Why do Muslims have to follow standards while Christians do not?

[Solon]

I have yet to see protests or outright condemnations by Christians as a Unified force against the violence THEIR followers perpetuate against Gays and Lesbians, Women's clinics and their doctors, against Non-Christians, against other races. From Bombings to assassinations, Christians do these things, and yet we are told that it is but the actions of a few followers, fanatics, who are the terrorists, but yet, these same people say that Muslims must follow different standards. Why?

ON EDIT: Why is it that when people here on this board say these things, we are slammed for "Anti-Christian" bias?

[KharmaTrain]

1. It's The "Norm" Here

Listening to many people...and not just fundies...the religious myths and dogmas have been so inbred into American culture that the double standard doesn't register. They see Moslem intolerance as a threat and irrational, yet they glam onto goons like Dobson and Robertson who are using them for the same purposes. Or they're stuck in the religious headgames that allow them to be easily manipulated and their worldview skewed and distorted.

The Christian record of subjugation of the Moslem and Arabic world over the past 200 years is something our media and western culture, in general, forgets to consider. An Arab army hasn't invaded Europe since 1453, but you can't convince a scared wingnut that. They see it all one sided and can't understand the resentment that has built in these people who have been used and abused for oil and other resources and then looked down as "savages" since their religion and culture is different.

You can ask the same question as to how can we condemn an Iran for developing nuclear weapons for whatever purposes...peaceful or defensive...when this country has done the exact thing. Are we "chosen" to have this technology and others aren't?

As a Jew, I see the anti-semetism in the Arab world as being a total contradiction to their religious tenets and history prior to the 20th Century. I won't even venture into the ongoing problems with Christianity.

Cheers...

[Solon]

2. I know, its not just the fundies, and that's the problem...

when people employ these dumbassed double-standards, they literally blind themselves to compromise that can lead to peace. There are people here that will claim I'm support the violence that occured, I do not, the opposite is the case, in fact. I think the reason both you and I see this where others do not is simply because I'm not a Christian either.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Amin!

I have tried to give information about Islam to people on this board since before the cartoon controversy. It seems, sadly enough, that I must make the same points again and again and again.

So many here who know that the MSM portray politics slanted in favor of the right have taken as the truth what these same pundits say about Islam and Muslims. So almost every day it seems I remind DUers that if the MSM is biased politically, it is biased religiously in the sense that their message is that Islam is a violent religion where no one has ever condemned terror. I have given the url to the disscussion right here on DU that cites hundreds of moderate Muslims condemning terror, and it never ceases to amaze me that several DUers weren't aware of it and weren't aware of the Muslim/Islam forum here.

[Solon]

39. Thanks for the support...

Non-Christians seem to have to stick together on this, guilt by association seems to be very real, not just on this board of purported liberals, but also in real life.

[Skeptor]

91. I'm not sure if this was meant to be an ironic statement, but as a fellow

non-religionist, I nevertheless live in hope of (and sometimes succeed in) making connections with faith-followers who are genuinely and generally of good intent towards their fellow humans even if they appear to favour some above others. It's a perfectly natural thing to favour the group we understand best and feel most at ease with, and even to react with prejudice and make false logical leaps ("one Zazaflog is found to be an underwear-snatcher, therefore all Zazaflogs are underwear snatchers"). After all, the basis of society is the kin-group and if our ancestors hadn't preferentially cared for their own then we wouldn't be here.

But beyond protecting our own for the sake of survival, neither the hardest thing nor the most valuable thing we can do is to find people who agree with us. It is to find those with whom we most vehemently disagree, to work through differences and to find common ground. Even if it might involve some risks, such as damage to one's ego or most cherished beliefs. The current 'cartoon war', dirty as it might be on the fringes, and hurtful by making light of deeply distressing events, is at least a kind of communication across cultures, about cross-cultural values, and offers the unusual ingredient of humour as an accelerant. Better at least to fight a war through cartoons than with bombs (had we forgotten that the pen was mightier than the sword?)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Shalom!

I agree with you, KarmaTrain (love your user name, btw). I'm wondering if some of the hatred of Jews that has sadly become so powerful in the Muslim world has to do with the shenanigans done by the French and British during and after World War I. The Brits sold the Arabs on the idea they would be free and independent of the Ottoman Turks if they helped defeat them. And then when the war was over, Britain and France carved up spheres of influence instead-and included a provision where Jews from the Dispora (please forgive if misspelled) were allowed to return. As you know,this was the start of the idea of the nation of Israel, and it was imposed on the region from Europe, rather than letting locals have any say.

[genie_weenie]

36. An Arab army hasn't invaded is true

but a Muslim one was beaten back in 1529 from the Gates of Vienna, as well as in 1683, by the Great Polish King Jan Sobeiski. And look at the conflagaration that is the Former Yugoslavia for on going Muslim/Christian and ethic strife.

I find your wide brush swath of "the religious myths and dogmas have been so inbred into American culture that the double standard doesn't register." a gross exageration.

The majority of Americans probably identify themselves as Christians.

Of course, there are those who are intolerant and choose to demonize those of differnet faiths or cultures, but most Abortion clinic bombers I can recall were arrested and tried for crimes. Plus, I don't recall in my lifetime widespread attacks on non-european descent persons.


The American Indians, Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, et al, all have a right to feel upset for the past. But, that is a problem because, I did not participate in any such events. And I have a hard time condemning people for the Sins of their Fathers.

[Solon]

43. So Christians performing "ethnic cleansing" against Muslims is...

the Muslims fault? Also, have you heard of the reports, to this day, of Mosque bombings here in the United States? What about the attacks and murdering of Sikhs and Muslims here since 9/11 by Christians? Its not all historical, not by a long shot, it seems, to me at least, that there is no difference between their crazies and Christian crazies, unfortunately the Christian ones are just more mainstream.

[genie_weenie]

48. Whoa! Whoa Whoa Whoa... Whoa.

I never said, Christians performing ethnic cleansing against Muslims is the Muslims fault! I have not heard of Mosque bombings, to this day. I never condoned the murdering of Sikhs and Muslims.

I think your view, "there is no difference between their crazies and Christian crazies" is valid.

But, my question is so what exactly are you raging against?

I think many DUers (and people in general) choose a start point for the evils that have been done by proponents of their ideology and ignore everything that preceded it.

[Solon]

52. Many posts here lately are going into the "Guilt by association" logic...

when arguing about the reaction of SOME Muslims to the Danish toons. This includes the "impossible" demand like "official" condemnation of the violence by the Muslim "Pope" I guess. They don't have one, so I don't see how that type of demand could be satisfied at all. Just pointing out hypocrisy in the Christian mindset when they talk about these types of issues.

Also, if you want to hear about the violence against Mosques here is but one example, and the murders here.

[genie_weenie]

55. Gotcha

I wasn't demanding the Islamic world condemn the violence. IMO, this is being orchestrated by leaders from many nations (muslim, european, US) to cement viewpoints.

Thanks for the links.

[KitchenWitch]

3. Because "Christians" are "God's Chosen People" and do not

have to follow such standards.

[xultar]

4. I AGREE!!!! and I'm a Christian.

[Orlandodem]

23. So where is the protest you're organizing so I can come join?

[DemonGoddess]

5. I have always said that the same applies to all faiths, actually.

Each faith has it's lunatic fringe. RECOGNIZING that does not make me Anti-Christian, or Anti-anything. Bigotry is bigotry, whatever face it happens to be wearing at any given time. For example, because I'm Catholic, does that make me a terrorist? Of COURSE not. Just as because my sister is Muslim, that doesn't make HER a terrorist either. Nor does it make the majority of Muslims terrorist because their "lunatic fringe" happens to be very loud, violent, destructive. Guess what? So are every other faith's fringies loud, violent, and destructive. We see examples of it all the time don't we? I think maybe it's that sometimes people forget that fanatics are NOT the same as the majority of a given group, nor do they usually reflect what that particular group does or does not espouse as beliefs and/or actions they may take.

