NationStates Jolt Archive

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"

fanatical religious nuts who were all possibly on unhealthy substances?

Bribery is our only option.

trydition? and a lack of education?:confused:

Certain muslims enjoy preaching?

Explanation: Convenient way to mobilize population to ensure everyone 'submits' to a ruling clerical class.

-nevermind-

-nevermind-
???

Quotes bother you??

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

When did he say that? Not saying he didn't ... just don't remember the quote as such.

The motivations for Mohamed creating the Islamic religion are fairly obvious. He was already quite powerful, a prosperous merchant who had quite a bit of clout in Mecca. Being a merchant and possibly having extensively traveled with his father in his youth, he knew the power organized religion could have over people because of the existence of the Catholic Church, and also saw, that for whatever reason, polytheistic religions are either generally swept away by or incorporated into monotheistic ones.

Already possessing a huge ego and following, he took a trip to the mountains and claimed to see an angel. Some have speculated that the god Allah, was already one of the popular gods in the Kahba (sp?) right down to the crescent moon symbol, and he simply chose it to rally around for connivance’s sake. Recognizing the apparent strength of Judeo-Christian texts he based his new religion on them, but deviated for distinction's sake.

Ultimately his plan worked. No other known major religious founder forged such a large and powerful empire. That’s just my interpretation of known facts, though. No one can really know the truth, I suppose. Personally, I like thinking that there was somebody that cunning in the world’s past. I admire Mohamed’s ambition.:)

???

Quotes bother you??

Nah, I was just saying that the first two are distinct from the second two as they were not aided in their aims by receipt of US weaponry or training.

Nah, I was just saying that the first two are distinct from the second two as they were not aided in their aims by receipt of US weaponry or training.
Sorry I asked. :rolleyes:

When did he say that?
I have no idea. :confused:

Nah, I was just saying that the first two are distinct from the second two as they were not aided in their aims by receipt of US weaponry or training.
I thought the Ayatollah kicked our guy out.

I thought the Ayatollah kicked our guy out.

You'd be right.

The motivations for Mohamed creating the Islamic religion are fairly obvious. He was already quite powerful, a prosperous merchant who had quite a bit of clout in Mecca. Being a merchant and possibly having extensively traveled with his father in his youth, he knew the power organized religion could have over people because of the existence of the Catholic Church, and also saw, that for whatever reason, polytheistic religions are either generally swept away by or incorporated into monotheistic ones.
Before the Schism? :confused:

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"
How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.

Before the Schism? :confused:
Oops, should have included Eastern Orthodox. Probably had a lot bigger effect on him than Eruope. What with they way the Byzantine Empire was set up and all. The whole Papal and Caesar as one thing.

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.
Why? All I have done is quote and ask how you can explain it.

I have no idea. :confused:

Well you quoted him, silly. I'm wondering where the quote came from. :p

Oops, should have included Eastern Orthodox. Probably had a lot bigger effect on him than Eruope. What with they way the Byzantine Empire was set up and all. The whole Papal and Caesar as one thing.
I thought they were still one Church back then though?

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.
All religions must be bashed, constantly. They must always be aware that there are not just people they need to “save,” but people who find their beliefs reprehensible.

Well you quoted him, silly. I'm wondering where the quote came from. :p

I'm guessing an email.

Well, you could, say, judge Salah ad-Din by his behavior, and observe what he did when he conquered Jerusalem, but that would be sympathy with terrorism, and with logic and rationality too.

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.

Agreed. Change "Allah" to "God" and you'd have the "principle" of European colonization.

Oh wait, "Allah" DOES mean "God"!

So much hate here...

I thought the Ayatollah kicked our guy out.

Quite possibly, but I'm talking about the whole Iran-Contra malarky.

I thought they were still one Church back then though?
Mohamed lived in the late sixth century and early seventh century. Great schism was in the eleventh century. You’re right. I need to get more sleep, not thinking clearly.

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"
Well, you could start to explain this by telling us where these pearls came from?

I thought they were still one Church back then though?

It depends on what you consider as "one" since AFAIK the traditions were different and fairly distinct.

This is hilarious:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22I+shall+cross+the+sea+to+their+islands+to+pursue+them+until+there+remains+no+one+on+the+face+of +the+earth+who+does+not+acknowledge+Allah%22&btnG=Search

Note the plethora of sources.

As for the Muhammed quote, see http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20001221

For the rest, I have no care to defend either Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama Bin Laden.

Ann Coulter: "We should bomb their countries and convert their people to Christianity."

See, I can do it too.

But if you'd like an explanation, it goes as such - there were many people of all faiths who believed that it was perfectly acceptable to spread that faith by the sword. I'm not sure what else you'd like explained. Just because a bunch of people across history, who you've quoted anachronistically and out of any context, have said similar things doesn't prove anything.

Well, you could start to explain this by telling us where these pearls came from?

Evidence, proof, research? Surely you jest! Cut, copy, paste, baby!

I'm sure if I could be bothered I could find a host of equally objectionable "Christian" quotes, such as "I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ’George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did."

Note the plethora of sources.

Lol ... National Review ... tee hee

As for the Muhammed quote, see http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20001221

Nice work. Thanks.

For the rest, I have no care to defend either Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama Bin Laden.

Oh, me neither ... but at least hate them for who they are, not for added lies spread about them.

It depends on what you consider as "one" since AFAIK the traditions were different and fairly distinct.
Before the Schism though?

Ann Coulter: "We should bomb their countries and convert their people to Christianity."

See, I can do it too.

But if you'd like an explanation, it goes as such - there were many people of all faiths who believed that it was perfectly acceptable to spread that faith by the sword. I'm not sure what else you'd like explained. Just because a bunch of people across history, who you've quoted anachronistically and out of any context, have said similar things doesn't prove anything.

The difference, I think, is in the Mohammed quote. The remaining 3 are military/religious leaders of their day, but not prophets, and espescially not THE prophet. I doubt you would find a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says his mission is to spread the worship of God by the sword.

I doubt you would find a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says his mission is to spread the worship of God by the sword.
No, he just said to spread it annoyingly.:mad:

No, he just said to spread it annoyingly.:mad:

I just missed the part where they were supposed to go door to door and see if you might just get one of the 5000 seats reserved in heaven. Call Now!

Before the Schism though?

Yes.

The difference, I think, is in the Mohammed quote. The remaining 3 are military/religious leaders of their day, but not prophets, and espescially not THE prophet. I doubt you would find a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says his mission is to spread the worship of God by the sword.

Perhaps not a direct Jesus quote, but the Bible is replete with instances where God instructed somebody to kill somebody else based on religion (the conquest of Canaan comes to mind).

In the end I'm at a loss as to what Mr. Horn's point with this was. I mean what exactly is there to explain?

Well, you could start to explain this by telling us where these pearls came from?Yeah, I'd especially like to know the source of the Saladin quote. Doesn't fit with what history tells us of the man.
Even the holy Crusaders had to give the man his props.

I doubt you would find a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says his mission is to spread the worship of God by the sword.

Apart from Luke 22:36, obviously?

Yes.
Yes, but in actual fact it was still one Church (in name, at least). It wasn't yet called the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Yes, but in actual fact it was still one Church (in name, at least). It wasn't yet called the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I'm not sure when the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" began being used, but you're right, there was no diffence between the two at this time.

I'm not sure when the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" began being used, but you're right, there was no diffence between the two at this time.
It came about after the Schism I believe. Funny, they both took verses from the Creed and the one called itself Catholic, the other Orthodox. Maybe they'll get over their petty conflicts and reunite one day.

It came about after the Schism I believe. Funny, they both took verses from the Creed and the one called itself Catholic, the other Orthodox. Maybe they'll get over their petty conflicts and reunite one day.

Well depending on how conspiratorial you a feeling... (http://www.chick.com/bc/2002/right.asp)

(Yes I know the orthodox churches aren't strictly speaking protestant)

Why? All I have done is quote and ask how you can explain it.
Well, the way I see it, is that you are building a bit of a history:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471221

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470486

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469291

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469828

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469784

Hence, my comment.

Perhaps not a direct Jesus quote, but the Bible is replete with instances where God instructed somebody to kill somebody else based on religion (the conquest of Canaan comes to mind).

In the end I'm at a loss as to what Mr. Horn's point with this was. I mean what exactly is there to explain?

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, not being all that religious. My understanding is that the New Testament is 'a new contract' from God, whereas the Old Testament is God's 'contract' with the Jews. The Old Testament is full of commandments and rules and is very constricting, whereas the New Testament is full of parables, sunshine, puppy dogs and butterflies. And a crown of thorns or something.

I think what the OP was getting at, was that Islam rose and was spread by the sword, and that even unto this day, it's religious leaders continue to use violent statements to incite its followers. This is a religion after all, that commands you to submit in all aspects of life, pray several times a day to the holy city of Mecca (former capital of the islamic empire?), and provides no clear distinction between the state and the church.

Was his point to 'bash' muslims? I don't know. But you can't ignore the fact that much of the muslim world is trapped in feudalistic thinking, and the 'submission' theme inherent in Islamic teaching, is completely contradictory to the western belief in independence.

How do you make peace with people who profess to fight you until you submit?

(Please note: I'm trying to be an impartial observer, I don't subscribe to any religion, and there is no doubt the positive influence Islam has had throughout history.)

Apart from Luke 22:36, obviously?

Again, not really a big bible reader. Jesus told someone to draw their sword and force worship of his father? News to me...

Well depending on how conspiratorial you a feeling... (http://www.chick.com/bc/2002/right.asp)

(Yes I know the orthodox churches are strictly speaking protestant)
Are they? :p Orthodoxy is a denomination of its own, although it's credo is very close to Catholicism. They bicker over minute details.

I'll give the link a check.

Evidence, proof, research? Surely you jest! Cut, copy, paste, baby!
Ctrl C ...... Ctrl V

Real easy to do. :)

Evidence, proof, & research, well then we can leave that up to the old wise man. :rolleyes:

*snips bullshit*
I tell you how I explain it:

You're repellant.

That just about covers it.

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.


i dont see what the problem with the quotes are...

they are after all just quotes,or better yet words.


Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"


seems really peaceful and love thy brother to me.

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.[/QUOTE]


anymore so then the quotes?i am failing to follow your logic.
someone posts quotes...you know ...quotes...and they are spreading hatred and bashing muslims?

how does one 's own words constitute bashing?

i could see your point if they were misquoted or they were fabrications...but....

i know little to nothing about islam,and i would like to know what they stand for...seeing that we are at war with a segment of their society.

it is strange that the religion of "peace" is calling for some afghans head on a platter cause he changed religion....

yet you claim etrusca is spreading muslim bashing by quoting their own spokesmen!

kinda seems like a double standard to me...kill someone who changes religion...ok...quote their own...bad

the only reason that poor sob is alive is because the west intervened on his behalf.

that should tell you something.

he needs to hide..and fast...or like rushdie..he will be killed for his beliefs.

i think it is quite relevant to many that are curious about the religion of "peace"

on one hand...kill all disbelievers..and if you read the news,if you convert to another religion you die as well.

kinda bringing up the back of society if you ask me.

i have nothing against anyone..till they kill people or want to kill people over religion..it just plain scares me.

i am a non practicing catholic if it means anything...but would it be right for me to be killed because i dont adhere to a certain faith/dogma?

would it be ok for agnostics to be killed because they are un believers?

i am not so closeminded to think all of islam thinks that way,yet again..he just posted quotes from their religos/spiritual leaders...and it is relevant.

you can hate me,despise me...call me stupid..whatever..i believe you have the right to do just that..and i have no right to kill you for your beliefs....just as i exspect to not be killed for my beliefs.

