in Brussels, and Paris...and etc., etc. Hilarious.
And there are people right in this thread trying to attribute this to "deplorable conditions" in the Middle East, or the evil "West" or anything else rather than placing the blame where it belongs...on fanaticism born of unshakeable religious faith.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Please show me one real person on this board proposing that, "...this has nothing to do with Faith"
Go ahead, I'll wait.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)which you'd understand if you'd spent any time in this Group.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But if it has to be explained to you, then it's probably a waste of time.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7707578
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7707867
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7707785
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7707849
And this is from ONE thread. Holding religion innocent from all wrong done in its name is a DU paradigm..
Now I'll wait for the pathetic whine that none of these statements used the exact quote despite saying the same thing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But our friend seems to have slunk away, before I even had the chance to quote Bernie Sanders.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Those were fucking classics!
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Surely it's a matter of semantics. Anyone genuinely proposing to completely eliminate the religious aspect from these kinds of actions -- which obviously have an important religious aspect -- is flying blind.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)have done exactly what you so ridiculously called a "straw man".
Sucks having facts thrown in your face, doesn't it?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)was your asinine response to my original post. AS IF, as you designated my post, a "straw man" argument has any meaning whatsoever when the OP itself was some kind of muddled and confused "double-clever" piece of sarcasm to begin with.
Because speaking plainly is such hard work?
By the way, the relevant part of the 5 links are as follows:
23. catnhatnh - "I have no easy answer but I assure you that a mere religion didn't cause this..."
47. donna123 - "So I don't know how much is truly cultural, rather than religion."
51. My Good Babushka - "I don't think religion makes people do anything they don't already want to do..."
54. AngryAmish - "The West as a while is the cause."
None of these unequivocally support the claim.
catnhatnh- reading the two posts together it's clear that she/he is only saying that religion is not an exclusive cause, i.e. "religion itself" or "mere religion" isn't an exclusive cause. Reading any more into it is speculative.
donna123- recognizes religion as a contributing cause but stops short of assigning proportional blame.
My Good Babushka- implies a recognition of religion, but denies that it is an independent cause.
AngryAmish- comes closest to supporting the claim, but it's easily possible that it's more a case of rash and careless language than a firm belief. The fact that it's incoherent supports that possibility.
The OP attempts sarcasm and "cleverness" and only achieves confusion. Shitty OP.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Now you're down to whining that none of those links contain the exact words that the OP used.
Of course, if you actually understood the OP, you'd know he was referring to long history in this group, and obviously not to this thread (since it's the OP).
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)or what it refers to. He's trying to pretend and bluff his way through, but he just looks lame.
So why am I not surprised that you're trying to support him?
rug
(82,333 posts)Why am i not surprised you don't get it.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)They didn't contain the idea. I was awfully clear about that. I'm getting the impression that your not especially careful or attentive.
Furthermore, I'd guess if anyone was willing to strike a normal conversational tone with catnhatnh, et. al., they'd find their actual beliefs were different than first impressions.
But with this circus tone of sarcasm and buffoonery that seems to be popular with some such as yourself...well, garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)Suggesting that anyone doubts that the terrorist in Brussels used Faith as an excuse for their actions is the Straw Man here. Suggesting that the OP is expressing a bigoted condemnation of an entire culture and religion is a logical conclusion. The fact that sarcasm was used changes nothing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Threads on this event are full of people trying to blame the attacks on anything but religion, and to minimize the influence of faith-based fanaticism, of which I gave just one example.
The OP was implying sarcastically that Islam doesn't deserve the label of "religion of peace". If you're going to dispute that, start by comparing Islam and Jainism in that regard.
Anything else you're ascribing to the OP is your own invention.
Nitram
(26,991 posts)The OP blames an entire culture and religion for the actions of a few.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)they'd be arresting Dick Cheney for the murders in Belgium and not the people who actually committed them.
struggle4progress
(125,327 posts)Ordinary people, who happen to belong to our Muslim minority, however, are in some danger when demagogues demonize them
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Any belief system can be abused, religious or secular. Attrocities will happen as a result of a fanatical application of any belief.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)religion is far less likely to lead to fanaticism than any other belief system. After all, the idea that the creator of the universe is commanding you to do something couldn't possibly motivate anyone to do something they might not otherwise, right?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The concept is that the believer is in the possession of the absolute truth.