[Orlandodem]

6. I don't know of any Christian who would suggest that there

aren't despicable individuals who call themselves Christian. No religion's followers are perfect. Are there hate-filled organizations that think they're Christian? Sure, but they're the fringe.

But I don't see Christians rioting and looting on a regular basis. I don't see Christians walking into crowded bars in San Francisco or Key West blowing themselves up.

In the Arabic world I'd be surprised if a single person is prosecuted for the damage they've done over these cartoons. Radical Islam is almost mainstream, at least to the extent that the Islamists know they'll get away with their violent rampages on a regular basis. In this country people are thrown in jail for bombings and killings. If they're not, it's an unusual and unfortunate exception.

Among many on the left there is an Anti-Christian bias and those who are guilty need to realize that they better unite with left wing Christians if the Left is ever to return to prominence.

[Solon]

7. So because Christians don't commit suicide with their bombs...

they are better somehow? I just view that as more cowardly myself.

[frankly_fedup2]

95. Well, they certainly are more intelligent. The cowards are the ones that

strap bombs to their chests filled with nails, glass, anything that can cause as much damage as possible, and then get on busses with little children. The cowards are the ones who have a price of $25,000.00 that is left to their families and then their mothers get on video and praise them for their Martyrdumb (misspelled on purpose).

The cowards are the ones who cannot accept the fact that rioting over religious intolerance only make people more uncomfortable with their beliefs and their religion.

There are people all over the World that can sympathize with what the U.S. government is doing to the Iraqis. The soldiers are just following their orders and keeping their word as to the oath they have taken. Not one of them want to be in Iraq, I can assure you of that.

However, when innocent children, women, and men just trying to support their families are murdered by the extremists who strap bombs to their bodies, where is the outrage? Where is the outrage when they blow up Muslims in their own mosques? Isn't it blaspheme for a muslim to kill another muslim?

I think the rest of the World were on the Muslims side when the U.S. went into Iraq. Now with all
this nonsensical rioting, I believe more of the World is going to step back to the side of the U.S.

I don't think it is right that Bush sent our troops into Iraq. But that is just my opinion. Just like this post is my opinion and means nothing to anyone but me.

[converted_democrat]

9. What about all the abortion clinic bombings?? And the Oklahoma City

bombing?? Tim McVeigh was a Christian.

[msongs]

21. and the bombing of Iraq for the last 3 years nt

[Orlandodem]

22. All the abortion clinic bombings?

How many were there and what happened to the perpetrators. The same number of abortioni clinic bombings in this country over the past 10 years probably equals the number in one weekend in just about any Israeli city during an entifadah.

McVeigh was prosecuted. I don't see McVeigh held up as an example in any true church. Can you provide me an example? Osama is a hero for many in the Mid East, though.

[converted_democrat]

45. Mc Veigh was prosecuted, and so where many of the abortion

bombers, but we are a nation of laws, and any less would have been unacceptable.. Pat Robertson called for the death of Chavez, and he is quite revered in many areas of this nation.. The people of this country don't seem to see the danger of Christian fundamentalism. The Christians of this nation have been really slow in pulling in the reigns on Robertson, Dobson, and the like.. Religious fundamentalism is bad no matter the source, Christian or Muslim.

I grew up in a fundy household, and I have several fundy relatives.. These people honestly think that they have been chosen by God to impose their will on others, and they won't stop until someone makes them stop. Just because it isn't as bad here as it is there right now, doesn't mean that it can't get that bad.. Until Christians of this nation realize the threat from inside our own religion, the situation isn't going to improve.

[Solon]

10. Another reply...

Your quote here:
Are there hate-filled organizations that think they're Christian? Sure, but they're the fringe.

Is blatantly false, just an FYI. Look to the Catholic Church as an example, especially under this new Pope, look to Dobson and Robertson, both people who have followers numbering in the Millions and have the ear of a President. Look to the Reconstructionist Movement, the Christian Taliban if you will.

The only quantitive difference I can see between these groups and Muslim groups of a similar ideologies is the fact that the Christian Groups actually were and are enfranchised. Think about Osama Bin Laden for a moment, for two decades now he has been relegated to what could be called the backwater of the Muslim world. That is for a reason, for years, Democracy and political liberalization were taking place all over the Middle East. During that time, these groups were small time, and became violent when they realized that they were the minority, so they reacted violently, killing moderate Muslims and Democracy advocates in their own nations. That made them hated, so, following the calls of thier groups in their various nations, they left to fight the Soviets, then fought in a Civil War to finally have a nation of "True Muslims" running things. Guess what, they stayed, because those that did go back to their nations found they weren't welcome. Many barely escaped prison, some leaders were executed in their nations, etc.

Things changed, slightly, when Osama and others decided to target the United States for two reasons, one was that we left him out to dry in the Soviet war in Afganistan, and the second was the Persian Gulf war. He didn't care for Saddam, to secular for his tastes, but he did care about the fact that HIS nation gave the US a base of operations there. To him, this is sacrilege, and he largely views many in his nation as sellouts.

To put it bluntly, the only reason why Christian Terrorism has been sporatic here in this nation is because of practicality, not ideology. They have the same contempt for Democracy as their Muslim brethren, but they still decided to use the vote, and better yet, to lie their way into power. They are in power now, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, however, they have huge problems preventing them from creating their "Christian Nation". The first is that they have our actual traditions to contend with, with few exceptions, Americans are leery of messing with the Constitution, and while it seems deeply buried, we have an Enlightenment ideology to our politics generally. They have to hide and water down their own ideology to make it palpable to the Majority, this they hate.

They have legitmacy in this nation, so they have no need to bomb Mosques here(though they do) or kill gays(yet they do that too) and many other things. I could only imagine how much more radical they will get when they do get swept from power, then we will probably see riots.

[Orlandodem]

11. OK. You're right. Christians are evil evil people.

Muslims are just victims.

[Solon]

12. Don't put words into my mouth, poor ettiquette there...

I never said that Muslims are just victims or that Christians are evil. Just that if you are going to apply one standard to one of them, you better apply it to the other as well.

[Orlandodem]

19. As I said, in this country, perpetrators are prosecuted.

McVeigh was prosecuted. In the Muslim world they sell t-shirts of Osama. I don't see people wearing McVeigh shirts around town, though.

Churches in this country have split over the issue of gay rights. There are Christians in mainline denominations such as the Episcopal Church and Methodist Church who see the issue of gay rights very diffently from the far right.

[Solon]

28. Hard to prosecute the dead...

Look, think about this, if Timothy McViegh stayed in that truck and didn't run away, there would have been no trial against him. Also, you can probably get a T-Shirt of him, easily enough, in some areas of the country, that I do not doubt.

Think about this, many of these protestors and rioters died at the hands of police, others arrested, its been days since these protests, it took months to even prosecute McVeigh, so what more do you want? Others have protested against the protestors, and some of them have clashed with police as well, again, what more do you want?

Also, I'll summarize the issue of gay rights for you, some churches want them to live fully, other churches want them dead.

[Orlandodem]

32. The fact that McVeigh would have died in the the truck doesn't

change anything. No one I know would be praising his actions. So what if his prosecution took months. It's always that way. Would you take away his rights to a fair trial?

Have you ever wondered what the Muslims in the Middle East think of homosexuality? I doubt you'd be too happy.

[Solon]

35. News flash slim...

In case it went over your head, I'm applying your logic on Muslims to Christians, and you get offended, WOW, think about that. Since when do Muslims, or any group of people, believe the exact same things all the damn time, nice generalization there, bigot. You talk about Christianity being split on this, and many other issues, yet forget the FACT the Islam is also divided when it comes to the SAME issues. They are NOT the Borg for Crying out loud!!!!!!!