I find it interesting that the earlier quotes only mention Allah, while the later two want to force the unelievers to acknowledge both Allah and his Prophet Muhhamed

Originally, Muslims accepted Christians and Jews as only slightly errant in their spiritual affairs becasue they still believed in the One God, Infidels then refered to those who were poly-theistic or atheistic. it was only recently that fundamentalists bega twisting the words of Muhhammed and the Q'uran to call fo rthe deat of all non-muslims

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, not being all that religious. My understanding is that the New Testament is 'a new contract' from God, whereas the Old Testament is God's 'contract' with the Jews. The Old Testament is full of commandments and rules and is very constricting, whereas the New Testament is full of parables, sunshine, puppy dogs and butterflies. And a crown of thorns or something.

Same God.

I think what the OP was getting at, was that Islam rose and was spread by the sword, and that even unto this day, it's religious leaders continue to use violent statements to incite its followers. This is a religion after all, that commands you to submit in all aspects of life, pray several times a day to the holy city of Mecca (former capital of the islamic empire?), and provides no clear distinction between the state and the church.

Judaism requires you to pray three times a day. Christianity has less Biblically-based formal ritual than either, but that's because of how it was formed, and the institutions created afterward have made up for it since.

Was his point to 'bash' muslims? I don't know. But you can't ignore the fact that much of the muslim world is trapped in feudalistic thinking,

Questionable.

and the 'submission' theme inherent in Islamic teaching, is completely contradictory to the western belief in independence.

So is the "submission" theme inherent in every religion. Christianity and Judaism are the same way - you submit yourself to the deity and His commands.

How do you make peace with people who profess to fight you until you submit?

You don't. You make peace with people who are told by their holy text to accept peace when seriously offered. Like, say, Muslims.

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"


How do you explain this?



Sweet and Sour Pork: Hong Kong style, side of egg-fried rice.

Weeping Tiger Steak: Seasoned with peanut and garlic.

Beef in Black Bean: With Boiled Rice, and Water Chestnut.

Side Order of Chinese Doughnuts: Because I like them.

Are they? :p Orthodoxy is a denomination of its own, although it's credo is very close to Catholicism. They bicker over minute details.

I'll give the link a check.

Sorry, there was a typo in that post you quoted. I meant "aren't strictly speaking"

Well you quoted him, silly. I'm wondering where the quote came from. :p
After doing a search for all four, it appears that they came from this location:

http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6893#continue

WorldNetDaily :D

i know little to nothing about islam...

Most people would actually consider that a good reason NOT to post an extensive platform...

Sorry, there was a typo in that post you quoted. I meant "aren't strictly speaking"
Indeed. Then it makes more sense. Right now, in any case, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the only two denominations that may reconcile and reunite. The others seem distant as ever.

1 I saw that the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as with a voice of thunder, "Come and see!"

2 And behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow. A crown was given to him, and he came forth conquering, and to conquer.

3 When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, "Come!"

4 Another came forth, a red horse. To him who sat on it was given power to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another. There was given to him a great sword.

5 When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, "Come and see!" And behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a balance in his hand.

6 I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenix of barley for a denarius! Don't damage the oil and the wine!"

7 When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature saying, "Come and see!"

8 And behold, a pale horse, and he who sat on it, his name was Death. Hades followed with him. Authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth was given to him.

9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the Word of God, and for the testimony of the Lamb which they had.

10 They cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, Master, the holy and true, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

11 A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told that they should rest yet for a while, until their fellow servants and their brothers, who would also be killed even as they were, should complete their course.

12 I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake. The sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became as blood.

13 The stars of the sky fell to the earth, like a fig tree dropping its unripe figs when it is shaken by a great wind.

14 The sky was removed like a scroll when it is rolled up. Every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 The kings of the earth, the princes, the commanding officers, the rich, the strong, and every slave and free person, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains.

16 They told the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,

17 for the great day of his wrath has come; and who is able to stand?"

For those who claim that Biblical Christianity lacks a violence streak.

Lol ... National Review ... tee hee



Nice work. Thanks.



Oh, me neither ... but at least hate them for who they are, not for added lies spread about them.

ok...i believe in truth,and if this is suspect...then i withdraw my critisism of anyone..like i stated,i know next to nothing about islam,and i thank you for giving me another point of view.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, not being all that religious. My understanding is that the New Testament is 'a new contract' from God, whereas the Old Testament is God's 'contract' with the Jews. The Old Testament is full of commandments and rules and is very constricting, whereas the New Testament is full of parables, sunshine, puppy dogs and butterflies. And a crown of thorns or something.

I think what the OP was getting at, was that Islam rose and was spread by the sword, and that even unto this day, it's religious leaders continue to use violent statements to incite its followers. This is a religion after all, that commands you to submit in all aspects of life, pray several times a day to the holy city of Mecca (former capital of the islamic empire?), and provides no clear distinction between the state and the church.

Was his point to 'bash' muslims? I don't know. But you can't ignore the fact that much of the muslim world is trapped in feudalistic thinking, and the 'submission' theme inherent in Islamic teaching, is completely contradictory to the western belief in independence.

How do you make peace with people who profess to fight you until you submit?

(Please note: I'm trying to be an impartial observer, I don't subscribe to any religion, and there is no doubt the positive influence Islam has had throughout history.)



Again, not really a big bible reader. Jesus told someone to draw their sword and force worship of his father? News to me...

very reasoned approach..i think i will just keep my mouth shut and listen from now on..lol

Same God.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of an athiest. Jesus and his disciples may have been jews trying to preach a new spin on an old religion, but it was ultimately taken by outsiders and codified in a separate, and completely different book.


Judaism requires you to pray three times a day. Christianity has less Biblically-based formal ritual than either, but that's because of how it was formed, and the institutions created afterward have made up for it since.

Islam translated from arabic means 'submission'. 5 times a day, adherents must turn and face the city that was the 'capital' of the religious empire and pray. At least once in their life, they must make a pilgrimage to that city. Most of their nations are ruled in some degree by the church, therefore not submitting to the will of 'God's Sheppards' would not be 'submitting'.

I realize that the other Abrahamic religions have similarities, but it's just not the same.


Questionable.

By feudal, I mean that the church has huge sway, and in many instances direct control, over the establishment of the ruling class. The European Renaissance was about breaking away from the church/state way of thinking. You can question it if you want...


So is the "submission" theme inherent in every religion. Christianity and Judaism are the same way - you submit yourself to the deity and His commands.

Not every religion, but I'll agree with you on the Abrahamic ones to some degree.


You don't. You make peace with people who are told by their holy text to accept peace when seriously offered. Like, say, Muslims.

I agree with you. Just tell that to the four people quoted by the OP, and all of their followers.

Most people would actually consider that a good reason NOT to post an extensive platform...

ouch!

i thought the whole idea was a free exchange of ideas and thoughts?

i did not realise i had a platform,but maybe i was thinking out loud.

is how you learn i thought,well at least i do...i find out i was incorrect and adjust my thinking,and the only way is for me to hear someone say...your wrong.
aside from stuff i all ready know...and i guess even that can be suspect.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of an athiest. Jesus and his disciples may have been jews trying to preach a new spin on an old religion, but it was ultimately taken by outsiders and codified in a separate, and completely different book.

But Christians don't say that the teachings in the "Old Testament" were immoral. They say that some of them - not all, as views on homosexuality will demonstrate - were made obsolete by Jesus's new covenant.

Islam translated from arabic means 'submission'.

I am aware of that.

5 times a day, adherents must turn and face the city that was the 'capital' of the religious empire and pray.

Jews pray towards Jerusalem. Three times a day on weekdays, four times on Shabbat. I believe Jewish prayer is a little longer than Muslim prayer, too. Christianity tends to involve a good deal of prayer too, at least the conservative version.

At least once in their life, they must make a pilgrimage to that city.

True, but not really relevant.

Most of their nations are ruled in some degree by the church, therefore not submitting to the will of 'God's Sheppards' would not be 'submitting'.

The religious leadership has, in general, too much influence over government policy in the Arab world, I'll grant that. I don't think that has much to do with Islam, though.

I realize that the other Abrahamic religions have similarities, but it's just not the same.

Why not?

By feudal, I mean that the church has huge sway, and in many instances direct control, over the establishment of the ruling class. The European Renaissance was about breaking away from the church/state way of thinking. You can question it if you want...

Again, there's some truth to that, but then the problem is not Islam, it's the influence of religion. If it were Christianity instead of Islam, the same problems would occur.

Not every religion, but I'll agree with you on the Abrahamic ones to some degree.

Every religion that demands that its worshippers follow its tenets, yes.

I agree with you. Just tell that to the four people quoted by the OP, and all of their followers.

A good deal of the OP has already been debunked. Osama Bin Laden does not have many followers. Khomeini's ideological descendants are not all that intent on brutally repressing non-Muslims, just apostates and "splinter groups" (that's how they see it, not I) like the Baha'i. They are perfectly willing to deal peacefully with us, if we reciprocate.

Here ... I'll help some ...

'That man is a Muslim who never hurts anyone by word or deed, but who works for the benefit and happiness of Allah's creatures. Belief in Allah is to love one's fellow men.' - Mohammed(pbuh)

Explain that!

Originally, Muslims accepted Christians and Jews as only slightly errant in their spiritual affairs becasue they still believed in the One God, Infidels then refered to those who were poly-theistic or atheistic. it was only recently that fundamentalists bega twisting the words of Muhhammed and the Q'uran to call fo rthe deat of all non-muslims
Hell, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Europeans and Americans called Islam, “The Turkish Church.” I’ve never heard of the Muslims having a problem with that, but I bet now they would throw a hissy fit over it.:(

Ayatolla Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world "

just a continuation of the usual revolutionary rhetoric spouted by 'revolutionary' 'leaders' before they seize power for themselves.

But Christians don't say that the teachings in the "Old Testament" were immoral. They say that some of them - not all, as views on homosexuality will demonstrate - were made obsolete by Jesus's new covenant.

You won't find me defending the many contradictions of the Christian faith, not being a Christian myself. Like any religion, the people who head it will pick and choose which parts of that religion to express for their current temporal aims.

I am aware of that.

Jews pray towards Jerusalem. Three times a day on weekdays, four times on Shabbat. I believe Jewish prayer is a little longer than Muslim prayer, too. Christianity tends to involve a good deal of prayer too, at least the conservative version.

True, but not really relevant.

The religious leadership has, in general, too much influence over government policy in the Arab world, I'll grant that. I don't think that has much to do with Islam, though.

Why not?

I wasn't aware of the Jewish requirement to pray towards Jerusalem. You've got me there. But by admitting that you believe that religious leadership in the Arab world (I guess we can include Iran in that statement) is too predominant in government policy, gets at what I'm trying to say. In Europe, the Enlightenment changed ways of thinking, and eventually surpassed the old order.

Islamic societies are different, in the sense that religion is so pervasive, that even their civil law is part of religious dogma. I'm not saying that the Arab world can't evolve into fully functional and healthy democracies, or even that they absolutely need to. However, the recent case in Afghanistan and the elections in Iraq around relgious lines, are pure examples of how it is hard to separate individuality and the State from Religion in the Islamic context.



Again, there's some truth to that, but then the problem is not Islam, it's the influence of religion. If it were Christianity instead of Islam, the same problems would occur.

Than why is this problem not prevalent in Asia, or India? (with the exception of some instances of Sharia Law). India and Asia have had economic and political dealings with Europe just as long as the Arab Countries have. Many of them were former British colonies as well. They don't seem to have the same problems... India in particular is an emerging power, and sucessful democracy. And as I stated, Christian states have largely got past this stage already.


Every religion that demands that its worshippers follow its tenets, yes.

That's not the same as submitting to the will of an omnipotent monotheistic being and it's clergy.


A good deal of the OP has already been debunked. Osama Bin Laden does not have many followers. Khomeini's ideological descendants are not all that intent on brutally repressing non-Muslims, just apostates and "splinter groups" (that's how they see it, not I) like the Baha'i. They are perfectly willing to deal peacefully with us, if we reciprocate.

They are willing to peaceful with us, but not anyone who doesn't 'toe the line' within their own borders.

You won't find me defending the many contradictions of the Christian faith, not being a Christian myself. Like any religion, the people who head it will pick and choose which parts of that religion to express for their current temporal aims.

True.

