1
   

The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

 
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 03:27 am
who has?

i was merely stating the possibilities.


in my original post when i alluded to the scotland yard, i said "may not be al quaida after all".. nothing more.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 03:44 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...

Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.


Crap. Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.

Your agendum is transparent and idiotic.


Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.

It is a hollow and mendacious victory, though.

The question exists independent of your speculation as to my motive, and, in fact, exists independent of my actual motives. To ask which religion is the most violent is a perfectly meaningful and interesting question, which may or may not possess a clear answer, and, in fact, it was Setanta who first asked it here. Your attempts to discredit a simple, objective, meaningful question by speculating about the motives of the person asking it are illogical.


So - cite a source which is capable of answering your question- as you appear to believe is possible. I will then examine it. I can find no such source.

Lol - you believe there s reality sans observer effect in such matters?

I am intrigued that you consider my questions as to the validity of your question as "attempts to discredit a simple, objective, meaningful question by speculating about the motives of the person asking it".

Any meaningful discussion of such things I would think necessitates a discussion of the validity of the questions being asked.

How is it "simple and objective"?

Objections to such a characterisation are at the heart of my cavil with your questioning - and you have made no attempt to respond to them.

Kindly do so.

They are most germane to this little game.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 03:50 am
dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...

Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.


Crap. Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.

Your agendum is transparent and idiotic.


Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.

It is a hollow and mendacious victory, though.

The question exists independent of your speculation as to my motive, and, in fact, exists independent of my actual motives. To ask which religion is the most violent is a perfectly meaningful and interesting question, which may or may not possess a clear answer, and, in fact, it was Setanta who first asked it here. Your attempts to discredit a simple, objective, meaningful question by speculating about the motives of the person asking it are illogical.


So - cite a source which is capable of answering your question- as you appear to believe is possible. I will then examine it. I can find no such source.

Lol - you believe there s reality sans observer effect in such matters?

I see myself as doing the creative part of the effort and really feel that it would be better for others to do the "leg work." I prefer to monitor and coordinate.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 03:51 am
dlowan wrote:
That is very disingenuous Brahmin.


The report suggests that Al Quaeda has recruited British born Muslims - not that this is a British act of terror as such.

Shame!





where in the following report is it sugested that the al quaida and nothing but the al quaida has recruited british born muslims ?? all that the scotland yard guy said was that the terrorists were not foreigners -


have you ever heard of the erstwhile baader meinhof gang?




BBC REPORT -


Bombs 'probably work of Britons'
Metropolitan Police/PA


Terrorists born or based in the UK were "almost certainly" behind the London bombs, a former Met police chief says.

Suggesting foreign attackers were to blame was "wishful thinking", ex Police Commissioner Lord Stevens told the News of the World.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 04:02 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...

Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.


Crap. Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.

Your agendum is transparent and idiotic.


Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.

It is a hollow and mendacious victory, though.

The question exists independent of your speculation as to my motive, and, in fact, exists independent of my actual motives. To ask which religion is the most violent is a perfectly meaningful and interesting question, which may or may not possess a clear answer, and, in fact, it was Setanta who first asked it here. Your attempts to discredit a simple, objective, meaningful question by speculating about the motives of the person asking it are illogical.


So - cite a source which is capable of answering your question- as you appear to believe is possible. I will then examine it. I can find no such source.

Lol - you believe there s reality sans observer effect in such matters?

I see myself as doing the creative part of the effort and really feel that it would be better for others to do the "leg work." I prefer to monitor and coordinate.


Please read and respond - if you can - to edited post.

I have tried the "leg work".

Support your game. Find the sources. Otherwise, you are condemned as meaningless and grossly agendaed.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 04:04 am
brahmin wrote:
dlowan wrote:
That is very disingenuous Brahmin.


The report suggests that Al Quaeda has recruited British born Muslims - not that this is a British act of terror as such.

Shame!





where in the following report is it sugested that the al quaida and nothing but the al quaida has recruited british born muslims ?? all that the scotland yard guy said was that the terrorists were not foreigners -


have you ever heard of the erstwhile baader meinhof gang?




BBC REPORT -


Bombs 'probably work of Britons'
Metropolitan Police/PA


Terrorists born or based in the UK were "almost certainly" behind the London bombs, a former Met police chief says.

Suggesting foreign attackers were to blame was "wishful thinking", ex Police Commissioner Lord Stevens told the News of the World.