[Orlandodem]

54. OK. You're right. I'm a bigot.

I'm just one big hypocritical Muslim hating Christian bigot.

[converted_democrat]

13. No one said that... All that was said is that there is a double standard,

and you're helping to illustrate that point quite clearly.. I'm a Christian and I see it.. Why can't you?


edit to make clearer..

[Orlandodem]

20. So where is your protest? Go get your banner and start

marching rather than preaching to me.

[converted_democrat]

27. Excuse you?

I'm not preaching to anyone.. I'm just confused to why some people of the Christian religion can drop their blinders, and others can't.. I just find it curious.. I don't understand why so many refuse recognize that Christians in this country have done some less than godly things..I just find it curious why so many are blind to the actions of their own religion..

[Orlandodem]

31. Ummmm. Maybe because, as I said, no religion has the

corner on perfection. The subtle implication is that those who have blinders also are imperfect. When I go to church, I'm told that Christians sin. I'm told that all men are sinners.
What more can I say?

[converted_democrat]

50. I want Christians to see and understand that religious extremism

is bad, no matter what religion it comes from. People see and understand the danger of Muslim extremists, but they don't even recognize the threat from within their own religion.

[mondo joe]

66. If your religion leads you to be no better than any other religion might,

I hardly see the point of it.

But that said, what's the difference between Islam and Christianity? Both have adherents who are violent to others based on their religious convictions.

Why should I hold either to a different standard?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. If I may quote from your post

"Radical Islam is almost mainstream".....What statistics do you have to back this up? Or is this the notion you have because the MSM presents only Muslims who are doing violent acts and conveniently disregards any action by word or deed by moderate Muslims who are trying to counteract the violence?

"...Islamists know they'll get away with their violent rampages on a regular basis" Did the rioters in France "get away" with their rampages, which were about more than religion but which the MSM painted as being mainly religous? What about militant Muslims in India? Don't think they are "getting away" with things there. As for certain countries in the Middle East and Asia where demonstrations have turned violent-who is to say but that they were staged and condoned by the governments for their own purposes? This makes the whole thing political rather than religious, which is my point. The violence done in the name of Islam is not Islam. The faith is being used as an excuse.

Moderate and progressive Muslims know and respect Christians-the Qur'an speaks of Jesus with honor and there is an entire sura (chapter) named in honor of Mary. I know of Muslim-Christian marriages that have lasted for decades, with no violence (even though the couple was from the Middle East).

[converted_democrat]

8. Ohh.. The old double standard..

Yes, I do think that there is a double standard for behavior in regards to Muslims and Christians.. It's much like the double standard that girls are held to in the Christian Religion. It is perfectly acceptable for a Christian boy to "sew his seeds" and show interest in the opposite sex.. But if a Christian girl acts flirtatious at all she is cast as a whore.. There are lots of double standards when it comes to the Christian Religion..

[seabeyond]

14. i am consistant. i feel it is an obligation of both moderate christians

and muslims to stand up to our fundamentalist. i agree that the muslims community that is against this should be speaking out and working to solution. and i think they havent been doing a good job. on many christian posts i have suggestd the same of the christian community and i think we have failed too. i am seeing a little, and just a little more of moderate christians standing up to the extremist and saying our religion is not law for all people.... but not nearly enough. i hold the responsibility the same for both religions. i feel strongly we are obligated to speak out, and i am disappointed that we christians havent done a better job

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Again, I say

how do you know what has been done by moderates of either faith when we have a media that sets its own agenda and decides what is "news"?

Case in point: In July of last year, there was an ecumenical conference about peace and brotherhood involving Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, and Native Americans. It went on for a week. I wasn't able to attend, but my brother in law lives in the DFW area and I asked him if it had been on TV or in the paper. He didn't know about it. One of the participants in the conference is a Sufi senior teacher I know. The attendance was good, but not spectacular; apparently there had been mass mailings about it, but that was all the coverage this major ecumenical conference got. Yes, the news outlets knew of it, and no, according to my brother in law it wasn't a week with a lot of breaking news in the local area.

Sufis in the US have been holding ecumenical conferences and making speeches about peace and justice since 911, and, by and large, their audience is limited because frankly the news outlets have said it just "isn't news". I bet if instead of being peaceful someone had started a riot, the news cameras would have been out in force.

What we moderates are forced to do is work with small groups, and sometimes one person at a time, to get the message out. "State of Belief", the new religious program on AAR (4pm Central on Sunday) is making a small dent in public awareness; I suggest you check it out and encourage others to do so.

[seabeyond]

49. it hasnt been time yet. but it will be soon

since the majority are not extremist..... and we are not hearing about the majority, only from the minority, then yes..... you are right, and i lost sight of a bit..... media does not cover. but i think in who the basic, christian moderate is, they tend to not speak out harshly, as the dems in general dont. we feel right to speech right to your view,.... but as the democrat is learning, must harshly and bluntly speak out,.... so must us moderate christians. is it sad that there is such a division that we are now talking about extreme/moderate in religion, like we do in politics?

the government gains the tenets of religion, mixing the two. as in religious law. well equally, religion will gain the politics, as in extreme/moderate

i have also been saying in these threads, though i do not have to ignore truth and understanding, and not feel it is my job to protect jesus..... no where in the bible does jesus ask me to "protect" his image......i also tell those that are angry, sad, afraid... anguish over what christian religion is doing to them........the time is coming. the extreme is a stupid position. intellectually, spiritually.... and though they pulled the wool over eyes, most people are moderates and they are hearing christ words, and that will win.

the time is coming soon. i think moderate christians, are standing up, and positioning themselves well. good to hear moderate muslims are too. we need to be one on this. a lot of people will be in spiritual pain........ when reality hits. assuming you are in relgion of some kind, ...... christs words, koran words......... to do it in love, is win win for all.....this wont be hard, when time is right

i have faith. not huntin searchin or prayin for it. i have it

[patdem]

15. The same reason each black person is responsible for ALL BLACKS

and why Democrats are one group and if ONE says ANYTHING it is a reflection on the entire party, but when repuks call for the MURDER of ANYONE who is not repuke they say it is just them and do not take responsibility...IT IS CALLED THE TYRANY OF THE MAJORITY!

[zanne]

16. Why aren't people talking about who published the cartoons?

I don't think it's about freedom of speech as much as it's about provoking people and fomenting hatred. The publishers of the orginal cartoons were the far-right editors of a Christian newspaper in Denmark. We're not talking about the provocators, just the reaction.

[greyl]

71. Jyllands-Posten is a liberal paper.

The only "evidence" I've seen that Fleming Rose is right-wing is that he interviewed Daniel Pipes and that he wouldn't publish a cartoon that showed Sharon eating a baby, which doesn't compare with the Mohammed cartoons.

Where's your evidence for the accusation that Jyllands-Posten is a Christian newspaper and that the publishers are far-right?

[mogster]

90. It's a neoconservative paper

It's line is conservative, not liberal. But it's the special Scandinavian type of neoconservatives; do as you like, pretend you're Christian by tweaking Jesus to fit your views.

Besides, they refused to print Jesus charicatures some time before this episode.

[BiggJawn]

17. Because they're not "REAL" Christians...

They only CALL themselves "Chrisitian", y'know.

And we're slammed for Xian "bashing" because it's easier to lash out and stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes than to acknowledge that there's a lot of evil being perpetuated in your best buddy's name.

Witness the number and ferocity of the "Hilter/Eric Rudolph/Bush/Musolini/Pat Robertson/Rod Parsley wasn't a REAL Christian" flame wars here.