I wasn't aware of the Jewish requirement to pray towards Jerusalem. You've got me there. But by admitting that you believe that religious leadership in the Arab world (I guess we can include Iran in that statement) is too predominant in government policy, gets at what I'm trying to say. In Europe, the Enlightenment changed ways of thinking, and eventually surpassed the old order.

Islamic societies are different, in the sense that religion is so pervasive, that even their civil law is part of religious dogma.

It is true that European societies are less religiously conservative than Arab societies, at the moment. It does not follow that Christianity is less conservative than Islam.

I'm not saying that the Arab world can't evolve into fully functional and healthy democracies, or even that they absolutely need to. However, the recent case in Afghanistan and the elections in Iraq around relgious lines, are pure examples of how it is hard to separate individuality and the State from Religion in the Islamic context.

The Islamic context is just like the Christian context in that respect. Secularism ended conservative Christian domination over society, not Christianity. Secularism will do the same in the Arab world, if it is allowed to. It was brutally crushed the last time the attempt was made, with the full support of many of the people who today moan about "backward Arabs."

Than why is this problem not prevalent in Asia, or India? (with the exception of some instances of Sharia Law). India and Asia have had economic and political dealings with Europe just as long as the Arab Countries have. Many of them were former British colonies as well. They don't seem to have the same problems... India in particular is an emerging power, and sucessful democracy. And as I stated, Christian states have largely got past this stage already.

Different circumstances make different results. Secular nationalism fared a lot better in India than it did in the Arab world, or in Pakistan, and one reason for that was imperialism. Religious fundamentalism was a bulwark against attempts by the population to escape imperial rule, and was used against the nationalists as a result.

There are majority Muslim countries not dominated by religious fundamentalism - Turkey, for instance.

That's not the same as submitting to the will of an omnipotent monotheistic being and it's clergy.

Provide an example of a religion that you think is not comparable, and we can work from there.

They are willing to peaceful with us, but not anyone who doesn't 'toe the line' within their own borders.

Like a lot of other repressive regimes in the world, Islamic and non-Islamic.

Apart from Luke 22:36, obviously?
Uh, sorry. Nothing at all like Mohammed's quote (if indeed that's really Mohammed). To wit:

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.

55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.

57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.

58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.

64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Nothing there about conversion via gladius. I'm no scripture hound, but I don't like misquotes.

*snippage of pporly constructed nonsense*
the only reason that poor sob is alive is because the west intervened on his behalf.

that should tell you something.

he needs to hide..and fast...or like rushdie...he will be killed for his beliefs.

*snipping more crap*

Uh...Salman Rushdie isn't dead. He just published Shalimar the Clown last year. Seems like the fatwa hasn't panned out.

Point is, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you fuck up history and bend the truth. Nice try.

For those who claim that Biblical Christianity lacks a violence streak.
Yeah, but that's Revelation. That's the shit that's forecasted, not actual semi-history.

Choose a better example -- something like the Jews exterminating the inhabitants of Canaan in order to be "chosen", Abraham's sacrifice, Lot's offering the mob his daughters in order to spare his guests their overenthusiastic molestational "greetings", and so forth.

It is true that European societies are less religiously conservative than Arab societies, at the moment. It does not follow that Christianity is less conservative than Islam.

Fair enough.

The Islamic context is just like the Christian context in that respect. Secularism ended conservative Christian domination over society, not Christianity. Secularism will do the same in the Arab world, if it is allowed to.

Is that possible when apostasy is enshrined in law? Under penalty of death? But I concede your point that not all muslim societies are as entrenched in this line of thinking. I never said that they all were.

It was brutally crushed the last time the attempt was made, with the full support of many of the people who today moan about "backward Arabs."

I imagine you're not talking about Saddam Hussein's regime... Iran prior to American involvement then? At any rate, any society that represses women to the degree that the Taliban did, get the 'backward' label from me. Iraq at least was relatively secular under good ol' Saddam. The fact that it took a brutal dictator to make it happen is kind of scary though.

Different circumstances make different results. Secular nationalism fared a lot better in India than it did in the Arab world, or in Pakistan, and one reason for that was imperialism. Religious fundamentalism was a bulwark against attempts by the population to escape imperial rule, and was used against the nationalists as a result.

Not sure I can agree with this line of thinking. British Imperialism reached all over the globe, and India/Pakistan were part of the same 'unit' prior to division. The key difference here is the Islamic factor isn't it? Why no religious fundamentalism preventing democracy in India, Hong Kong or many of it's other territories?

There are majority Muslim countries not dominated by religious fundamentalism - Turkey, for instance.

True, but for many it's because there is a ruling dictatorship that is being financed by western powers that want to repress democracy in return for resources. Religious fundamentalism is rising in those countries. And Turkey, has a love affair with Europe. The ruling 'elite' have wanted Turkey to be part of Europe for ages, but the common people less so. (Talking out of my ass a little bit on the Turkey stuff, never been there and don't know the average Turkish citizen.)

Provide an example of a religion that you think is not comparable, and we can work from there.

Buddhism, Confuscianism, Animism.... Elvis worship...

Like a lot of other repressive regimes in the world, Islamic and non-Islamic.

I realize that there are a lot of repressive regimes in the world, but defending a society that professes peace if you leave them alone while they are persecuting minorities is a bit much.

And with that said, it's bedtime for Mikesburg. It's always nice to debate with someone without gun smilies popping out.

(On a side note: whoever quoted Luke 22, seriously took it out of context. Read it again. Jesus hardly tells his apostles to go out and force people to change their religion with swords.)

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"


I think the whole "Muslims are war mongers and they = evil" is so totally stupid. If you actually have read any of the Holy Qur'an you'd see that killing innocents and people of the Book, is frowned upon, along with suicide. Also I believe Mohammed(PBUH) was strongly opposed to forced conversions. And thats my two cents

ouch!

i thought the whole idea was a free exchange of ideas and thoughts?

i did not realise i had a platform,but maybe i was thinking out loud.

is how you learn i thought,well at least i do...i find out i was incorrect and adjust my thinking,and the only way is for me to hear someone say...your wrong.
aside from stuff i all ready know...and i guess even that can be suspect.

I have no problems with 'free exchange of ideas and thoughts'... indeed, I think it a very good thing.

However, you constructed a post that came across as a manner of attack on Islam... while simultaneously stating, also, that you knew little or nothing about it.

Asking for information would have been a good idea... launching an offensive seems inappropriate.


But, regarding the sentiment "i find out i was incorrect and adjust my thinking"... an admirable sentiment. I consider that a very mature approach... but you don't HAVE TO find your route to that THROUGH confrontation.

I'll ignore the hate-mongering from the OP and the dubious sources the quotes came from, as well as the context they're being placed in, because they've been dealt with.

What I would like to know is what PBUH means. I vaguely recollect it somewhere. Could someone enlighten me please?

That's all we have to do to win? Fuck. Let's put Allah's likeness all over the damn place. I'm thinking replace the Statue of Liberty's face with Allah's mug.
"No other God but Allah? Yeah. Sure. Whatever."

What I would like to know is what PBUH means. I vaguely recollect it somewhere. Could someone enlighten me please?

Peace Be Unto Him

Peace Be Unto Him

Ahhh. Yet another question I could have figured out if I'd had more than five hours sleep and hadn't drinken heavily last night celebrating my birthday.

Many thanks, Keruvalia.

Ahhh. Yet another question I could have figured out if I'd had more than five hours sleep and hadn't drinken heavily last night celebrating my birthday.

Many thanks, Keruvalia.

Happy birthday! :p

All religions must be bashed, constantly. They must always be aware that there are not just people they need to “save,” but people who find their beliefs reprehensible.
Great point. May I add that the most militant religions need to be bashed the hardest. Lately some religions under the banner of Islam have been the most militant.

For those who claim that Biblical Christianity lacks a violence streak.
Silly, those are prophecies of what the christians think will come at the end times. War, famine, sickness and death, the four horsemen, are literary representations of the suffering that will afflict humanity. It's not like the new testament of the bible contains instructions on how to fight wars of conquest against non-believers.

Here ... I'll help some ...

'That man is a Muslim who never hurts anyone by word or deed, but who works for the benefit and happiness of Allah's creatures. Belief in Allah is to love one's fellow men.' - Mohammed(pbuh)

Explain that!
Well, maybe Muhammad didn't see non-muslims as "one's fellow man". Islam allowed enslaving them, and one doesn't enslave "one's fellow man". One enslaves a sub-human. Islamic law had a separate set of rules for those who surrendered and humbled themselves before the might of the Islamic empire but did not convert. They could not bear witness in court against a muslim, they couldn't have authority over a muslim, couldn't marry a muslim woman, etc. They lived as second-class citizens. That indicates to me that perhaps Muhammad saw only Muslims as people and others as sub-human.

It's not like the new testament of the bible contains instructions on how to fight wars of conquest against non-believers.

Matthew 10:34

Happy birthday! :p

Thanks! Wish I remembered more of it...although the pictures are embarresing enough...

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.


Plus the "examine one religon out of context" rant, and with regard to Saladin "present quotes out of context" thread. Its amazing the number of modern Americans (and "others") who would be perfectly at home in the 16th century. And considering the way America is going, that might be a boon for them.....

Of course, peaceful dialogue with opponents is entirely acceptable in wartime, eh?

Matthew 10:34
"I come not to send peace but a sword" Isn't explicit instructions on how to wage wars of conquest against non-believers. It's kind of vague, it would very likely, considering the bulk of Jesus' teachings, mean "Don't think that by following me you won't get into any trouble. Instead trouble will find you."

Meanwhile, in Islam

Koran 9:5
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Koran 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah (tax for non-muslims) with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

Koran 9:5
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Koran 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah (tax for non-muslims) with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

How many times do I have to debunk your interpretations of Qu'ran before it sinks in?

How many times do I have to debunk your interpretations of Qu'ran before it sinks in?

Seven?

How many times do I have to debunk your interpretations of Qu'ran before it sinks in?
Just once more please.

Anyhow, it's not my interpretation that's the problem. It's the interpretation used by the terrorists and those who sympathize with them. It's the interpretation used by the people in Afghanistan who are protesting to have a christian convert put to death that are the problem. Maybe you should explain it to them?

Fuck I hate religion.

Anyhow, it's not my interpretation that's the problem.

Hasn't it occured to you that... maybe... it is?

That maybe the Middle East is in turmoil because of a concerted Western effort to spread lies about the God of Islam? That maybe (as with Viet Nam, Iran, Iraq, etc...) we have brought the situation on ourselves?

The Christian West peddles an 'idol' of Islam, and, buy NOT fighting that version.... not even attempting to verify it's veracity, the people of the West perpetuate lies, distrust and hate... towards a brother religion.

It is the inaction of good men, that spreads evil.

Just once more please.

No! If you can't use the search function, the terrorists win.

Maybe you should explain it to them?

Got a phone number for them or money for a plane ticket to Afghanistan for me?

Fuck I hate religion.

Hey, me too ... but at least I hate it from an educated perspective and not based on someone else's interpretation. Response to religion based on what someone else has told you makes you no better than the sheep who do what a preacher tells them. You should watch out for that.

If you can't use the search function, the terrorists win.

Kudos.

Hasn't it occured to you that... maybe... it is?

That maybe the Middle East is in turmoil because of a concerted Western effort to spread lies about the God of Islam? That maybe (as with Viet Nam, Iran, Iraq, etc...) we have brought the situation on ourselves?

The Christian West peddles an 'idol' of Islam, and, buy NOT fighting that version.... not even attempting to verify it's veracity, the people of the West perpetuate lies, distrust and hate... towards a brother religion.

It is the inaction of good men, that spreads evil.
I haven't seen anyone demonizing Islam until after 9/11. Seriously. I had the impression that all of Islam was just another monotheist religion, no different than Christianity or Judaism. Then 9/11 happened. Then I began looking into the theology and history of the jihadists. Then I came to the conclusion that many interpretations of Islam are more of an ongoing conspiracy to conquer land and control people than a spiritual movement.