Who organised the putative Britons?
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 04:12 am
how the hell am i to know !!!???


but at least i, and also the scotland yard and mi5, have the wisdom, not to just jump to conclusions, and not to leave stones unturned.


al quaida is definitely top suspect.
but not sure suspect.


you know a lot about the non-al quaida-esque groups of england do you ?
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 05:51 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8496293/
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 06:24 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, it does not assume that. You, yourself, started a thread asking which religion was the most violent, and you even answered the question, which was more than I did. All I did was to add a few reasonable criteria for an event to be included. My post does not say what you are attributing to it. It says what it says. It asks Eric to provide correct statistics and that's all that it does. Citing statistics correctly cannot be called hatred or prejudice. I assure you that I have never in any way been impolite to a person from the Middle East or a Muslim unless that particular individual did something wrong himself, and I have no memory of even that happening. I do, however, suspect based on what I hear in the news, that if the question you asked were posed in a way I consider more relevant, talking about the modern world, incidents actually related to religion, and so on, that the Muslims would be the "winners." I don't know that it's true, but I certainly hear more incidents of that type in the news.


Yes, it does assume that. Yes, i started such a thread, but this is not that thread. That is disingenuous crap to say that you have not answered this question that you've asked E_brown. Your intent is clear and it does not relate to the justifiable criticism of those who use racist slurs agains Arabs or all Muslims because of the actions of a few. Your loaded questions seek to establish a justification for an extraordinary condemnation of Muslims, and in the context of this thread, that is a tacit approval of those who use such racist epithets.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 08:32 am
Brandon, I do think it's fair to establish a common understanding of the 'set of parameters' you put forth in your questions. I think there is an essential need for a definitive guideline for what makes a religious war different from a political one. A guideline which we can all agree on. Not likely to happen. I also know, after my own searching, that there is no source for data on numbers of deaths by terrorists religious affiliation.

But, why bother trying to reason with you? You seem hell-bent on manipulating logic to suit your own needs.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 09:10 am
dlowan wrote:
Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.

Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.


hope you don't mind my editing your comments to remove some inflammatory parts. the gist of your comment i agree with wholeheartedly. if i can paraphrase an organization i'm not really fond of--the NRA--religions don't murder people, people do. how many people are murdered or oppressed in the name of religion has much less to do with religion itself than social conditions prevailing at the time, and cultural differences existing between groups of people, of which religion is but one aspect. with respect to terrorists, it's terrorists, be it al qaeda or anyone else, who perpertrate terrorism. bin Laden doesn't prove that Islam is murderous anymore than the IRA proved that Catholicism is murderous.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 09:27 am
dlowan wrote:
"I think what is troubling here has been the silence from the Muslim community at large in the face of these attacks."




Result of 2 seconds of Googling:

http://www.anglicannifcon.org/Islamic%20Voices.htm


http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/07/story210573.html


http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php


http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20050707/07jul20051158.html





A few of result after result after result of a search for Muslim condemnation of terror attacks.

And interesting choices they are.
From the 1st:
Quote:
But we also have every right to defend our faith against the likes of Jerry Falwell. Every faith has the right to defend itself when attacked, and Muslims would support them in doing so. But no mainstream leader in Britain has ever condemned such individuals to death. Freedom of expression for the majority community in any part of the world at the expense of minority communities is totally unacceptable.'

Translation: We are against terrorism, but there are bad people in other religions too!
Quote:
For me these were equally heinous crimes against humanity. Somehow we Muslims seem to be expected to share guilt for an act of terror committed by someone bearing a Muslim name, in a way that does not happen to the Christian community, or to the Buddhists after the subway deaths in Tokyo. Mr Carey says that debate is being stifled about peace and jihad. This shows he has not heard the debate going on within the community about human rights, minorities, conversion, peace, justice and human dignity.'

Translation: We are against terrorism, but how come you don't condemn the few Christians and Buddhists (who are not even related to Buddhism) who were twisted enough to try and kill for G-d?
Quote:

Translation: We are against terrorism, but what about the other bad people?

2nd link:
Quote:
The Muslim Council of Britain said it "utterly condemns the perpetrators of what appears to be a series of co-ordinated attacks".

Translation: Whoever did this thing is bad (but it could be anybody).
Quote:
Karim Mohammed, manager of Hilal House restaurant on Edgware Road, said: "Everyone is subdued and people are wondering what has happened. People are asking how will it affect us, are we going to be treated in a nice way after this?