[SujiwanKenobee]

33. Trust in the system, perhaps?

Maybe here it is because of our tolerance for free speech and belief in the court system for handling the criminal acts.
We have so many variants of Christianity that have come about as a result of internecine disagreements within the major branches of religion. Mostly this leads to arguments and splits in the churches themselves. People aren't killing each other here over this--they have fallouts and part of the congregation leaves. Depending on the degree of fundamentalism and the "charisma" of the leadership, you have persons who attack the ideal of free speech and even go over the edge. But, we are always not sure just how far one can go short of violence to utilize their right of free speech before it becomes violent, causes a breakdown in peaceful community relations or is baiting a counter-reaction. IN the worst case scenarios, we tend to trust that the police/court system will be outside the influence of the fracas and step in. The court system then is supposed to handle the miscreants who stepped out of bounds. If we didn't have a belief that this would work in the favor of democracy, we probably would be out in huge groups protesting all the time.

I think Islam has such a firm hold on everyone's everyday life and the "width" of their tolerances (and sects who believe the others are infidels), that it is easier to find many who agree in sync than here with a plethora of persons who aren't afraid to disagree out loud.

"Belief" sure can fuck up the world.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. Interesting post

However, may I point out that there has been mob violence in the US in regards to relgion, and that it resulted in deaths? The Mormons were building a city called Nauvoo in northwestern Illinois, and they had their own militia, mainly for protection, as they had been violently driven out of Missouri for their anti-slavery stance. The size of the militia and the growing town, which at one point was second only to Chicago in size, alarmed many, and the non-Mormons came with mayhem on their minds. Joseph Smith, leader of the Mormons, was jailed (not quite sure why; it's been a while since I've studied this ). The mob stormed the jail, murdering him and some others, and then went on to drive the Mormons out of the area. Don't know as anyone was ever tried and convicted for Smith's death, but I'd have to check on that. Point is that the court system can break down in this country and mob violence can prevail-it just doesn't happen all that often.

Islam is not monolithic. Even in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, there are different sects of Islam, though sects other than Wahhabism are outlawed in the Saudi Kingdom. The reason I know this is that a Sufi shaykh recently died in SA, and members of the royal family attended the funeral, which was considered a protest against the extremists. As far as I know, the royals attending weren't killed or harmed. I don't know much about the Sunni and Shia sects, but I am a Sufi initiate, and I have met Sufi brothers and sisters from around the world. I assure you that Sufis are, by and large, most tolerant of others' faiths and beliefs, and that they don't usually resort to violence-in fact, most Sufis in the ME avoid becoming involved in politics. In Sufism, there is not one great leader that everyone follows; there are many initiatic orders, and though each order has a head (Pir or similar title), one's connection is with one's direct spiritual teacher. There is no "sin" in disregarding the advice of a teacher or a Pir; I've known of Sufis who have gotten into fights with them, and are still initiates in good standing. I think the fact that Islam isn't structured like Christianity, but is more splintered and individualized, is one reason many Westerners don't understand why moderates like me can't simply wave a fatwa around and make the violent ones stop.

[Solon]

47. That is one thing people here don't seem to understand...

Are the various schisms in Islam, just like in Christianity. They don't number the thousands of various Churches that Christianity has, but there are 3 major sects that you have highlighted. Sunnis and Shiites, I believe, split due to a single Sultan challenging the authority of Islam, though don't quote me on that, I'm not sure, and it was centuries ago. Sufis, like you, are more reformist minded, correct? I don't know much, and I'll mention another religion, Baha'i World Faith, but I hesitate because my understanding is that this faith, formed in the 19th century, is similar in outlook to the Unitarian-Universitalists, basically they are nominally Muslim, more derived from it than a part of it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

72. I think you are correct

The Sunnis and Shias split because the Shias believe that the spiritual leaders should be from the family of Mohammed (pbuh), while the Sunnis recognize the first three Kalifs, who were not related to the Prophet, as being legitimate spiritual leaders.

You can find out more about the Shia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia

And you can find out about the Sunnis here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni

Sufis are more liberal, as are Bahais. Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith, believed in the concept of religion evolving, as it were, through a series of prophets, and acknowledged all of them, much like the Sufis. But Bahai is a distinct religion, though the Bab, who proclaimed himself to be a new and independent manifestation of God, came from Persia.

Read more about Bahai here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai

There are many different Sufi orders, some traditionally Islamic and some universal. All that I know about stress the work of the individual to find spiritual perfection. To show just how liberal some Sufis are, you may wish to check out the home page of a senior teacher in my order, Murshida Tasnim at www.churchofall.us

[Solon]

83. Thanks for the links...

My study of Islam is woefully inadequete, but I try, I knew something about a split based on religious authority was part of the major schism, but I forgot the details. I just remembered that it was similar to the schism of the Christian Church to the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the dispute was also who had the "proper" religious authority and who was the proper representative of Christ on Earth, the Patriach or the Pope.

[SujiwanKenobee]

63. That's why I posed the scenario in modern times

AS I wrote the first post, I was remembering religious wars and also groups who didn't believe in the same thing being cast out from colonies. Today, people just up an of J. Smith, splinter groups were still to occur in the mainstream religions.
Also, I know about Sufi's, but many in Islam don't consider Sufi's to be truly Islamic--a persecuted sect that is more mystical in outlook compared to other forms deriving from early Islam. If I was going to conside being part of an organized religion under Islam, it would be Sufi.

[frankly_fedup2]

96. Hey, let's not forget Jim Jones and the poison Kool Aid either!

Now there was a cult for you.

I'm not going to compare one religion against another. To do so would be too arrogant as well as ignorant.

All through history the three main religions have constantly slaughtered each other. Hating that progress issue I can kind of understand because not all of it is good; however, to kill people because they are homosexuals, to kill women just because they feel she has embarrassed them in some way, and then in their Bible their God telling them it is okay to kill any infidel, in fact, they must do it; however, they must give the infidel a chance for the infidel to convert to Islam and ask the infidel to accept Allah as the one and only true God. Otherwise, slit their throats.

I read something about when the Turks were in constant battle with the Muslims. It ended quickly when the Muslims were told that each bullet fired, arrow shot, spear shot would be dipped in pig fat. They feared the pork more than being bombed and the war ended.

I say we get some pigs in Iraq and start wrapping bacon around the bombs. (I cannot believe I just said that). But enough is enough already. The U.S. has no right being in Iraq. The innocents are the ones that pay the price, just like here on 9/11/01. But I'm tired of being told this is a religion of peace and there is no part of history where they were at peace with any given part of the World.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Because it's a matter of scale.

Sure, there's a deeply unsavoury lunatic fringe to Christianity, but the Muslim lunatic fringe is a) slightly more lunatic, and b) much, much less fringe.

The difference is quantitative, not qualitative, but it's a non-trivial quantity.

[Egalitariat]

24. I think you're right****

nm

[Solon]

41. I would say you are wrong...

Ideologically, they are the same in many ways, also the only difference I can really think of as far as both of them in regards to violence is that the Christians are less competent. Also, think about this, in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa, thier lunatics were practically kicked out of their nations, why do you think Osama and many of his followers were stuck in Afganistan and didn't stay in Saudi Arabia?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. I'm afraid

That I think Osama bin Laden was probably kicked out of Saudi Arabia for purely pragmatic temporal reasons, not for ideological ones.

[Solon]

61. Actually, that is somewhat muddled...

Some in the Royal family hate the asshole with a passion, others like him, same for his own family, actually, but they have a business to run(largest construction contractors in Saudi Arabia) so they don't want to have business suffer internationally because of association with Osama. Same for regular Muslims as well, the movement that many before Osama spearheaded, and he picked up, has killed many Muslims, and many of their family and friends would like nothing better than for him to be dead.

[trotsky]

74. The primary difference between Xian lunatics and Muslim ones...

is that Muslims have desperation on their side. They don't run one of the most powerful nations on the planet. They are even suppressed by their fellow Muslims (see Saudi Arabia). They have no real power, and think they have to resort to terrorism. I think if the tables were turned, the Christian fringe would be just as violent, just as hateful.