So I disagree with you. Cause comes before effect. The terrorists attacked us before I began to judge some sects of Islam as scum. I think most Americans who feel the same way I do didn't begin "peddling and 'idol' of Islam" until we were attacked by a certain sect of Islam.

I haven't seen anyone demonizing Islam until after 9/11. Seriously. I had the impression that all of Islam was just another monotheist religion, no different than Christianity or Judaism. Then 9/11 happened. Then I began looking into the theology and history of the jihadists. Then I came to the conclusion that many interpretations of Islam are more of an ongoing conspiracy to conquer land and control people than a spiritual movement.

So I disagree with you. Cause comes before effect. The terrorists attacked us before I began to judge some sects of Islam as scum. I think most Americans who feel the same way I do didn't begin "peddling and 'idol' of Islam" until we were attacked by a certain sect of Islam.

You are probably one of those who never heard the name of Osama bin Ladin before 9/11.

You were unaware of undercurrents. That does not mean they were not there.

You are mistaking 'selling newspapers' with 'what is happening'.

No! If you can't use the search function, the terrorists win.



Got a phone number for them or money for a plane ticket to Afghanistan for me?



Hey, me too ... but at least I hate it from an educated perspective and not based on someone else's interpretation. Response to religion based on what someone else has told you makes you no better than the sheep who do what a preacher tells them. You should watch out for that.
How about response to a religion based on what a segment of it's believers do and what they believe? That's where my hatred comes from.

1) Nations like Saudi Arabia (who considers itself the guardian of Islam and it's holiest sites) have a record of torturing and killing non-believers and apostates. Many of the Afghan people went nuts demanding the death of a guy who's only crime was choosing another religion.

2) Muslim Terrorists use their interpretation of the Koran to justify killing innocent people. Christian terrorists use the bible to justify blowing up gay bars and abortion clinics. (though the second sentence is irrelevant to a discussion on why I dont' like Islam everyone would have a hissy fit if I left it out.)

3) A bunch of Danes draw some cartoons in a Danish newspaper and Muslims around the world demand that they be punished for violating religious laws that don't even apply to them.

That sort of thing doesn't make Islam look like the benign religion I once thought it was.

You are probably one of those who never heard the name of Osama bin Ladin before 9/11.

You were unaware of undercurrents. That does not mean they were not there.

You are mistaking 'selling newspapers' with 'what is happening'.
I'd heard the name in connection with Clinton's bombing of Al Shifa and sites in Afghanistan, but didn't know anything about him until afterward when I looked into the subject.

What undercurrents?

What do you mean by your last statement?

Hasn't it occured to you that... maybe... it is?

That maybe the Middle East is in turmoil because of a concerted Western effort to spread lies about the God of Islam? That maybe (as with Viet Nam, Iran, Iraq, etc...) we have brought the situation on ourselves?

The Christian West peddles an 'idol' of Islam, and, buy NOT fighting that version.... not even attempting to verify it's veracity, the people of the West perpetuate lies, distrust and hate... towards a brother religion.

It is the inaction of good men, that spreads evil.

I fail to see how criticising governments that threaten punishment by death for apostacy, and treating women as 2nd class citizens can be construed as inaction of good men. If you don't speak out against it, you tacitly encourage it. If it were done in the name of a non-religious ideology, like say communism or fascism, would that make it okay?

Nah, I was just saying that the first two are distinct from the second two as they were not aided in their aims by receipt of US weaponry or training.
Well, at least you can fall back on "always blame America!"

How do I explain this?

I call it the weekly bash Muslims thread, or how to spread love thoughout the world forum.
You're not a real liberal, socialist or pacifist if you don't wholeheartedly condemn these violent Muslim fanatics.

I'd heard the name in connection with Clinton's bombing of Al Shifa and sites in Afghanistan, but didn't know anything about him until afterward when I looked into the subject.

What undercurrents?

What do you mean by your last statement?

How well acquainted are you, with the work of Johannes Wierus (Johann Weyer)? Or other 'demonologists'?

One of the 'demons' of Christian tradition, is often depicted as goat-headed, and goes by the name 'Baphomet'. The goat-head is almost certainly attributed through a misunderstanding... but the name seems to have originated from the 'latinised' Mahomet (since the name Baphomet was not attributed to a demon earlier than the Crusades)... a western version of the name of Mohammed.

We have hundreds of years of casting Islam as 'a demon'... the difference is - it is only now that it is really something for the commonalty, as opposed to only the wise and powerful.

I fail to see how criticising governments that threaten punishment by death for apostacy, and treating women as 2nd class citizens can be construed as inaction of good men. If you don't speak out against it, you tacitly encourage it. If it were done in the name of a non-religious ideology, like say communism or fascism, would that make it okay?

Because, of course, our OWN cultures have always valued women as equal to men, and have encouraged religious freedom?

How well acquainted are you, with the work of Johannes Wierus (Johann Weyer)? Or other 'demonologists'?

One of the 'demons' of Christian tradition, is often depicted as goat-headed, and goes by the name 'Baphomet'. The goat-head is almost certainly attributed through a misunderstanding... but the name seems to have originated from the 'latinised' Mahomet (since the name Baphomet was not attributed to a demon earlier than the Crusades)... a western version of the name of Mohammed.

We have hundreds of years of casting Islam as 'a demon'... the difference is - it is only now that it is really something for the commonalty, as opposed to only the wise and powerful.
How well aquainted are Muslims with Johannes Wierus? I'd wager not aquainted with his work at all. Only religious scholars would bother with studying demons, and muslim religious scholars wouldn't bother with any christian texts that don't deal with Jesus, and probably not with those either.

You can't get upset about something you don't know about. Islam, in it's heyday, saw Europe not as a source of books and knowledge, but as a source of slaves and land for conquest. In modern times extremely few western texts are translated into Arabic. The number of occult texts translated into the many languages of Muslim nations is also, quite likely, vanishingly small. I'd say that if fifty Muslims out of the 1.5 billion or so know about Wierus it's a large number.

Because, of course, our OWN cultures have always valued women as equal to men, and have encouraged religious freedom?

Of course not. Doesn't mean we weren't wrong. Criticising it is the 'action of good men' you were mentioning. Inaction of good men is not the only way to spread evil. There's always the action of evil men. Committing someone to death for converting to another religion is evil in my book.

Because, of course, our OWN cultures have always valued women as equal to men, and have encouraged religious freedom?
That's always a great argument. Let's take it back even farther and excuse cannibal serial killers like Jefferey Dahmer because as cave men we weren't above killing and eating people.

That sort of thing doesn't make Islam look like the benign religion I once thought it was.

Aye, and Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Eric Rudolph, Paul J. Hill, et al. don't reflect what Jesus taught either. Doesn't make Christianity a bad thing, just makes some of its followers complete whack-jobs who would be best placed in a rocket to the Sun.

Saudi Arabia, some misguided protestors, and a few acts of violence does not Islam make. They can see themselves as however they like, but just because they say they are something, doesn't make it so.

Because, of course, our OWN cultures have always valued women as equal to men, and have encouraged religious freedom?
Why are you such an excuse-making, apologetic fool? I don't care that the West was not always a haven of equality and freedom. The point is, that we are now and the Middle East is not, by comparison.

Aye, and Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Eric Rudolph, Paul J. Hill, et al. don't reflect what Jesus taught either. Doesn't make Christianity a bad thing, just makes some of its followers complete whack-jobs who would be best placed in a rocket to the Sun.

Saudi Arabia, some misguided protestors, and a few acts of violence does not Islam make. They can see themselves as however they like, but just because they say they are something, doesn't make it so.
You're wrong there. People like that DO make christianity a bad thing. The fact that Christianity is so vague that it can be used to justify the words and actions of such people, and the fact that all religions teach their followers that "this is the word of god, and therefore is inerrant and supersedes all else" gives them permission to act upon their interpretation. In fact, it compels them to act. Same goes for Islam and all the others except perhaps Ba'hai. Those people, to my knowledge, haven't caused any trouble.

How well aquainted are Muslims with Johannes Wierus? I'd wager not aquainted with his work at all. Only religious scholars would bother with studying demons, and muslim religious scholars wouldn't bother with any christian texts that don't deal with Jesus, and probably not with those either.

You can't get upset about something you don't know about. Islam, in it's heyday, saw Europe not as a source of books and knowledge, but as a source of slaves and land for conquest. In modern times extremely few western texts are translated into Arabic. The number of occult texts translated into the many languages of Muslim nations is also, quite likely, vanishingly small. I'd say that if fifty Muslims out of the 1.5 billion or so know about Wierus it's a large number.

Wow... some sweeping generalisations, there. Were you aware that, for a long time the Islamic world was the centre of culture and science? That our medical profession, for example, owes a huge debt to the works of Islamic scholars?

I like the way you assume that, because the peasants of the West didn't know something, NO ONE in the Middle East can have known anything.

The 'mythology' of Baphomet wasn't JUST hidden in dusty books, although it mostly is today... but at the time, while lands in the Middle East were being seized because of the alleged heresies of Orders of Chivalry, the name 'Baphomet' was probably on the lips of many.

Of course not. Doesn't mean we weren't wrong. Criticising it is the 'action of good men' you were mentioning. Inaction of good men is not the only way to spread evil. There's always the action of evil men. Committing someone to death for converting to another religion is evil in my book.

Is that a veiled reference to the Afghan that was freed yesterday?

It isn't that long ago that being of certain religions earned a death sentence in the West...

That's always a great argument. Let's take it back even farther and excuse cannibal serial killers like Jefferey Dahmer because as cave men we weren't above killing and eating people.

Reductio ad absurdum? Not really a valid debate tool, my friend.

You might also notice that you have taken a situation about an entire culture, and made your 'extrapolation' centre around the counter-culture actions of an individual IN a culture?

Why are you such an excuse-making, apologetic fool? I don't care that the West was not always a haven of equality and freedom. The point is, that we are now and the Middle East is not, by comparison.

I'm a fool, now?

I consider myself above a direct response, otherwise I'd likely be citing your post for Moderation.

The West is better than it was. We are hardly 'a haven of equality and freedom'... even now.

I'd ask you what gives us the right to decry the action of another government... when our own rejects all such outside interference... but, to be honest, unless you buck your attitude way up, I'll likely not be discussing this issue with you further.

Is that a veiled reference to the Afghan that was freed yesterday?

It isn't that long ago that being of certain religions earned a death sentence in the West...

And you don't think that it was the protesting of western governments and people in general that resulted in his freedom? If it weren't for 'the actions of good men', the people howling for his death would get their way.

And again, let's focus on the present, and not refer to death sentences for apostacy that may have occured in the middle-ages.

Wow... some sweeping generalisations, there. Were you aware that, for a long time the Islamic world was the centre of culture and science? That our medical profession, for example, owes a huge debt to the works of Islamic scholars?
Yes, I'm aware that they were once the inheritors of most of Rome and Greece's teachings while Europe devolved into a primitive mess. So what? They still didn't pay attention to European texts newer than those of the Romans. To this day the number of books translated into Arabic from every other country in the world is less than the number of books translated into english just from Spanish. They've fallen far behind and aren't really even trying to catch up.
I like the way you assume that, because the peasants of the West didn't know something, NO ONE in the Middle East can have known anything. That's just your (mis)interpretation of my words. You're hunting for racism.

The 'mythology' of Baphomet wasn't JUST hidden in dusty books, although it mostly is today... but at the time, while lands in the Middle East were being seized because of the alleged heresies of Orders of Chivalry, the name 'Baphomet' was probably on the lips of many. Yeah, it was a symbol of the knights templar and an issue that Muslims wouldn't give a crap about because it's just an example of European heresy against the god of Abraham.

Reductio ad absurdum? Not really a valid debate tool, my friend.

You might also notice that you have taken a situation about an entire culture, and made your 'extrapolation' centre around the counter-culture actions of an individual IN a culture?
I think your original point was absurdum enough. Just because once Christianity burned heretics doesn't mean that it gives Islam the right to execute apostates. The world has moved on. Just as it's unacceptable to live by the morals of our Cro Magnon ancestors, it's also unacceptable to live by the morals of the 15th century.