"We have nothing to do with this."

Translation: You should go after the amorphous people who perpetrated these crimes, whomever they might be...

Link #3:
Too many links to list, but here is one of them:
Quote:
Leaders of the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC) held a meeting in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to issue the following points related to the terrorist attacks:

1) We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims;

2) We do not need to defend every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists;

I will let everyone speak for themselves now. Translations are redundant.

And Link #4
Quote:
In 2004, CAIR launched an online petition drive, called "Not in the Name of Islam," designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=169&page=AA

This petition has been dissected by others. I refer you to:CAIR's Phony Petition

And the question remains:
Where is your link that gives a major Islamic figure of authority, specifically in the Middle East, condemning the murder of innocents; unequivocally; condemning those that do so as criminals and heretics; without justification; without rationalizing these criminal actions by proclaiming "they" do it too?

For your edification and education, I will offer you such sites, as you all seem to be unable to come up with any. I suggest you read them. These are websites by Muslims condemning Islamic terrorism:
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.paktoday.com/index.htm
http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/islam.html
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/index.html
http://www.shoebat.com/

http://www.islamicreformation.com/

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
http://www.arabsforisrael.com/pages/1/

These are just a few sites that you can now use to show that Muslims condemn terrorism.
You're Welcome!
Read and rejoice!
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 09:53 am
Re: The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.
ebrown_p wrote:
The Anti-Muslim attacks that are prevelant on this forum really make me angry. This thread has three purposes:

1) To debunk the prudjudice, distortions and outright lies people here use to justify ethnic hatred.

2) To have one place to express my disgust, anger, revulsion for ethnic hatred that is being expressed in other threads. This includes pseudo-intelligent rationalisations of predjudice, to outright name calling.

3) To show that this kind of ethnic hatred (not the victims of it) are the cause of the worst atrocities that humanity has commited.

First the debunking...

There are several reasons people have put forward to justify their hatred of Islam as a religion, and Muslims in general.

1) Muslims are involved in more wars than any other religion. This is easily shown to not be true. In the current active wars, There is a major Christian involvement in conflicts in Columbia, Uganda, Congo, Sengal, Ivory Coast, Afganistan, Iraq, and Chechnya. There is a major Muslim inolvement in Iraq, Afganistan, Israel, Aceh, Algeria, Somalia and Sudan. There are some wars (e.g. Nepal) that neither religion is involved in.

Of course one of the distortions used to support predjudice is to classify any war that contains a Muslim nation or interest as a "religious" war, and any war that waged by Christian nations as something else. This is obviously nonsense.

Muslims and Jews lived peacefully together for centuries before they started fighting over land. Yes... the conflict between Israel and Palestine is over land, even though religious rhetoric is being used by both sides.

2) The Muslim religion is intrinsically more violent than other religions. People support this predjudice by two means. They look at history, and they look at religious writings.

There are a couple of obvious fallacies to this arugment. First of all, if you use the same means to judge almost any any religion you will get the same result. Christianity has certainly commited its share of barbarism, as have Hindus and Muslims. There are passages in the Jewish/Christian Bible that advocate killing "immoral" women and homosexuals. In the Bible, The Judeo-Christian God advocates the slaughter of men women and children after a militar victory.

Of course, there are millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims who value their religion, don't advocate murder and are normal people trying to live good peaceful lives.

Picking out one religion for slander, while ignoring the exact same traits in the other major religions, is hypocricy.

3) Muslims have commited more atrocities than other religions, both in the past and presently. People commit atrocities because they are evil people, not based on their religion. Religion has been used to advocate barbarism... but this is not necessary or relevant.

The most brutal atrocity commited in recent history was the genocide in Rwanda. Rwanda is 95% Christian and their is strong evidence that Churches not only stood by, but participated. Is there anyone who is pinning this atrocity on Christianity as a religion?

European anti-Semitism, which led to the Nazi horrors, and still persists today was part of Christianity. Martin Luther (the father of Protestantism) was famously anti-Semitic and blamed the Jews for murdering Jesus, and the Catholic led Inquisition was infamous for killings and forceable conversions of Jews.

Christians, Hindus and Muslims have all committed atrocities ... both in the past and in recent times. Again singling out one religion is hypocricy.

4) Muslims are only the religious group that advocates terrorism or other barbaric acts. Again it is very easy to show that this is not true. Many Christians in the United States explicitly advocate terrorism. The KKK is an overtly Christian group who commited their acts of terror-- "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." The doctrine of a Christian based racial holy war is still prevalent in American Extreme Christian groups.