[Dutch]

102. Ah, the old muslim invariably=victim argument

Well it's an easy and convenient argument- pity it's a gross, simplistic and deeply patronising generalisation.

[Zenlitened]

81. I'm not sure about that.It looks as if the fringe has become the very face

... of Christianity in America today, unfortunately, just as the fringe has become the face of Islam in many respects.

It may not be not fair. It's sure not healthy. But that seems to be the jam we're in right now.

[Greyhound]

25. I know it's no consolation, but I've called for them (christians) to

disavow these fundamental extremists over and over. There is no difference between them and the other terrorists, and they should be prosecuted (with their constitutional rights intact) and get the long sentences they deserve.

[UTUSN]

30. Big K&R #5 n/t

[robbedvoter]

37. All need to follow the "Do not kill" standard as far as I am concerned

I am repulsed of fanatics of all stripes - religious and politicals.
Attempts to justify the acts of muslims re: cartoons border on political fanaticism unfortunately.
Fanaticism in my book is the justification of anything because _____________insert holly reason here, they are always right.
Holly=you are not allowed to argue with it.
Case in point: the muslims rioting because of a cartoon are not Boston tea party revolutionaries (as they promote fanaticism vs democracy), nor are they on par with the wingnuts here who, so far merely cancel shows on TV and suck taxpayers money.

[Solon]

53. Do people so easily forget Matthew Shepard and other victims of Christian

violence?

[robbedvoter]

70. Hardly. Prosecuted, HBO film on it - no one condoned it - not here.

Still, if you want to compare the two events, scale will be the difference.

[Solon]

86. I would say that about 20-30% of Christians condoned it, or didn't...

care one way or the other, at least. These are the estimated numbers for the "Religious Right" in this country, and unfortunately, I haven't ever seen a unified Christian front condemning the action, so in that case I assume that all Christians condoned it, at least in this nation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Because the MSM are trying to stir up hatred against Muslims

as a means of prepping the American people for continuation of the occupation of Iraq and expansion of the war into Syria and/or Iran. Look at the widespread accusations that the Syrian government sponsored the riots in its own country.

Logic and balance have nothing to do with this situation. It's all about manipulation of the public.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. Got it in one

Islam is not a faith that many Americans know that much about. I still cringe when I hear people tell me that "Allah" is an idol that I worship. I have had to tell folks again and again that the word "Allah" is Arabic for God. I have a Roman Catholic friend who grew up in Jerusalem. Her first language was Arabic, and she showed me her Bible, where "Allah" is the word used for God-I know, because I checked some well-known Biblical verses. Yet when I present the Dances of Universal Peace, I've had people walk out or call me names because "Allah" is used in some of the dances, even after the explanation. And all of this rejection is based on fear-you can hear it in their voices, see it in their eyes.

And the MSM whips up this fear by presenting only the violent elements of Islam. I have yet to see a program on television that explains the different sects of Islam, how Muslims organize a mosque or tekka (Sufi meeting), or how the Qur'an relates to the Bible or Torah. Why? I think you can guess.

[greyl]

73. Is the MSM trying to stir up hatred against Americans when

they show pictures of Abu Ghraib, Falujah, & dead and wounded Iraqis?

[mitchum]

42. Because religion is irrational

[Jim Sagle]

51. Horseshit.

[Solon]

56. Can you point to me, specifically, what is horseshit in the OP? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

68. Start with the thread title. It's based on a false premise.

[Solon]

69. No its not, its based on a very real double standard...

even on this board. Look here for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=383753&mesg_id=383753

Replace one word, Muslim, with the word Christian and you would see half a dozen or more threads pop up all over the board, bitching and moaning about the "Anti-Christian" bias present on the board, and a whinefest will ensue. Not to mention that in a thread like that people will complain about putting an unfair burden on Christians in denouncing violence. I simply decided to point out he hypocrisy present.

[IronLionZion]

58. Religous fundamentalism is bad no matter which religion it is

It's painfully obvious the influence they have in our government. Neocons and Republican elitists care only about money and power. They don't give a shit about any social issue, not really. But they need to get elected with the help of christian fundamentalists. These people are the average joes of America, just like the religious fundamentalists in the Muslim world come from the average joe population. The elitist leaders don't lead particularly religious lives, not really. They just hijack religion in order to get the average joes to help them get what they want - power.

Similar situations happen in every community: Elitist drug lords use average joes as dealers, Elitist warlords use average joes as soldiers. Elitist repugs use average joes to vote for "guns God and gays".
Elitist liberals use young students to march in their protests.

The leaders of just about any revolutionary movement tend to come from wealthy families. From corporations to communists. The more successful ones try to stay behind the curtain.

Elitist liberals are obviously not "of the people", but many try to be "for the people". So I suppose liberals are the lesser of two evils.

[Solon]

62. That's the problem with generalizations...

in the broad view they SEEM right, but looking closer and they fall apart, at least certain aspects of them do. You are right about the various radically right movements in both this country and in others. Osama Bin Laden came from a wealthy family, so did Bush. Same is said by the Communist movements in some countries also. However, Liberal movements actually do NOT follow this pattern in many ways, the main reason is that liberals have a tendancy to be extremely individualistic and independent minded, not exactly conductive to "follow the leader" syndrom, unless they agree with them, of course.

I could give a couple of examples of this, the first will be the labor and socialist protests in this nation around the turn of the century to the 1930s. Many of the leaders of those movements were the rank and file as well, some simple laborers that saw injustice and stepped up to fight against it. This is true all the way up to present day. Martin Luther King Jr. was not an elitist, but he was a leader of 3 movements in his life, even though he was famous for just one. Same could be said for many of the protests today with the Anti-War and Anti-Globalization movements that seem to make the news occasionally. Sheehan, for all her faults, isn't someone that strikes me as an elitist, and yet she is now in a prominent role in the anti-war movement. Same could be said for Lee with the Anti-Globalization movement, he became a symbolic leader of a worldwide movement that not only includes student protesters, but Mexican day laborers, Korean farmers(of which he was one), local community groups, American unions, etc.

[IronLionZion]

64. the exceptions that prove the rule

Martin Luther King Jr. was a great leader who came from humble beginnings. His independent minded actions got him killed.

Cindy Sheehan is a good, kind-hearted woman, who gets demonized by the corporate media every damn day. You are right, she is not an elitist. But there are those in the anti-war movement who are using her tragic loss for their own gain.

I'm glad you brought up the labor movements. Laborers saw injustice and fought against it. They were angry at the way they were treated. They needed protection from corporate-hired goons. It was a ripe situation for organized crime to control...which they did. I support the average joes who just wanted a better life for their families. But Jimmy Hoffa didn't die of old age.

I didn't mean to go way off topic in your thread. But the reason we have religous fundamentalism is because average people are easily manipulated by powerful wealthy people with a self-serving agenda.

[Solon]

67. The thing is that Cindy Sheehan and MLK Jr. were never used...

Mrs. Sheehan, for example, could have been quiet about her political views and the influence her son's death had on them, but she didn't. She chose to join the movement, hell, she's choosing to lead it, so who would be using her for their gain again? It looks like the reverse is happening. Martin Luther King Jr. did the same thing, he blazed his own trail, using Ghandi's movement as a template, for non-violent resistance against the injustice of segregation, poverty, and the Vietnam War.

The labor movement is actually a little more complex, back at the beginning, they were losing to government troops killing them, and Pinkerton having sanction to do the same. However, the political winds changed, and they gained in power, over the course of 3 generations, many of the Unions now were power brokers, and with power comes corruption when responsibility is reneged. This doesn't invalidate the movement in its infancy, regardless of how that movement came about. Granted, in many ways, some movements are more prone to corruption than others, but only when eternal vigilance isn't practiced within them. That is what democracy is about after all, a democracy is only as good as the vigilance of its citizens against the corruption that will inevitably infiltrate it.