And you don't think that it was the protesting of western governments and people in general that resulted in his freedom? If it weren't for 'the actions of good men', the people howling for his death would get their way.

And again, let's focus on the present, and not refer to death sentences for apostacy that may have occured in the middle-ages.

Actually - it's not that long ago... in the UK, for example, being suspected of witchcraft was a death-penalty offense right up until 1736.

I'm sure that the decision to free the convert was very MUCH to do with outside pressure. However, you seem to be confusing brands of 'inaction'... since you are defending the 'action' of those promoting Christianity, rather than discussing the 'inaction' of those who fail to defend (or even, investigate) Islam.

I'm a fool, now?
Oh yeah, cruellest flame ever. :rolleyes:

The West is better than it was. We are hardly 'a haven of equality and freedom'... even now.
I'm aware that we've still got a while to go. But by comparison with the Middle East we are free and equal. Women are not third-class citizens, they are allowed to own property, divorce, get abortions, etc. Nobody gets executed for switching religion.

I'd ask you what gives us the right to decry the action of another government... when our own rejects all such outside interference... but, to be honest, unless you buck your attitude way up, I'll likely not be discussing this issue with you further.
I can separate my opinion from my government's opinion. I think that anyone in the world has the right to criticise any government. If we didn't, then how could we bash Bush? :D

Why are you making excuses for these evil, patriarchal, oppressive regimes?

I think your original point was absurdum enough. Just because once Christianity burned heretics doesn't mean that it gives Islam the right to execute apostates.
Why do these kinds of people feel the need to defend the extremists of Islam? It's especially strange considering how liberal and generally disagreeing with fundamentalism that Grave_n_idle is.

Actually - it's not that long ago... in the UK, for example, being suspected of witchcraft was a death-penalty offense right up until 1736.
It's still history. Converting religions is still a crime in Afghanistan in 2006. But hey, because some Brits liked it 270+ years ago, that makes it OK for Afghans today, right?

Yes, I'm aware that they were once the inheritors of most of Rome and Greece's teachings while Europe devolved into a primitive mess. So what? They still didn't pay attention to European texts newer than those of the Romans. To this day the number of books translated into Arabic from every other country in the world is less than the number of books translated into english just from Spanish.


And, let's face it... most of the material published is not of the highest academic level.

I hardly think that Saudi Arabia NOT pressuring for the immediate translation of Shirley Conran's 'Lace' makes an argument about the QUALITY of their interactions.


That's just your (mis)interpretation of my words. You're hunting for racism.


Not at all - I made no comments about race.

However, what might have been known a continent away, has no bearing on what was (not) known in the West.


Yeah, it was a symbol of the knights templar and an issue that Muslims wouldn't give a crap about because it's just an example of European heresy against the god of Abraham.

Why do you think heresy against the god of Abraham would NOT affect the Muslim?

Why do you think European Kings carrying out witch-hunts on Crusaders, would NOT interest the Muslim?

Why do you think that European Kings seizing Middle East territories (held by Crusaders) would be a matter of indifference to the Muslim?

I think your original point was absurdum enough. Just because once Christianity burned heretics doesn't mean that it gives Islam the right to execute apostates. The world has moved on. Just as it's unacceptable to live by the morals of our Cro Magnon ancestors, it's also unacceptable to live by the morals of the 15th century.

Do you not realise you are trying to impose YOUR morality on an entire culture?

WHY is it 'unacceptable' to live by the morals of the 15th century? Was it unacceptable for the West to do the same, IN the 15th century?

It happens that I object very strongly to many of the things that Middle East powers might do, but THEIR culture is not MY culture.

I wouldn't want an Islamic Fundamentalist nation imposing it's version of Islamic Law on me... and I doubt they would have any especial interest in my vision of secular, egalitarian society.

Reductio ad absurdum? Not really a valid debate tool, my friend.
His logic was the same as yours. "It was done in ancient history by Group A, thus it is OK if Group B does it today".

You might also notice that you have taken a situation about an entire culture, and made your 'extrapolation' centre around the counter-culture actions of an individual IN a culture?
The treatment of a murderer concerns the nature of the entire culture. The only reason that we can't name invdividual murderous Cro-Magnon men is because we don't know any of their names.

Explain what you are saying.

Muhammad: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah'"

Saladin, the 12th-century conqueror: "I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah"

Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world"

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"

It seems a bit mean to focus on Allah, lets not forget almost all european monarchys were set up by divine right, and the crusades created by the catholic church for God.

And, let's face it... most of the material published is not of the highest academic level.

I hardly think that Saudi Arabia NOT pressuring for the immediate translation of Shirley Conran's 'Lace' makes an argument about the QUALITY of their interactions.



Not at all - I made no comments about race.

However, what might have been known a continent away, has no bearing on what was (not) known in the West.



Why do you think heresy against the god of Abraham would NOT affect the Muslim?

Why do you think European Kings carrying out witch-hunts on Crusaders, would NOT interest the Muslim?

Why do you think that European Kings seizing Middle East territories (held by Crusaders) would be a matter of indifference to the Muslim?
Ok, you don't want to take my word for it. Read the following book. What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis, a noted scholar of the history of Islam.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060516054/sr=8-1/qid=1143576477/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7563184-9117736?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I have better things to do than argue with you for argument's sake. After reading the book you'll see that the Muslim world basically ignored any European scholarship that came after the Romans, except for a treatise on syphilis (It's a french disease, let's use a french treatment), and later on military matters. Europe wasn't considered a place to get ideas and wisdom, it was a place to get slaves.

Nowadays much of the Muslim world is mired in ignorance fostered by fundamentallism and lack of funding for secular education.

Do you not realise you are trying to impose YOUR morality on an entire culture?

WHY is it 'unacceptable' to live by the morals of the 15th century? Was it unacceptable for the West to do the same, IN the 15th century?

It could be said that every time you vote, you're tring to impose your morals on an entire culture.

Because the morals of the 15th century were wrong. They were wrong because they caused mass suffering for those who were not white, male, royalty, religious, straight, etc. and failed to live up to even the most basic human rights standards.

Then there's the fact that my morals are better than 15th century morals. My morals are about happiness and equality, while those morals are about suffering and class division.

I wouldn't want an Islamic Fundamentalist nation imposing it's version of Islamic Law on me... and I doubt they would have any special interest in my vision of secular, egalitarian society.
You were lucky enough not to have been born in such a nation. Unlike the women and religious minorities whose continued suffering you happily endorse.

Fair enough.

Then I don't think we're disagreeing over very much.

I imagine you're not talking about Saddam Hussein's regime... Iran prior to American involvement then?

The general tendency of US involvement in the Middle East (as well as Iran and Pakistan) during the Cold War was anti-Communist and anti-nationalist, and the forces they used to crush these opponents were often ultra-reactionary Muslim fundamentalists. They also made use of corrupt dictators of all sorts, both secular and religious.

Political Islam has gained significance by usurping certain aspects of Communism and nationalism - opposition to US domination, support for social service networks - and merging them with portions of the extant conservative Muslim establishment. The result has been a kind of populist fundamentalism perhaps best embodied by people like the Ayatollah Khomeini.

At any rate, any society that represses women to the degree that the Taliban did, get the 'backward' label from me. Iraq at least was relatively secular under good ol' Saddam.

The Taliban had a peripheral relationship to Islam. Conservative Muslims repeatedly criticized them for their excesses. They are very far from representative.

The fact that it took a brutal dictator to make it happen is kind of scary though.

It wasn't just brutal dictatorship, it was also the Ba'athist base with which he began. People forget that largely secular, popular-based parties (as the Ba'ath once was) have existed before in the Middle East, in Iraq especially.

Not sure I can agree with this line of thinking. British Imperialism reached all over the globe, and India/Pakistan were part of the same 'unit' prior to division. The key difference here is the Islamic factor isn't it? Why no religious fundamentalism preventing democracy in India, Hong Kong or many of it's other territories?

Because in countries like India and Turkey, secular nationalism won; in much of the Middle East it lost. The reasons for this vary; I don't think blaming Islam is constructive or accurate.

True, but for many it's because there is a ruling dictatorship that is being financed by western powers that want to repress democracy in return for resources.

In Turkey, that's hardly the case. Its secularism dates back to the years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when the European powers were considerably more worried about the threat of nationalism than they were about the threat of religious fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism is rising in those countries.

Yeah, corrupt secular ruling classes have that effect.

Buddhism, Confuscianism, Animism.... Elvis worship...

Confuscianism is more of a philosophy than a religion. Buddhism does most definitely proscribe a certain system of behavior, and insists that it is the correct path to reach enlightenment. The Buddhist texts do actually make arguments for their points of view, but so have theologians throughout the ages in regard to Christianity, Judaism, etc. Animism is a theological position, like monotheism, not a religion.

I realize that there are a lot of repressive regimes in the world, but defending a society that professes peace if you leave them alone while they are persecuting minorities is a bit much.

I don't recall defending the Islamic fundamentalists ruling Iran, I do not like them at all. All I pointed out was that they are not particularly belligerent nor exceptionally bigoted.

Do you not realise you are trying to impose YOUR morality on an entire culture?

WHY is it 'unacceptable' to live by the morals of the 15th century? Was it unacceptable for the West to do the same, IN the 15th century?

It happens that I object very strongly to many of the things that Middle East powers might do, but THEIR culture is not MY culture.

I wouldn't want an Islamic Fundamentalist nation imposing it's version of Islamic Law on me... and I doubt they would have any especial interest in my vision of secular, egalitarian society.
Hm, so a morality that calls for killing those who pray differently is just as good as a morality that calls for tolerance for whatever looney religion someone want's to waste his time on?

If people thought like that there would never have been any progress for civil rights. It's a worthless way to look at the world. It would allow slavery, rape, and murder on massive scales.

Your point of view dooms your vision of a secular, egalitarian society. All it takes is a motivated, expansionist society to outfight, or outbreed your own and soon everyone's living in a theocracy. It's the most pointless, gutless and worthless point of view that anyone's ever come up with and it's one of the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization.

I'm aware that we've still got a while to go. But by comparison with the Middle East we are free and equal. Women are not third-class citizens, they are allowed to own property, divorce, get abortions, etc. Nobody gets executed for switching religion.

It's disingenuous to presume that the Middle East had the exact same level playing ground in history that the United States had in terms of developing government and secular ideals. After all, the U.S. was liberated from colonialism early on and had a chance to develop democratic republican principles through low and high points while the Middle East was mired in colonialism and power struggles well into the late 20th century with no real rest periods in between. Add to that a vast economic divide between rich and poor that religious extremism thrives on and of course culture stagnates. If the Middle East was given the same political and economic opportunities as the United States, can you genuinely believe they would still turn out to be a backwards society?

I can separate my opinion from my government's opinion. I think that anyone in the world has the right to criticise any government. If we didn't, then how could we bash Bush? :D

If Bush and his neocon handlers thought the bashing would actually harm their grasp on power, they'd well be on their way trying to pass The Alien and Sedition Act-XP.

Why are you making excuses for these evil, patriarchal, oppressive regimes?

Why do these kinds of people feel the need to defend the extremists of Islam? It's especially strange considering how liberal and generally disagreeing with fundamentalism that Grave_n_idle is.

Why do people think if you're against a blatant spraypainting of Islam as The Evil and Wicked Religion™ (Copyright 2001 Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell) that you're defending theocratic fundamentalists?

Why is it that Christians have no need to explain or apologize for Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and all those fruitcakes who start a pissing contest in the name of God but Muslims have to constantly beg the world for forgiveness everytime there's a Khomeini, a Bin Ladin, or an Ahmadinejad who start a pissing contest in the name of Allah?

Osama bin Laden: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"
I'm wondering a bit about this quote. Either the translation was out of whack, or something is missing, because something about the sentence is wrong. Since there isn't presented any context it's difficult to say, but I doubt Bin Laden has expressed himself the way this quote is presented. The reason for this is that the "there is no god but Allah and his prophet Muhammad"-part doesn't seem to separate Allah and Muhammed?