Of course not all Christians accept this, but is is the extreme. It is also true that there is a Spectrum of Christianity. Many Christians accept parts of the KKK message, for example gun-rights, the belief America chosen by God, and anti-immigrant beliefs, even though they reject the message.

Terrorism as warfare has been used in by many different groups-- from the Irish, to the Basques to US supported anti-communist forces. The groups that turn to terrorism are the groups from a militarily inferior cause that they are desparate to win. The "Christian" west doesn't need to use terrorism, and the militant forces in the Middle East, who unfortunately use religion but have a political cause, use terrorism the reasons any other group has in the past. Many Christian, Jewish and Hindu groups have used terrorist tactics and just as strident religious rhetoric as the terrorists.

I am not supporting terrorism. I am just saying that the religion is not to blame. We all oppose the actions of Al Qaida and we want to see them defeated.

The point is you don't stop Al Qaida by attacking Muslims, any more than you stop the KKK by attacking Christians.
------

I am not opposed to religion-- although some are, and maybe based on the evidence I should be. I believe there are good people who find meaning in all religions. There are also extremists in each religion who use faith to justify barbaric acts.

But it is clear that when compared, no religion is clearly worse.

Why can't we condemn people who do bad things-- regardless of their religion-- and accept the rights of the rest of us to live peaceful lives without facing ethnic hatred and predjudice?


While I agree with most of your post, I have to say that Christianity cannot be blamed for the holocaust. The nazis were overwhelmingly pagans or athiests. Of course many German civilians as well as some politicians and soldiers were Christians, but Nazism is inherently anti-Christian. Hitler himself said, "Christianity is a religion tainted by Jews."

I don't think you can implicate Christianity in Rwanda either. That's a bit of a stretch.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 09:59 am
Cambodia
Everyone seems to have forgotten Cambodia, a largely Buddhist country with a long history of tribal violence that spilled over following the View Nam war.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 10:06 am
I have been wrestling with my own devil of not liking any religion -- not one damned one -- and hearing all the good people of a2k discuss this subject. It seems there is a real tendency to either hate or soft-pedal what is, to me, a growing Muslim threat. Is there a middle ground? I wonder.


It is difficult to separate Muslims... who follow the Islam religion... from the Muslim culture, precisely because following Islam is, when done "properly," an all-encompassing lifestyle. It is difficult not to resent Muslims (or others) who dress differently, act differently, educate and raise their children differently, etc. all in the name of their religion. We used to call that kind of behavior a religious cult.... or hippies.

Moreover, Muslims have a huge tendency to be insular... to only help "their own." It is not just the outsiders like me who see this... the adherents are themselves trying to be different, to create their own enclave in the midst of a free society. I know that German Baptists AND the Mormons AND other religious sects get that same kind of resentment in this state. They don't even want to "fit in" with our society... what's not to resent there? I have some real problems with people who come to my "free" society and then set up a bunch of rules for themselves that begin to spill over onto me.


So, I've been reading this thread, thinking about it and researching the subject, as I've had time... using the wildly liberal <insert lighthearted grin here>... PBS series, Frontline. Al Qaeda's New Front


I thought the following quote was telling (note, the emphasized parts are from me) :

Quote:

To many, it all started in 1989.

That was the year Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning British author Salman Rushdie to death for his polemic account of Islam in The Satanic Verses. The controversy was largely seen as an intrusive threat -- an unwelcome import from Iran that played out on Western soil, targeting a man that had been a British citizen for two decades.

But European intellectuals and cultural critics who blasted the fatwa at the time were stunned to learn many British Muslims, born and educated in the U.K., openly supported the death sentence -- in defiance of Western law and European civilization no less.


That really makes sense. Who here did not feel total shock about the Rushdie "fatwa"? I knew good liberal people in my town who immediately went out and purchased that book to show their solidarity with Rushdie... the underdog.

Do you remember how you felt at the time? I'd be interested to know. I know my immediate reaction was pure astonishment, then flaming anger.


Quote:

"Suddenly it seemed that Islam was not compatible with European political principles and values," says Jocelyne Cesari, a principal research fellow at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), visiting professor at Harvard University and author of When Islam and Democracy Meet: Muslims in Europe and the United States. The controversy, she says, challenged long-rooted European traditions of secularism that maintain a separation between religion and citizenship.