[porphyrian]

59. Christians said "You first," first. - n/t

[Lexingtonian]

60. Because Christians are civilized people

-unless and until they choose to behave barbarically, that is, and then the discover they can rampage and riot and witness falsely with the best under their patented Cheap Grace program.

[Ladyhawk]

65. Amazing, isn't it?

I still believe in freedom of religion, but I'm beginning to wonder if the human race's only chance is to fully embrace reason. My personal opinion is that believing in anything supernatural is silly and dangerous, but I also can't make that decision for someone else. I'm just hoping some kind of compromise can be made before religion becomes a main ingredient in the destruction of the entire world.

Sometimes I have this fantasy that millions of years from now aliens discover a dead earth and are able to piece together exactly how she died. Religion is one of the main factors and the aliens are aghast at how stupid we all were.

[Hoping4Change]

75. But Christians of like mind have. For example if it weren't

for the ACLU and the organization called Americans United for the Separation of Church and State taking the fight against Judge Roy Moore all the way to Alabama's Supreme Court the Xhristian fundie wackos would have had their way.

May I add that Americans United’s current executive director, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, is a United Church of Christ minister as well as an attorney long active on behalf of civil liberties and that through the years, many members of the clergy have been involved in the work of Americans United.

American United, formed in 1947 was orginally called Protestants United for Separation of Church and State. As other religions joined their ranks the name changed to what it is today.

Their tireless work is one reason the U.S. isn't the Christian counterpart to Saudia Arabia.

"In 1962 and ’63, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down landmark rulings striking down government-sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Calls soon began emanating from Congress to amend the Constitution to protect the “right to pray in school.” But Americans United defended the rulings, pointing out that no branch of government has the right to compel children to take part in religious worship and that truly voluntary student prayer remained legal.

In the late 1970s, the Religious Right began its rise as a political force, and Americans United responded. Throughout the 1980s, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and other allied groups unleashed a torrent of attacks on church-state separation and assailed the principle in the halls of Congress and the federal courts. They also targeted public schools for “takeover” campaigns, attempting to saturate the curriculum with fundamentalist theology.

At the same time, “education choice” advocates began demanding tax subsidies for religious education through vouchers, tuition tax credits and other avenues. Americans United rallied the opposition to these schemes and helped secure a string of court victories that turned back the Religious Right and their pro-voucher allies. Americans United also organized Americans to speak out against the extreme and intolerant agenda of the Religious Right.

In the 1990s, Religious Right forces regrouped under TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition. This organization focused heavily on local politics, playing special attention to public school boards. Its supporters brazenly demanded an end to public education and the “Christianization” of politics. Through a series of in-depth reports and by working with the nation’s media, Americans United exposed the radical agenda of the Christian Coalition."

http://www.au.org

[Solon]

78. They only make up a small minority of the religious...

I say religious, because nowadays many people of all faiths and no faith are members, but that is besides the point. They were only able to accomplish what they were able to accomplish because the founders of the nation, the majority at least, were NOT Christians, and set up an explicit system for SECULAR government. Most Christians in this nation would like nothing better than to demolish the wall between church and state, especially in public schools. They soon forget that they rioted, violently, over whose Bible should be taught at school, Protestant or Catholic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. MOST?

Where do you live that MOST Christians want to demolish the wall of separation?

[Solon]

92. The United States...

Look, most Christians I know, with few exceptions, don't care for the idea of a "Separation of Church and State" if it involves not having State lead school prayers, religiously themed celebrations in public schools, sectarian prayers in council chambers, etc. etc. The ACLU or Americans United are NOT popular institutions in this country, that much is obvious.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Doesn't sound like the Christians I know

:shrug:

You don't happen to live in a fundie area, do you?

[Solon]

98. Midwest, and it cuts across many sectarian lines...

It doesn't matter if its the Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. The only three or four goups I can think of that actually value separation of Church and State would be the Jews, Serbian Muslim Refugees, along with Pagans and possibly the Jehavoh's Witnesses, but they avoid even voting so its hard to tell with them.

[Orlandodem]

76. Do Muslims have to follow the standards they're asking of

the West? The cartoons in Arabic media portraying Jews are just as offensive as the ones of Muhammad. I don't see Muslims condemning them, nor do I see Jews taking to the streets.

[Solon]

79. I don't know, are you psychic?

see, this is the logical fallacy I'm talking about, trying to say that over 1 billion people are of the EXACT like mind just strikes of bigotry.

[Igel]

77. I have a different sort of answer.

It's quite simple. I bear responsibility for the community I'm attached to. I bear no responsibility for those outside my community.

Having Xianity apply to all xian sects is a confound. I do not sense that I belong to that community. I belong to a smaller community--my faith (sect), and possibly those closely allied to it. It's a fairly trivial matter to convince even the most obtuse fundie that his god and jesus are different from the jesuses and gods of other xianity sects. I care about my sect, and feel responsible for it, the behavior of its members, and defend (or question) its doctrines like no outsider easily can.

If it turned out GLB bashers or abortion-clinic bombers, we'd do something about that. Post haste. And apologize. We'd turn in the offenders. And try to make things right. If our god/jesus were portrayed as GLB bashers or bombers, we'd understand why this was so; and work to make amends. We'd denounce the offenders in no uncertain moral terms; how we're perceived would not be a large consideration, much less what we actually made reference to in denunciations--because we'd know the commitment the bastards made and how they let down both their god and their fellow churchmembers. The outside community response would be mild compared to what they'd get from the congregation. The primary enforcement would be at the congregation level; but the nationwide reaction, if the problem were found in numerous congregations, would be equally intense. If not, we'd be considered pariahs by other sects, and routinely insulted and reviled, and the sect would quickly lose members and be reduced to near nothing; we wouldn't really be considered Christian in the larger, fuzzy sense. We don't expect perfection, since everybody screws up: just a bare minimum of adherence to the appropriate code of conduct, easily derivable in most instances from the doctrines and behavioral goals.

My church has produced no GLB bashers or abortion-clinic bombers, either at the local or national level. Asking me to deal with those outside my faith is silly. I have the exact same expectations of Muslims. There is no double standard.

A given Muslim may decide to say that the Muslims that intimidate and issue death threats are not part of his sect. That his Allah and his Muhammed are different from the militants. That he doesn't even regard the militants as Muslim. Then s/he's immediately off the hook, IMHO. Different communities and sects, different Islams. Nothing or little to do with each other, their behavior doesn't mean squat about the DUer's beliefs. But, you know, I don't ever expect to hear that. "Muslim" and "sect" sound funny together.

When I hear a Muslim say something like this, I'll be happy: "You know, that Danish cartoonist drew a terrorist-supporting Muhammed. That's not my Muhammed and my Islam, but there certainly are people calling themselve Muslims that have such a Muhammed and Islam. We don't consider them Muslims at all, and are really upset that these false Muslims lead to Danes to think that of Islam." The response, of course, if facile and self-serving: Assume that things said about Muhammed and Islam refer to "the" Muhammed and Islam, ensuring that everybody can be equally offended. That releases people from wondering about any internal problems--which is good, since they can't be dealt with, anyway. Instead we hear the "unitary Islam" fallacy--parallel to the unitary Xianity fallacy that screwed over Christiandom for 1500 years, and which they only let go when individual churches stopped thinking of god and jesus as the personal property of their church/organization, but as variable by belief system. Instead, there's only one Islam, and one belief system, and that means that Muslims seem to demand to fall into the same category that all other members of a single sect fall into: they're appointed spokesman for their sect, and if their sect has even a weak tendency to produce bad guys, they have to account for why the bad guys are tolerated, where they get their justification, and what's going to be done about it. Because there's no double standard. They demand to be considered as part of a unitary Islam, and demand no double standard. And they get exactly that--but they don't like it. Perhaps because they don't understand the nature of Xianity, and how the standard actually works. After all, many Islamic societies treat "Christianity" as monolithic, showing a lack of comprehension.