Maybe it's just me? :confused:

It's disingenuous to presume that the Middle East had the exact same level playing ground in history that the United States had in terms of developing government and secular ideals. After all, the U.S. was liberated from colonialism early on and had a chance to develop democratic republican principles through low and high points while the Middle East was mired in colonialism and power struggles well into the late 20th century with no real rest periods in between. Add to that a vast economic divide between rich and poor that religious extremism thrives on and of course culture stagnates. If the Middle East was given the same political and economic opportunities as the United States, can you genuinely believe they would still turn out to be a backwards society?



If Bush and his neocon handlers thought the bashing would actually harm their grasp on power, they'd well be on their way trying to pass The Alien and Sedition Act-XP.



Why do people think if you're against a blatant spraypainting of Islam as The Evil and Wicked Religion™ (Copyright 2001 Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell) that you're defending theocratic fundamentalists?

Why is it that Christians have no need to explain or apologize for Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and all those fruitcakes who start a pissing contest in the name of God but Muslims have to constantly beg the world for forgiveness everytime there's a Khomeini, a Bin Ladin, or an Ahmadinejad who start a pissing contest in the name of Allah?
1) The ottoman empire failed to a great extent because their society stagnated. They failed to modernize with Europe, became weak and were cut into pieces by those who surpassed them SOCIALLY and TECHNOLOGICALLY. Before that they were the most dominant, wealthy force on earth. Clearly Islam's issues can't be blamed solely on collonialism and imperialism. They started to fail long before they were conquered.

2) No comment

3) Why can't we accept that certain interpretations of Islam, like those who embrace holy war, slavery, death for apostacy, et cetera are evil? If any christian group embraced such ideals you'd be calling them evil all day long, but Islam's seen as the "underdog", and therefore is above criticism.

BTW, Tim McVeigh was an anti-government revolutionary terrorist, not a christian terrorist like Rudolph. Also Christians DO need to apologize for the hate and harm carried out in their names.

Actually - it's not that long ago... in the UK, for example, being suspected of witchcraft was a death-penalty offense right up until 1736.

So, I guess that means we can't criticise people in the middle east until 270 years have passed :rolleyes:

I'm sure that the decision to free the convert was very MUCH to do with outside pressure. However, you seem to be confusing brands of 'inaction'... since you are defending the 'action' of those promoting Christianity, rather than discussing the 'inaction' of those who fail to defend (or even, investigate) Islam.

Woah there!! I've posted several times in this thread that I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to any particular religion. At what point did I defend the actions of those promoting Christianity? I've been criticising those who fail to 'investigate' Islam throughout this whole thread.

Think about it for a second... if a government bases it's constitution from religious law, and derives the conclusion that those who change faiths should suffer the penalty of death, don't you think we should condemn it? If it were the Nazi's exterminating someone because they were jewish, or switched from Christianity to Judaism, wouldn't you be up in arms?

You don't, Eutrusca. Face it: Islam is reactionary, warmongering, and misogynistic. It is possible to dilute these negative aspects with more progressive values, but that is merely moving away from the core of the religion. Then again, the same is probably true for most religions and certainly for certain ones I won't name here (you know who you are).

Then I don't think we're disagreeing over very much. *snip*

Generally, I think what we're disagreeing over is whether or not Islam is significantly different enough from other religions to hamper democratic and individualistic thought. I think the evidence shows that it has certain significant differences, but you've made a good case that it's not so different.

In the end, I'm sure we can both agree that states that use Islam as a pretext for some heinous acts should be denounced?

You don't, Eutrusca. Face it: Islam is reactionary, warmongering, and misogynistic. It is possible to dilute these negative aspects with more progressive values, but that is merely moving away from the core of the religion. Then again, the same is probably true for most religions and certainly for certain ones I won't name here (you know who you are).

In all fairness, I think the 'core of the religion' is about solidarity and brotherhood, and submission to God. I won't argue with you about some of its misogynistic elements though.

1) The ottoman empire failed to a great extent because their society stagnated. They failed to modernize with Europe, became weak and were cut into pieces by those who surpassed them SOCIALLY and TECHNOLOGICALLY. Before that they were the most dominant, wealthy force on earth. Clearly Islam's issues can't be blamed solely on collonialism and imperialism. They started to fail long before they were conquered.

The stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failures_of_the_Ottoman_Empire) can be attributed to numerous factors rather than religious and cultural inferiority like you're insinuating. Colonialism did indeed play a part in this gradual collapse.

3) Why can't we accept that certain interpretations of Islam, like those who embrace holy war, slavery, death for apostacy, et cetera are evil? If any christian group embraced such ideals you'd be calling them evil all day long, but Islam's seen as the "underdog", and therefore is above criticism.

BTW, Tim McVeigh was an anti-government revolutionary terrorist, not a christian terrorist like Rudolph. Also Christians DO need to apologize for the hate and harm carried out in their names.

You're trying to move the goalpost here. My gripe is against people who insist that Islam as a whole is evil, which is Forrest's point with those quotes.

BTW, Tim McVeigh had been linked to the Christian Identity movement, which does make him a christian terrorist by definition.

You don't, Eutrusca. Face it: Islam is reactionary, warmongering, and misogynistic. It is possible to dilute these negative aspects with more progressive values, but that is merely moving away from the core of the religion. Then again, the same is probably true for most religions and certainly for certain ones I won't name here (you know who you are).

Saying that Islam as a religion is reactionary and warmongering is just blatently wrong. It is only a minority of muslims who interpret the kuran as saying that jihad is the greatest of all things you can do. Muhammed actually first used the term jihad to mean the struggle to be a good muslim, not a physical struggle. Also, the traditional focus of islam is the search for knowledge, not the practice of warfare. It is the few religious leaders who interpret the kuran in the incorrect ways that practice jihad as a struggle against the west. The way for us to combat this in the most effective way is to educate muslims and increase the literacy rate so that they have access to the kuran without the bias of extremist interpretations.

Hm, so a morality that calls for killing those who pray differently is just as good as a morality that calls for tolerance for whatever looney religion someone want's to waste his time on?

If people thought like that there would never have been any progress for civil rights. It's a worthless way to look at the world. It would allow slavery, rape, and murder on massive scales.


It HAS allowed slavery, rape and murder on massive scales. Every society has considered it's own morals 'right', and at LEAST as good as every other.

Is it a worthless way to look at the world? To allow that what MIGHT be right for me, might NOT be right for you?


Your point of view dooms your vision of a secular, egalitarian society. All it takes is a motivated, expansionist society to outfight, or outbreed your own and soon everyone's living in a theocracy. It's the most pointless, gutless and worthless point of view that anyone's ever come up with and it's one of the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization.

Hyperbole much?

I mean, seriously... we've been on the brink of nuclear destruction, we might become the victim of pandemic, our environment is not the best... and you think a 'laissez faire 'attitude is comporable to "the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization".

You are close to hysteria, I think.

Does my perspective 'doom' secular, egalitarian society? I don't know. The West has largely progressed, in fits and starts, towards my vision, over the last few hundred years. Every time the pendulum swings back towards fundamentalism, it has a habit of heading back into my kind of idealism each time... and each time, it seems to inch a little further.

Maybe I just look at a bigger picture than you do?

Woah there!! I've posted several times in this thread that I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to any particular religion. At what point did I defend the actions of those promoting Christianity? I've been criticising those who fail to 'investigate' Islam throughout this whole thread.


It was you that raised the spectre of conversions in Afghanistan, not I.


Think about it for a second... if a government bases it's constitution from religious law, and derives the conclusion that those who change faiths should suffer the penalty of death, don't you think we should condemn it? If it were the Nazi's exterminating someone because they were jewish, or switched from Christianity to Judaism, wouldn't you be up in arms?

This nation DOES base it's constitution heavily on religious law... we are far from a 'perfect' culture, ourselves.

Regarding the world situation.... your vision of Nazi's exterminating Jews... or the sins of fundamentalist regimes against their citizens...

Right now, I'm in a place which tells me that external interference USUALLY causes more harm than good. Looking back over recent western history, the BEST thing about western interferences has been when we stopped... and we always leave situations that take decades to work their way through.

And yet, we never seem to learn that lesson. And I know WHY. It's because it is EASY to point at one group in society... or point at one group outside our borders, and say "THERE it is... THAT is the problem", and then throw bombs at it. It is harder to look at all the ways in which our own society is MUCH less than perfect, and get our OWN shit together.

It's disingenuous to presume that the Middle East had the exact same level playing ground in history that the United States had in terms of developing government and secular ideals. After all, the U.S. was liberated from colonialism early on and had a chance to develop democratic republican principles through low and high points while the Middle East was mired in colonialism and power struggles well into the late 20th century with no real rest periods in between. Add to that a vast economic divide between rich and poor that religious extremism thrives on and of course culture stagnates. If the Middle East was given the same political and economic opportunities as the United States, can you genuinely believe they would still turn out to be a backwards society?
I know the history of the Middle East. Their lack of progress is understandable, but not something that I'm willing to accept forever. We should help the Middle East to progress towards greater human rights standards, not just let them stagnate further and slip back into the middle ages.

If Bush and his neocon handlers thought the bashing would actually harm their grasp on power, they'd well be on their way trying to pass The Alien and Sedition Act-XP.
No doubt.

Why do people think if you're against a blatant spraypainting of Islam as The Evil and Wicked Religion™ (Copyright 2001 Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell) that you're defending theocratic fundamentalists?
I don't think that anyone has (rationally) attempted to spraypaint Islam as an evil religion.

However, if you respond to news about gays being executed in Iran, or Afghans being killed for changing religions, with "well Christians did it 700 years ago" it looks damn well like you're making excuses for the theocracies. You're using the flawed argument that because Christians of the 14th centry did it, then it's OK for Muslims of the 21st century to do it. Ignoring the fact that human rights standards have increased significantly since then.

Why is it that Christians have no need to explain or apologize for Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and all those fruitcakes who start a pissing contest in the name of God but Muslims have to constantly beg the world for forgiveness everytime there's a Khomeini, a Bin Ladin, or an Ahmadinejad who start a pissing contest in the name of Allah?
Neither Muslims nor Christians should have to apologise or explain for the extremists. The extremists tend not to associate with moderates, so it is a pointless excercise anyway.

Quotes said buy muslims. :rolleyes: Do they need any other explanation?

It was you that raised the spectre of conversions in Afghanistan, not I.



This nation DOES base it's constitution heavily on religious law... we are far from a 'perfect' culture, ourselves.

Regarding the world situation.... your vision of Nazi's exterminating Jews... or the sins of fundamentalist regimes against their citizens...

Right now, I'm in a place which tells me that external interference USUALLY causes more harm than good. Looking back over recent western history, the BEST thing about western interferences has been when we stopped... and we always leave situations that take decades to work their way through.

And yet, we never seem to learn that lesson. And I know WHY. It's because it is EASY to point at one group in society... or point at one group outside our borders, and say "THERE it is... THAT is the problem", and then throw bombs at it. It is harder to look at all the ways in which our own society is MUCH less than perfect, and get our OWN shit together.

Which brings me back to this;

It is the inaction of good men, that spreads evil..

So... now you're saying that we shouldn't act? Which is it?

I agree that we have our own problems. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't get involved if the cause is right.

The stagnation of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failures_of_the_Ottoman_Empire) can be attributed to numerous factors rather than religious and cultural inferiority like you're insinuating. Colonialism did indeed play a part in this gradual collapse.

Collonialism was a symptom, not a cause. What enabled Europe to conquer and collonize Ottoman land? Changes in European society that made for the growth of a merchant class and tolerated and encouraged experimentation in applied science did. Also later changes to governments with regular armies and the harnessing of capitalism turned Europe into a military and economic powerhouse. Meanwhile the Ottomans struggled to adopt as many new products as possible without changing their Islamic culture in any way and thus fell behind.