That is our ideal... the separation. For me, that is the reason the Evangelical Christianity is so annoying. Keep your religion to yourself has always been one of the first two precepts of modern etiquette and our own western lifestyles. Suddenly, we have an upstart religionist from BFE Iran who demands that anyone who is a true believer of that religion should feel no compunction at all about a cold-blooded killing of an author because of what he has written no matter where in the world that killing might occur.


Quote:
Since then, the debate over secularism seems to be widening, driven in part by globalization and demographic trends: In 1945, there were less than 1 million Muslims living in Western Europe; today there are an estimated 18 million. The proposed entry of Turkey into the European Union would increase this number to nearly 90 million.



When I combine that unbelievable growth of Islam into Western states, with the strange fact that it is the only religion which is apparently growing in numbers, and with the radical Islamists attacks which seem to come out of nowhere and are designed to create terror, plus the horror that I've felt as I've learned about the religion which I felt I needed to know for my own sanity and safety [how to pronounce their strange words, understand as well as possible THEIR prejudices against lefthandedness, dogs, feet, etc., learn about their reverence for their Koran, their holy sites, their hatred of the Jewish state, their total prejudice against pagans, their ill-treatment of females, and the religious and judicial violence which seems pervasive in Muslim society]... well, it seems to me that it is strange to not have some preconception. And any preconception can just as easily be called my own prejudicial feelings against a religion, a culture and a lifestyle that is the antithesis of most everything I enjoy.

I believe that my own Christian neighbors would burn me at a stake if they knew everything I thought. How much worse would it be for me if I were living in a Muslim world?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 10:48 am
I appreciate the soul searching Piff...and I'm there.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 10:50 am
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 11:07 am
Piffka wrote:
That really makes sense. Who here did not feel total shock about the Rushdie "fatwa"? I knew good liberal people in my town who immediately went out and purchased that book to show their solidarity with Rushdie... the underdog.

Do you remember how you felt at the time? I'd be interested to know. I know my immediate reaction was pure astonishment, then flaming anger.


Me too. It also marked a turning point in my interests, though -- I was 18 and going to a very good liberal arts college, and took classes on Indian history and Islam pretty much specifically because of that action, and reading Rushdie.

I've spoken about the class on Islam I took before, but it really made a huge impression on me. It was interpreted by a woman who has remained a good friend -- she was a new interpreter, not much older than me, and had just met the man she's now married to, who is a Muslim from Africa. So while she was interpreting she was also listening carefully, and in addition to the class, there were the discussions with her about how what we were learning tied into what she was learning about her boyfriend, what he thought about it, etc.

The professor was a painfully (especially to the interpreter) soft-spoken Pakistani Muslim, a sensitive and somewhat fragile man who seemed to barely be able to keep himself upright when he spoke of the way some people were perverting (his word, or something very close) Islam. His refrain was that Islam is about peace. Islam is about love. Islam is not, absolutely not, about violence.

I think there is nothing inherently wrong with Islam, even (especially) when done "properly."* I think what is wrong is the fundamentalists and extremists and fanatics. This is true for most any religion -- that most every religion has fundamentalists and extremists and fanatics. That subset can be condemned (especially if they go so far as terrorist acts -- I unconditionally condemn terrorist acts) without condemning the entire religion.

Not saying that Piffka is condemning Islam in general, of course. Just my take on how meaningful the Fatwa and other extremists acts are in terms of Islam, as a whole.

*Edit: What I mean by this is that according to this professor and reading I have done later, Islam is an enlightened, egalitarian religion. Doing it "properly," in that case, is a matter of doing things like contributing to worthy causes and praying 5 times a day. A lot of the specific things that worry us about Islam these days are regional overlays, not anything that comes from Islam itself (or if it is, is on the order of the various "stoned to death" offenses in the Bible... it's there, but that doesn't mean that anyone but extremists actually take it literally.)
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 11:32 am
Piff, what a well thought out post. Your honesty and openess about your feelings on religion were refreshing, to say the least.

For me, what it comes down to is the vital importance of the separation of church and state. All religions, sooner or later, develop fundamentalist off shoots which are power hungry and amoral in their climb to political as well as religious power. 'Twas ever thus.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2005 11:36 am
Good point, Diane.

(And yes, appreciated your post as well, Piffka. Nice to see that kind of nuance and honesty.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.77 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:44:06