What one set of Muslims says contradicts what another set of Muslims says. And there's no resolution: each is dogmatic both in its ability to speak for Islam and not speak for Islam, and they frequently cite the same Qur'anic verses (optionally ellipting a few words here or there). And still people claiming to be Muslims commit crimes in the name of Islam, and get a pass, while those complaining about the Muslims committing crimes get whacked. So we play whack-a-mole, saying things that might lead to a resolution but then backing down because we're like a dog trying to bite a wall, and can't get purchase. It's vaguely similar in Xianity: I can dogmatically speak for my xianity and not for (the larger) xianity. But I acknowledge I can speak only for a sect, and the others ... not my problem, say what you want about them. So we don't play whack-a-mole; we can identify loony extremists, and isolate the dangerous ones. But if I insisted there was only one Xianity, and that no part of it may be abused, I'd look like a hypocritical fool. And a fellow-traveler.

[Solon]

80. Since you see no difference in the various sects of Islam...

then I shall do the same for you, you are WRONG, and lying when you talk about your church taking responsibility for the actions of its members. Since you think Islam is but ONE religion with no variation, I will treat Christianity the same way, given that, your church, no matter what it is, is responsible for Timothy McVeigh, his actions are a reflection on your values.

[Goldensilence]

82. i think it is a matter of historical perspective

300-500 years ago or so what were the inquisition, the witch trials all over Europe and here, and the native americans? I do agree it is a matter of najority now. Instead of violence there is laws. I agree also there isn't the most powerful nation in the world hunting you. Let's face it when the word terrorist is applied in all meaning here we mean Muslim extremist. In reality it is hard to distinguish who is an extremist and who isn't so blanket that statement to muslim.

I also find it deplorable when the example of suicide bombers is used. I I assume that these examples usually relate to the palestinian-Isreali conflict. What's forgotten is this is pretty much the last resort used when munitions are hard to come by and when the other army has tanks, helicopters, one of the most advanced airstrike forces in the world behind ours and again the backing of the most powerful nation in the world. I am sure if it was deceided that a groups of muslims were to be placed ina christian area and given the same circumstances christian peoples of that area would be forced to use the same tatics the Palestinians are using. Not that I condemn it by any means but understanding the problem and seeing where it comes from is major part to solving it.

This comes to mind the western idea of treating the symptoms without understanding the cause. We can treat the symptoms all we like but the illness won't go away until we treat the cause.

[Igel]

84. No, I don't think I'm wrong.

But a lot of people make the mistake of dealing with xianity as though it were unified in any but a small number of extreme situations, when few xians make that mistake or give that impression. Then they make the mistake of figuring that Islam is at odds, and in all circumstances Shi'ites and Sunnis hate each other, and reject each others teachings. In my experience, that's not been a problem, and moderate Sunnis and Shi'ites get along reasonably well. I don't know if a Shi'ite would go into a Sunni mosque for prayers in, say, Los Angeles, or vice-versa. But there's been only one Muslim I knew that would have declared Shi'ites kufr; and he was, in general, a radical intolerant hateful a-hole in just about every other respect.

I see a huge difference in the different sorts of Islam. Immense. But if somebody decries Catholicism, I don't protest that they're defaming my version of Xianity. If somebody decries a version of Islam, Muslims of all stripes get pissed off. I figure the cartoonists thoroughly panned a particular Muhammed, but since everybody views it as "their" one-and-only Muhammed, they protested. The cartoonists slammed an Islam that really deserves slamming. But instead, they defamed "Islam". This makes no sense, unless the assumption is that the Danes were slamming a unitary Islam, or unless everybody assumed it was precisely their version of Islam being slammed (and this is silly). Even among DUers, it was seen as defaming not the terrorists' warped muhammed and distorted versions of Islam, but as defaming Muhammed and Islam; I'd expect most of them to be the most shocked at some of the intolerance and hate preached under the rubric "Islam", which is to say, under the cover of some things called "Islam". If what the terrorists say isn't Islam and they preach a false version of Muhammed, mocking them is par for the course, and they should be declared outside of Islam, apostates. And they should, when religion is involved, be dealt with as apostates. Go into their mosques? Nope. Have them pray with you? Nope. Allowed on hajj? Nope. Accept zakah from them? It's blood money. Nope. These things happen, but most of the instances reported as big news have happened after non-Muslims got involved. Then I don't know if the Muslim follow-up happened because they were finally free to do so, or if it's because not to do so would cast them in a bad light. This, of course, also happens with Xian groups, sad to say, but more frequently it seems the news happens after the house-cleansing.

As I said, if somebody has a reason to draw a terrorist jesus or moses, I figure they're drawing not-my-jesus or not-my-moses, and I have no dog in that fight. In fact, I'm likely to be the side of the person drawing the terrorist jesus, if they have any grounds. Some versions of Islam have no moral right to exist; some versions of xianity have no moral right to exist. I'm unconvinced that, in the absence of a crime, a government has a right to ban them, but their followers could end their existence by this afternoon if they wanted to. Phelps or Mashaal, it makes no difference. Depict Phelps' jesus as an intolerant pig, hey, not a problem, that's what Phelps worships; it's not the cartoonist, it's Phelps who's wrong, IMO. Depict Mashaal's muhammed as an intolerant pig, hey, also not a problem, that's precisely who Mashaal believes lived; it's not the cartoonist, it's Mashaal who's wrong, IMO.

[Solon]

85. Wait a second there...

If some paper in the US or Europe, let's say, drew an image of Jesus fondling a child, or molesting them, you don't think that Christians of all stripes wouldn't riot? That's a strange view, because, as far as I can tell, the Muhammed depicted was used to brush him and the religion he founded as being composed of terrorists. The question isn't whether the reaction was reasonable(its not) but why people seem to think Christians would be any better.

[LittleClarkie]

87. I don't think either is fair

The right wing asking where the moderate Muslims are to denounce the actions of their radical brothers is just as unfair a question as asking where the liberal Christians are.

For one thing, it's kind of hard to counteract the fundies when they believe in mixing religion and poltics while their liberal counterparts do not. And while liberal Christians might hold forums and discuss these things in a reasonable fashion so as to come up with the most thoughtful response, that isn't going to make the news, and meanwhile their fundy counterparts aren't thinking so much as reacting. We'd have to have radical Christians on the left as vehement as the radical Christians of the right. I haven't seen any groups fitting that description, and even if they did crop up, I reckon the "liberal" media would try to make them look like moonbats.

Even so, there are groups like www.catholicdemocrats.net who give me some hope.

[NMMNG]

88. They don't feel they have to

After all, it's not "their church" that is bombing the abortion clinic, killing the gays, getting the restrictive laws passed, or calling for the Constitutional amendments. Nobody in "their church" is a member of Concerned Women of America, American Family Association, or Focus on the Family. Nobody in "their church" has donated to any of the causes that seek to deny rights to women, minorities, gays or the disabled, nor have they signed any petitions against them. Therefore they don't see the need to take any actions against the hateful churches that do. It's much easier to sit back, let the hateful churches run roughshod over the rights of others and commit atrocities in the name of Christianity, then complain about "persecution" and "bashing" when others denounce Christianity because of those atrocities.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

93. Muslims have a long way to go

Muslims have to begin by stopping the public executions of women for "adultery" (which, as I understand, can consist of the woman having been the victim of a rape). Muslims have to allow females in their countries to have equal rights, rather than treating them like inanimate objects. Muslims have to stop their public beatings of women (which I understand can happen when a woman refuses to obey her husband). I see neither Muslims nor Christians, nor anyone else protest angrily against the torture, abuse and murder of women in Muslim nations.