Technology
The Industrial Revolution saw even greater changes. The Ottoman Empire did not have a social structure well adjusted to the free market capitalism needed to build factories. The Empire also lacked crucial supplies of coal and other needed commodities.


Trade
During the rise and growth era, almost all trade between Asia and Europe had had to pass through Ottoman lands or seas, the revolution in shipping in Europe beginning in the 16th century allowed European traders to by-pass the Empire. This also caused a major shift in trade patterns from the Mediterranean Sea to the oceans. With most of the Empire's population and major centres located on the Mediterranean, this greatly affected the Empire as well as other southern European states such as Italy.


State
In any effort to modernize or reform the empire the Sultan was always opposed by the powerful military and religious elite who did not want to lose their traditional powers. One of the most powerful of these elites, was the powerful religious body known as the ulema. If the ulema was displeased with a Sultan a decree known as a fetva would be issued and the Sultan would be removed from power. The threat of a fetva was a powerful weapon used many times by the ulema to force the Sultan to back down from reforms.


Politics
The autocratic Sultans of the Ottoman Empire had remained unchanged in centuries, while the rest of the world slowly became more democratic and liberal. The loss of nearly a quarter of the Empire's territory added to the already existing economic problems to make a situation ripe for revolution. The situation was especially dangerous in Constantinople, which contained thousands of refugees fleeing the Balkans. A number of small coups broke out, trying to overthrow the Sultan. None of them were well organized or even remotely successful, but they filled Abd-ul-Hamid II with a paranoia that lead to a self-imposed isolation in the palace of Yildiz.


Preceeding quotes are from your own link.



You're trying to move the goalpost here. My gripe is against people who insist that Islam as a whole is evil, which is Forrest's point with those quotes.

BTW, Tim McVeigh had been linked to the Christian Identity movement, which does make him a christian terrorist by definition.

Tim McVeigh, however, didn't blow up the ATF building because of religion, but because he thought the Federal government was waging war on the American people. He was there when the FBI and ATF agents attacked the Koresh compound in Waco, and was afraid that the government was going to start raiding everyone's home, seizing guns, and arresting dissidents.

Quotes said buy muslims. :rolleyes: Do they need any other explanation?
Buy Muslims?

Where?

The local Tesco?

1) The ottoman empire failed to a great extent because their society stagnated. They failed to modernize with Europe, became weak and were cut into pieces by those who surpassed them SOCIALLY and TECHNOLOGICALLY. Before that they were the most dominant, wealthy force on earth. Clearly Islam's issues can't be blamed solely on collonialism and imperialism. They started to fail long before they were conquered.
Also consider the absolutely devastating Mongol invasion of the Middle East in the 13th century - which was IMO the main reason why the Middle East lags behind. Europe didn't have to go through that.

It HAS allowed slavery, rape and murder on massive scales. Every society has considered it's own morals 'right', and at LEAST as good as every other.

Is it a worthless way to look at the world? To allow that what MIGHT be right for me, might NOT be right for you?
It's got nothing to do with what's right for me or you. It's got to do with what's right for the slaves in Sudan or in the local "massage parlor" down the street. It's got to do with what's right for a person in Afghanistan or Saudi who wants to convert to a different religion and faces death for it. It's got to do with what's right for women who face having acid thrown in their eyes for wearing the wrong clothing.

Western civilization has come a long way. We've made progress in the realm of civil rights. Why shouldn't we expect others to work towards progress? Why should we abandon people to living as slaves or second class citizens?



Hyperbole much? Hyperbole requires exaggeration. I wasn't exaggerating. I think your attitude, if shared by enough people will mean the fall of Western civilization.

I mean, seriously... we've been on the brink of nuclear destruction, we might become the victim of pandemic, our environment is not the best... and you think a 'laissez faire 'attitude is comporable to "the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization".

You are close to hysteria, I think. Think what you want about me. It's your right. Western civilization guarantees freedom of thought and speech. I just don't think you appreciate how valuable and vulnerable those rights are.

Does my perspective 'doom' secular, egalitarian society? I don't know. The West has largely progressed, in fits and starts, towards my vision, over the last few hundred years. Every time the pendulum swings back towards fundamentalism, it has a habit of heading back into my kind of idealism each time... and each time, it seems to inch a little further.

Maybe I just look at a bigger picture than you do?

When in the history of Western civilization have we accepted other cultures as equal to our own? Never. Thats why our culture survived and spread. A culture is a set of memes. Memes are like mind-viruses. A virus that doesn't spread and resist giving up ground is soon surpassed by more agressive viruses. Your point of view is a fatal mutation.

So... now you're saying that we shouldn't act? Which is it?

I agree that we have our own problems. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't get involved if the cause is right.

There is a difference between 'inaction, when people here are spreading lies and misinformation' and 'inaction, when people in different cultures are immersed in their cultural paradigm.

As for 'if the cause is right'... like military protection of an allied state (like the UK 'protecting' Poland from German warmachine), maybe then we might be diplomatically justified. It's not so easy to justify interfering in a sovereign nation because you 'just don't like Commies'.

This nation DOES base it's constitution heavily on religious law... we are far from a 'perfect' culture, ourselves.

And yet, we never seem to learn that lesson. And I know WHY. It's because it is EASY to point at one group in society... or point at one group outside our borders, and say "THERE it is... THAT is the problem", and then throw bombs at it. It is harder to look at all the ways in which our own society is MUCH less than perfect, and get our OWN shit together.
Are you seriously saying that the US is on a similar level to Iran in terms of how much of its law is based on religion?

Do you really think that anyone believes western culture to be flawless?

Do you really think that everyone who identifies certain interpretations of Islam to be evil, also endorses military attacks?

Finally, are you saying that Western culture is as flawed and as disdainful of human rights as the cultures that religious extremism thrives in?

Also consider the absolutely devastating Mongol invasion of the Middle East in the 13th century - which was IMO the main reason why the Middle East lags behind. Europe didn't have to go through that.
Europe was disorganized, fragmented, occupied in places by the caliphate, and generally weak before, during and for over a hundred years after that event. Islam took a hit, but had more than enough time to recover before Europe changed it's culture, technology, and political situation and took the lead.

Tim McVeigh, however, didn't blow up the ATF building because of religion, but because he thought the Federal government was waging war on the American people. He was there when the FBI and ATF agents attacked the Koresh compound in Waco, and was afraid that the government was going to start raiding everyone's home, seizing guns, and arresting dissidents.
I don't think that the affiliations of Timothy McVeigh are relevant to this discussion. McVeigh is in the ash-heap of history, we don't need to bother with him.

It's got nothing to do with what's right for me or you. It's got to do with what's right for the slaves in Sudan or in the local "massage parlor" down the street. It's got to do with what's right for a person in Afghanistan or Saudi who wants to convert to a different religion and faces death for it. It's got to do with what's right for women who face having acid thrown in their eyes for wearing the wrong clothing.

Western civilization has come a long way. We've made progress in the realm of civil rights. Why shouldn't we expect others to work towards progress? Why should we abandon people to living as slaves or second class citizens?


Why shouldn't one of those fundamentalist Islamic regimes 'help us' by showing us the 'error of our ways' in heading away from the truth that is Allah?

You see everything as so linear.


Hyperbole requires exaggeration. I wasn't exaggerating. I think your attitude, if shared by enough people will mean the fall of Western civilization.


And I think you are prone to hyperbole.


Think what you want about me. It's your right. Western civilization guarantees freedom of thought and speech. I just don't think you appreciate how valuable and vulnerable those rights are.


You are toeing the party-line here.

Bush wants 'democracy' in the Middle East, but won't recognise a democratic result he dislikes.

You preach 'freedom of thought and speech'... but condemn thought and speech that offends your delicate sensibilities.


When in the history of Western civilization have we accepted other cultures as equal to our own? Never. Thats why our culture survived and spread. A culture is a set of memes. Memes are like mind-viruses. A virus that doesn't spread and resist giving up ground is soon surpassed by more agressive viruses. Your point of view is a fatal mutation.

I was going to start formulating a reply, until I saw you'd descended into talking about 'memes'.

Europe was disorganized, fragmented, occupied in places by the caliphate, and generally weak before, during and for over a hundred years after that event. Islam took a hit, but had more than enough time to recover before Europe changed it's culture, technology, and political situation and took the lead.
Most of Europe was occupied by neither Caliphates not Mongols. (Russia, was, however, which explains its backwardness before 1917.) Remember also that The Middle East suffered the Black Death as well as Europe, shortly after the Mongol invasion.

It was you that raised the spectre of conversions in Afghanistan, not I.



This nation DOES base it's constitution heavily on religious law... we are far from a 'perfect' culture, ourselves.

Regarding the world situation.... your vision of Nazi's exterminating Jews... or the sins of fundamentalist regimes against their citizens...

Right now, I'm in a place which tells me that external interference USUALLY causes more harm than good. Looking back over recent western history, the BEST thing about western interferences has been when we stopped... and we always leave situations that take decades to work their way through.

And yet, we never seem to learn that lesson. And I know WHY. It's because it is EASY to point at one group in society... or point at one group outside our borders, and say "THERE it is... THAT is the problem", and then throw bombs at it. It is harder to look at all the ways in which our own society is MUCH less than perfect, and get our OWN shit together.

I think that you just described the major polical stances of many countries aroud the world. Its not our fault things are terrible here its (insert name of country here, usually Isreal(sp?) or the US)

Why shouldn't one of those fundamentalist Islamic regimes 'help us' by showing us the 'error of our ways' in heading away from the truth that is Allah?

You see everything as so linear. Because their culture doesn't yield tangible results. It doesn't improve civil rights for the citizens, it doesn't result in thriving economies, it doesn't provide superior technology, it doesn't provide people the right to follow their religions. It fails by every measure.



And I think you are prone to hyperbole.



You are toeing the party-line here.

Bush wants 'democracy' in the Middle East, but won't recognise a democratic result he dislikes.

You preach 'freedom of thought and speech'... but condemn thought and speech that offends your delicate sensibilities.
Have I ever said that speech that "offends my delicate sensibilities" should be banned? I have no problem with the right to speak one's mind and worship one's god as he sees fit. I have a problem when someoen tries to limit that freedom through violent means.


I was going to start formulating a reply, until I saw you'd descended into talking about 'memes'.
Whatever you say. Talking about memes is a godwin now?

Why shouldn't one of those fundamentalist Islamic regimes 'help us' by showing us the 'error of our ways' in heading away from the truth that is Allah?

You see everything as so linear.
Their interpretation of Allah's way is wrong. Theocracy is wrong, and so is relativism.

Do you think Drunk Commies is toeing the party line? That he is a Bush supporter? You think he's going to defend Bush's hypocrisy? Why did you start talking about Bush in the first place?

If you're a real relativist then you should not criticise Bush, he's just acting according to his morality. :rolleyes:

I was going to start formulating a reply, until I saw you'd descended into talking about 'memes'.
Dismissing an argument is the same as conceding the point.

Why? Because you probably couldn't come up with a counter-argument, and you are reluctant to admit that your points are incorrect. Thus you basically said, "no that's a stupid argument". If it's so stupid then it should be easy to disprove.

There is a difference between 'inaction, when people here are spreading lies and misinformation' and 'inaction, when people in different cultures are immersed in their cultural paradigm.

As for 'if the cause is right'... like military protection of an allied state (like the UK 'protecting' Poland from German warmachine), maybe then we might be diplomatically justified. It's not so easy to justify interfering in a sovereign nation because you 'just don't like Commies'.

I'll agree with you that you can't always commit to war because you don't like the way another country is run. But are you saying that the only reason the UK should have been involved in WWII was because it was Poland's ally?

I'm not sure how 'when people here are spreading lies and misinformation' = 'inaction'... maybe you're just wording it wrong...

But was it wrong for the world to issue sanctions against South Africa to end Apartheid? Was it wrong for Britain and France to side with the Union in the American Civil war once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued? Was it wrong for protestors to chant anti-war slogans during the Vietnam era?