The source is irrelevant, be it the Bible or Mao's little red book.
When the belief is not verified by events, some believers double and triple down, and genocide happens. Their version of the truth never happens.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that some "beliefs" are far more likely to promote violent fanaticism than others. Do you deny that there are some beliefs that no one has ever killed anyone over?
Try again.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)This might be your point, however, and it is your point to prove. Prove that some beliefs, specifically Islam, are far more likely to promote violent fanaticism than others.
Let's see you prove your assertion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)People killed over the belief that Double Stuf Oreos are better than regular: 0
People killed over the belief that purple is a better color than orange: 0
People killed over the belief that fetuses are human beings: much greater than 0
People killed over the belief that apostates deserve to die: much greater than 0
Some beliefs are clearly more likely to promote violent fanaticism than others.
Next?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)America is a Christian nation. And the people of Afghanistan. And Honduras. And Yemen. And Chile. And Guatemala. And Vietnam. And Cambodia.
Imagine if we weren't. Lucky them.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Then Westboro represents all Christians. See? This game is too easy to play.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that ISIS represents all Muslims, you might have a semblance of a point. But it didn't, so....
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)I mistakenly responded to Mr. Blur's post when I meant to respond to Maria Thinks.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)If you are a fundamentalist you take everything seriously that's written down.
There are more Islamic people to take the shit way too seriously than Christians or Jews.
So while they might not do bad stuff, they might not condemn it because they know the parts of the texts where it's mentioned.
Most Christians or Jews would not condone stoning anybody for adultery. People were PISSED about that first gay priest, and they might leave the church, but their first thought wouldn't be to kill him or bomb his church and kill all the followers.
Some Christians daughter might marry a Jew and convert or vice versa, but the first thought of the family wouldn't be usually to hire somebody to kill them.
But there is more support in Islam for BS like that because there's more fundamentalists.
However the good people who are Islamic, really, really need to repudiate this stuff or eventually we are going to see something seriously bad happen.
DetlefK
(16,670 posts)Is Islam the violent religion that is laid out in the Quran?
Is Christianity the violent religion that is laid out in the Bible?
(-> Theory)
Or is Islam the peaceful religion that is actually practiced in everyday-life by the majority of Muslims?
Is Christianity the peaceful religion that is actually practiced in everyday-life by the majority of Christians?
(-> Practice)
The big problem is the mental disconnect of believers: There is no "one" religion. Every believer has individual beliefs, but in order to give those personal beliefs authority and justification, they lie to themselves that those morals are tied to some religion.
The Islam of the book isn't the Islam that most people actually practice.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)don't murder people every day because of their religion doesn't even come close to making Islam a "religion of peace". And the fact that they don't in spite of their region's admonitions doesn't either.
Try again.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Are the people in Brussels any more or less dead than the innocent people in Pakistan who have been killed by orders of an American President who talks about his own Christian faith?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)I can't remember how you slipped off Ignore. Welcome back, all your friends are waiting.
rug
(82,333 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)if one of the brothers was one of the few bad ones, what about the other? Why didn't he turn the insane one into the local mosque so that he could learn a better way.
Are there any other examples, where entire families seem to become suicide bombers or mass killers? The boston muslim brothers come to mind. Their mother and sister went on record with a death to America type of speech. Then there is husband and wife who killed their friends at a Christmas party and the devout friend who got them the guns.
Locrian
(4,523 posts)Yes, there are factions that are violent - too bad that instead of fighting them the smart way and watching the beliefs die out, some chose to make a "deal with the devil" for gain.
Read this via BEN NORTON at Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/
Also read this via KAMEL DAOUD at The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Now if some of our own crusaders here would just listen and learn to apply that "nuance".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Fails at the first line:
History takes no prisoners. It shows, with absolute lucidity, that the Islamic extremism ravaging the world today was borne out of the Western foreign policy of yesteryear.
The people who shot up Charlie Hedbo and murdered people over a fucking cartoon are the fault of "Western foreign policy"? How about the fault of a deeply fucked up religion that teaches that it's ok to slaughter people over hurt feelings, and the millions and millions of adherents of that religion who support and provide social and political cover for that kind of sick violence?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I knew I would be proven right about or faithful and zealous crusaders.
rug
(82,333 posts)They obscure his lovely view of the poison of religion.