If Christians were executing women publicly, having public beatings, not allowing women to drive, own anything, etc., would we protest?

[frankly_fedup2]

94. No one is saying Christians are perfect or any other religion is;

I don't think we have had any "violent" outburst of Muslims in the U.S., have we? Have they rioted in Iraq regarding these cartoons? Now 15 more people are dead in Nigeria due to rioting over the cartoons. Then putting out $1 million for someone to murder the cartoonist?

Why haven't we helped our allies, the Danish? The Muslims have burned embassies in Denmark and the continued violence in Europe and yet our American free press won't even show the cartoons in print or on TV. We are told it is out of respect . . . yeah . . .whatever works, right?

I'm sick of it. I'm tired of worrying abut stepping on anyone's toes regarding their religious beliefs. They sure as heck don't care about what other religions believe, think or feel. They hate the U.S. but take our money for the Palestinians. Israel pays the Palestinian authority $50 million a month in taxes. Yet, we see these people live in squaller.

Now the Palestinian authority is run by the terrorist group, "Hammas." Big damn deal. They were run by the PLO (Terrorist Organization) and it's leader Arafat before and we still sent them money for aid. I thought $200 million a month but I think it is about $75 million. I bet if we told the Clerics and Muslim organizations that we were going to stop sending the cash, they would stop the rioting.

Yes, we should not be in Iraq. Yes, whatever or whoever is telling our service people to torture or more like "humiliate" prisoners is wrong and should and will be punished. Unfortunately, it will be the low-ranking grunt who will be punished.

However, this almost month of rioting around the world over the image of Muhammad in cartoons is enough. It's as if the Arab world is having a tantrum and no one is willing to get the switch out to end it. If I were Denmark and Europe, I would deport everyone who is there still on a Visa. I wouldn't give a rat's ass what their problems are in their own country. If they were involved in any of this nonsensical violence, them and their families go. If they are citizens, and they are breaking the law, they should be arrested and have due process. Same with the U.S.

I still say the U.S. and other countries that are giving them cash threaten to cut it off unless the Clerics and leaders can get the rioting to stop. Everybody has a price, even the religion of peace whose followers are still in tribes. Unfortunately, it's getting harder and harder to trust anything the majority of Muslims say or do.

I say it's time for the belt.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. Me too

If I were Denmark, I'd start deporting Muslims. Denmark has always been open-minded, but if a religion is dangerous to a society, it's a danger. Islam is now proving dangerous.

[Solon]

100. Using that as a basis for your argument...

Let's see, yes, blacks should have been either deported or locked up because of the LA and Cincinatti Riots, also due to the rantings and ravings of Pat Robertson, especially his wishing of death and smiting of various towns and groups of people along with Timothy McViegh's actions means that Christianity is dangerous to society, and all Christians should be deported or locked up as well. Let's keep on going then, Ireland should have expelled all Protestants, and Britian all Catholics during the IRA's heyday, which was only a couple decades ago you know. Also, to make it even more interesting, Palestinians should then be able to expel all Israelis from their ancestrial lands as well. I could go on, but you see where this is going, thank Gods you aren't in charge of any nation, you would be worst than Bush.

[Dutch]

101. They don't.

The really puzzling double-standard is why so many DUers who rightly condemn Christian fundies are willing to leap to the defense of the most brutal excesses of radical Islam (please do not choose to selectively ignore the qualifier there- that seems to be a persistent problem around here, too). In fact, those who defended free-speech during the recent cartoon protest were not only characterised as having an "anti-Islamic" bias, but were depressingly often smeared as racists. I think the roots of the problem there might be a persistent, ignorant belief on behalf of the pro-fundy(as long as their Muslim) faction that "Muslim" is interchangeable with both "Arab" and "victim".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

103. Yes, isn't it amazing? They attack fundy Christians... ONLY.

This exclusive attack of Christian fundies, while defending fundy Muslims, is puzzling. Maybe one would like to explain.

[Solon]

104. We are not defending Fundies of any stripe...

Look, on threads talking about Christian fundies, we sometimes get posters who ask questions like "Where are the Moderate/liberal Christians to counter these assholes" and other comments along those lines. Usually about 20 posters jump on this poster either defending Christians in general or denouncing the words as a gross generalization that is unfair. The thing is that those posters are correct, it is either a generalization or a comment that demands unfair burdens on those moderates and liberals that have no control over their fundy counterparts. This is usually accompanied by several various posters starting threads on GD and here in RT lambasting about Anti-Christian bias on DU. Contrast that with the treatment of Muslim Fundies, when the SAME comments are made in relation to them, one, maybe up to 3 posters, will come to the defense of moderate and liberal Muslims, and then they are countinually slammed by the ones who made those unfair comments and generalizations. You don't call that a double standard?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. Thanks for responding

I understand that there will always be someone to criticize everyone's post. That's just the way life is.

I will respond to you as to why I personally see a huge difference between Christian fundies and Muslim fundies. It's quite simple, really. Muslim nations have routine mistreatment, public torture and public executions of women. Gays are executed if they're found out. Women are routinely degraded, humiliated, and treated no better than a cargo mule, with rights minimized or non-existent, or only available if conferred by a male. Females are subservient even to their own sons. Yet according to you, I'm supposed to see these people in the same way as Christian fundies.

I'm hardly a friend of Christian fundies, but believe me, I stand a better chance of survival among Christian fundies than I would ever among Muslim fundies. In fact, there's not even a point of comparison.

What does this have to do with the protests? Plenty. Until these people start treating women as human beings, they have no right to protest anything.

[Solon]

106. See, thanks for proving my point for me...

Especially the use of "these people" great generalization there. How is it fair to the citizens of Turkey, a nation that gave women the right to vote and serve in office back in 1930, to judge them by the the actions of the Taliban? What about Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on Earth? They have had a woman serve as president(Megawati Sukarnoputri), before we even had one for so much as vice-president. You have a point of sorts in regards to the lack of human rights for anyone in many of these countries, especially Women and Gay rights. However, one thing to make clear is that this is not a trait that is restricted to Islamic nations only.

I could give examples, if you wish, from Catholic nations in Latin America, where, in many places, women can't even secure an abortion even if it means her life. Let us not forget the Christian, Animist and Jewish regions of Africa, many of which grant negligible rights to either gays or women. Many have such horrendous practices as female genital mutilation, which isn't restricted to any one faith, Christians, Animists, Muslims, even Jews in Africa perform that procedure. Of all nations of the Earth, few have granted any rights to the GLBT community at all, and those that do usually just said its no longer a capital offense. Of the ones that give the GLBT community any semblance of equal rights, you can count them on one hand, it is rather pathetic, and the United States, with only an example of one state, doesn't qualify.

The point being that if you are to say that Muslims basically have no right to be offended by anything due to the way they treat women, regardless of where they live or their personal beliefs, then you can say the same for both Christians and Jews as well as Hindus and Buddhists. No major world religion has a corner on misogyny or discrimination against GLBT people. So, if that is to be the standard, no one who claims to be a member of those religions have a right to protest anything. Would you have a better chance of survival in a nation such as Angola?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. I say the same thing of KKKers or Nazis

As long as Muslims treat women like cow dung, and female children like a footrest, they have no right to demand respect from me. OH and evidently, little boys between the ages of 2 and 5 may not fare well in certain Arab countries. Here's some interesting stuff about the United Arab Emirates from a slavery watchdog group.

[Solon]

108. Point being is to be consistant here...

These AREN'T Nazis or KKKers, not all of them, in many cases, they are just Religious in general, so the question is, are they exempt from your contempt for the sole reason that they AREN'T Muslim?