Was it wrong for western nations who were committing massive amounts of money and the lives of their soldiers to restore order in Afghanistan to insist that the government respect the part of their Consitution that said they would uphold freedom of religion?

Were the atrocities committed in the Balkans okay because it was 'part of their cultural paradigm'?

'Good Men' get involved when truly abhorent behaviour is presented to them. That is what 'action' is my friend.

Yes, as Drunk Commies said, if everyone was relativist, then no progress in civil rights would ever be made.

I say, you can't be for human rights in your country, but accept their abuse in another.

Some "leftists" put cultural relativism over all, I prefer to put human rights over all.

I think that you just described the major polical stances of many countries aroud the world. Its not our fault things are terrible here its (insert name of country here, usually Isreal(sp?) or the US)

Oh - I wasn't saying it was peculiar to the US... but, it never seems to be a profitable philosophy, in the end.

Because their culture doesn't yield tangible results. It doesn't improve civil rights for the citizens, it doesn't result in thriving economies, it doesn't provide superior technology, it doesn't provide people the right to follow their religions. It fails by every measure.


Their culture doesn't produce what YOU consider 'tangible' results. Perhaps, civil rights, thriving economies and superior technology are flawed objectives, though? Temporal as they are, focused on the mundane, rather than the eternal?

You seem to suggest that a society entirely focused on spiritual matters would 'fail by every measure'... but, maybe that just means you are judging them by the wrong measure?


Have I ever said that speech that "offends my delicate sensibilities" should be banned? I have no problem with the right to speak one's mind and worship one's god as he sees fit. I have a problem when someoen tries to limit that freedom through violent means.


Hyperbolic? I said 'condemn'.... I have not mentioned 'banning' anything.

And you have most certainly condemned thoughts and speech you don't agree with... like my suggestion of non-intervention, which you described as "pointless, gutless and worthless" and "one of the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization".

Perhaps 'condemn' means something different, down your way?


Whatever you say. Talking about memes is a godwin now?

I am as willing to accept 'memes', as I am to accept 'Intelligent Design' or 'Irreduciblle Complexity'. They are fine concepts, in their way... but they are not logical, scientific tools.

Their culture doesn't produce what YOU consider 'tangible' results. Perhaps, civil rights, thriving economies and superior technology are flawed objectives, though? Temporal as they are, focused on the mundane, rather than the eternal?

You seem to suggest that a society entirely focused on spiritual matters would 'fail by every measure'... but, maybe that just means you are judging them by the wrong measure?
You mean focusing on what we know is real as opposed to what is most likely a delusion caused by the way the human brain evolved. I and any rational person will always choose real, tangible results over something with no evidence to back it up.




Hyperbolic? I said 'condemn'.... I have not mentioned 'banning' anything.

And you have most certainly condemned thoughts and speech you don't agree with... like my suggestion of non-intervention, which you described as "pointless, gutless and worthless" and "one of the greatest threats to the values of Western civilization".

Perhaps 'condemn' means something different, down your way?
It's my right to condemn ideas that I believe are wrong or destructive.




I am as willing to accept 'memes', as I am to accept 'Intelligent Design' or 'Irreduciblle Complexity'. They are fine concepts, in their way... but they are not logical, scientific tools.Think of it as a model of how ideas circulate. It's a pretty accurate description of how ideas and beliefs change over time and are transmitted from one person to another.

Their interpretation of Allah's way is wrong. Theocracy is wrong, and so is relativism.


Wrong.... for you. Don't presume to extend your bias to others.


Do you think Drunk Commies is toeing the party line? That he is a Bush supporter? You think he's going to defend Bush's hypocrisy? Why did you start talking about Bush in the first place?


I do think DCD is 'toeing the party line'... but I didn't make any comments even suggesting I believed him to be a Bush supporter. Are you so caught up in insular American 'two-party' propoganda that you can no longer conceive of 'bigger pictures'?

Why mention Bush? Because he is an example of 'toeing the party line', words unmet by actions... a parallel, I think.


If you're a real relativist then you should not criticise Bush, he's just acting according to his morality. :rolleyes:


I'm not sure why you keep trying to tar me with brushes of your own creation... I have long maintained 'pragmatism' as my platform, and the form of 'relativism' I concede. Some of Bush's actions may impinge on my perception of pragmatism... and thus, shall be criticised, either positively or negatively.


Dismissing an argument is the same as conceding the point.


No - dismissing part of an 'argument' might just mean you don't want to go off-topic.


Why? Because you probably couldn't come up with a counter-argument, and you are reluctant to admit that your points are incorrect. Thus you basically said, "no that's a stupid argument". If it's so stupid then it should be easy to disprove.

I don't think historicity of equal-perception of the American 'cultrure' is pertinent... not to mention hard to verify with evidentiary support. I might frame an argument about it, though I consider it 'off-topic'... except that the comment I'd be replying to turns to pseudo-science for it's 'justification'. So - I chose not to follow that particular avenue.

Their culture doesn't produce what YOU consider 'tangible' results. Perhaps, civil rights, thriving economies and superior technology are flawed objectives, though? Temporal as they are, focused on the mundane, rather than the eternal?

You seem to suggest that a society entirely focused on spiritual matters would 'fail by every measure'... but, maybe that just means you are judging them by the wrong measure?
God, cultural relativism sucks ... BIG time! Sigh. :rolleyes:

I'll agree with you that you can't always commit to war because you don't like the way another country is run. But are you saying that the only reason the UK should have been involved in WWII was because it was Poland's ally?


The UK would have been involved, sooner or later, because of the expansionism of the Third Reich. Either, defending an ally, or protecting her own coasts. But the UK did NOT get involved when the issue was Czechoslovakia...


I'm not sure how 'when people here are spreading lies and misinformation' = 'inaction'... maybe you're just wording it wrong...


It must be the wording... the 'inaction' was referring to people not opposing 'when people here are spreading lies and misinformation'.


But was it wrong for the world to issue sanctions against South Africa to end Apartheid?


Not exactly. It wasn't wrong for the UK and the Dutch to apply pressure, since it was a situation they basically caused.


Was it wrong for Britain and France to side with the Union in the American Civil war once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued?


I'm not sure they did 'side with the Union'... they both came close to recognising the Confederacy, and Britain very nearly became embroiled on behalf of the Confederacy (when British citizens became involved), until the Union did some very fancy politicking.


Was it wrong for protestors to chant anti-war slogans during the Vietnam era?


No - but then, that is an internal issue.

Was it wrong for western nations who were committing massive amounts of money and the lives of their soldiers to restore order in Afghanistan to insist that the government respect the part of their Consitution that said they would uphold freedom of religion?


Yes.

Were the atrocities committed in the Balkans okay because it was 'part of their cultural paradigm'?


The situation was engineered by third party activity... exactly what I am speaking against.

'Good Men' get involved when truly abhorent behaviour is presented to them. That is what 'action' is my friend.

This is true. However, what I abhor, you may adore... and I have no divine remit to tell you what to do.

Yes, as Drunk Commies said, if everyone was relativist, then no progress in civil rights would ever be made.

I say, you can't be for human rights in your country, but accept their abuse in another.

Some "leftists" put cultural relativism over all, I prefer to put human rights over all.

And, I say 'human rights' are a privilige of a specific society, and have no 'empirical' value.

You mean focusing on what we know is real as opposed to what is most likely a delusion caused by the way the human brain evolved. I and any rational person will always choose real, tangible results over something with no evidence to back it up.


It's your definition of 'rational', so... sure.

It's my right to condemn ideas that I believe are wrong or destructive.


I have never said otherwise.

I wonder if you'd actually fight to preserve that 'belief'?

Think of it as a model of how ideas circulate. It's a pretty accurate description of how ideas and beliefs change over time and are transmitted from one person to another.

And, Intelligent Design is a pretty accurate description of how the world came to exist, and how we arrived to populate it.

Just - don't expect me to accept it as science.

God, cultural relativism sucks ... BIG time! Sigh. :rolleyes:

Maybe. But that IS reality. We all have to accept it to some extent.

It's your definition of 'rational', so... sure.



I have never said otherwise.

I wonder if you'd actually fight to preserve that 'belief'?



And, Intelligent Design is a pretty accurate description of how the world came to exist, and how we arrived to populate it.

Just - don't expect me to accept it as science.
The difference between memes and ID is this. ID claims to explain how the diversity of life came about. Memes are just a model to describe the behavior of ideas. If it makes you happier, go back to my original "meme" post and substitute cultural values and beliefs for the word meme. Same thing.

Maybe. But that IS reality. We all have to accept it to some extent.
Why do we have to accept cultural relativism? It's an idea that weakens our own culture and makes it easier for our culture to be destroyed or displaced.

Cultures are always in competition for more people and territory. If my culture is in conflict with a culture that values stonings and kills those who speak freely, then I want my culture to win and the other culture to be destroyed.

The difference between memes and ID is this. ID claims to explain how the diversity of life came about. Memes are just a model to describe the behavior of ideas. If it makes you happier, go back to my original "meme" post and substitute cultural values and beliefs for the word meme. Same thing.

I still wouldn't accept your premise... and, I don't believe you can really support it.

It's better without 'memes'.... but, that wasn't the only reason it was flawed... it was rhetoric... opinion. Oh - and I'm still not seeing it's relevence.

Why do we have to accept cultural relativism? It's an idea that weakens our own culture and makes it easier for our culture to be destroyed or displaced.

Cultures are always in competition for more people and territory. If my culture is in conflict with a culture that values stonings and kills those who speak freely, then I want my culture to win and the other culture to be destroyed.

How about... because the claim of 'our culture' is a baseless artifact? 'Culture' is a way to attempt to apply uniformity to coincidences of habit or geography.

'Cultures' are not 'in competition'... they are non-entities. Individuals are 'in competition'... trying to superimpose their imagined realities on physical reality, or trying to pick which other groups of individuals offer them the most power to superimpose, while requiring the least sacrifice to being 'superimposed upon'.

If you're a real relativist then you should not criticise Bush, he's just acting according to his morality. :rolleyes:
That doesn't make him "right", especially to a relativist.

1. How about... because the claim of 'our culture' is a baseless artifact? 'Culture' is a way to attempt to apply uniformity to coincidences of habit or geography.

2. 'Cultures' are not 'in competition'... they are non-entities.

3. Individuals are 'in competition'... trying to superimpose their imagined realities on physical reality, or trying to pick which other groups of individuals offer them the most power to superimpose, while requiring the least sacrifice to being 'superimposed upon'.

1. Suppose it were so - how does that make an argument for cultural relativism?
Or rather, how does it make a case for baseless artifact relativism?

2. If they are non-entities, there is no harm done in imposing cultures, is there?

3. In other words : ethnic youth-gangs don't exist.
Tell it to the Bloods and the Crips, please?
It might help.

There is a good reason to support a good deal of cultural relativism - but not quite the reason(s) you try to advance.

Why do we have to accept cultural relativism?
Because the reality is that individual cultures exist; unique entities creates unique perspectives. So who is to say that one culture is a "right" one and one "wrong", and which? The answer of the relativist is "to each his own".

It's an idea that weakens our own culture and makes it easier for our culture to be destroyed or displaced.
As opposed to what? Our culture surviving forever, intact and unchanged... never evolving? What planet were you from, again? Our culture is displaced with every generation, even within its boundaries.

1. Suppose it were so - how does that make an argument for cultural relativism?
Or rather, how does it make a case for baseless artifact relativism?


I'm not sure what you mean.... you appear to be asking me why apples are oranges...


2. If they are non-entities, there is no harm done in imposing cultures, is there?


Again, I'm not sure what you mean... or why this is a question for me to answer.


3. In other words : ethnic youth-gangs don't exist.
Tell it to the Bloods and the Crips, please?
It might help.

There is a good reason to support a good deal of cultural relativism - but not quite the reason(s) you try to advance.

Why would ethnic youth-gangs not exist?

"Individuals are 'in competition'"... "trying to pick which other groups of individuals offer them the most power to superimpose, while requiring the least sacrifice to being 'superimposed upon'."