NationStates Jolt Archive

Aramaic was once the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East, similar to what English is today or Latin was in Europe in centuries ago. It has now given way to Arabic, but according to some researchers, Syriac or Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran. When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language. Aramaic, however, was still widely used between the 4th and 7th centuries in Western Asia. Ibn Warraq estimates that up to 20% of the Koran is incomprehensible even to educated Arabs because parts of it was, in fact, originally written in another, though related, language before Muhammad was born.

In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. […] Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.

According to Luxenberg, the chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the 16 most tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from Medina, are not “Islamic” at all, but Christian.

I know you're not trying to flame, but rather start an honest discussion, but prepared for huge shitstorm. Massive flames by page two.

I know you're not trying to flame, but rather start an honest discussion, but prepared for huge shitstorm. Massive flames by page two.
You think so?

I know you're not trying to flame, but rather start an honest discussion, but prepared for huge shitstorm. Massive flames by page two.
Pffft.
3-1 by the end of the first page.

Pffft.
3-1 by the end of the first page.
You're on.

I know you're not trying to flame, but rather start an honest discussion, but prepared for huge shitstorm. Massive flames by page two.

You think they'll wait until page two? ;)

Does the "tolerant part" of Judeo/Christo/Islamic teachings even matter anymore, now that no one follows them?

NeoK: I see your page two and bid flames in the first half of page one.

Since we're joking around, I take it you people agree with me?

You think they'll wait until page two? ;)
The first page will be filled with posts like this.

All major religions are the same manufactured by the rulers of the time as a way of controlling the people.

Does the "tolerant part" of Judeo/Christo/Islamic teachings even matter anymore, now that no one follows them?

NeoK: I see your page two and bid flames in the first half of page one.
Well, I would argue that many Muslims around the world don't follow those parts. Christians also can be really intolerant, but even they aren't so big on the idea of killing gays and Jews and so forth.

All major religions are the same manufactured by the rulers of the time as a way of controlling the people.
Actually, I think religion is manufactured first as an opium, if you will, to give people comfort and hope, and then the rulers manipulate it towards their advantage.

The first page will be filled with posts like this.

I neglected to take this into account when I bid.

*resists the urge to flame, thereby winning the bet.*

Well, I would argue that many Muslims around the world don't follow those parts. Christians also can be really intolerant, but even they aren't so big on the idea of killing gays and Jews and so forth.

Like all religions, these are based on the idea that they are right and all others are false. Therefore, their very foundation is based on intolerance, rendering the "tolerant" parts irrelevant.

Like all religions, these are based on the idea that they are right and all others are false. Therefore, their very foundation is based on intolerance, rendering the "tolerant" parts irrelevant.
But I think we have yet to define tolerance.

According to Luxenberg, the chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the 16 most tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from Medina, are not “Islamic” at all, but Christian.

In a way, of course. Jesus, son of Mary, is a Prophet in Islam, so it would make sense to further his teachings.

It's similar to Christianity borrowing so heavily from Judaism, but makes sense because Jesus was Jewish.

But I think we have yet to define tolerance.


My working definition:

"The acceptance of beliefs other than your own, The acceptance of a persons right to have those beliefs."

In a way, of course. Jesus, son of Mary, is a Prophet in Islam, so it would make sense to further his teachings.

It's similar to Christianity borrowing so heavily from Judaism, but makes sense because Jesus was Jewish.
Makes sense, but the additions to these Scriptures are more intolerant and violent. Hence, the Koran.

My working definition:

"The acceptance of beliefs other than your own, The acceptance of a persons right to have those beliefs."
There's a difference between acceptance and tolerance. You tolerate something you don't like, but can't really change without doing something drastic and criminal. You tolerate a crying baby on an airplane, you don't smother it with a pillow.

Similiarly, you tolerate your gay neighbors, you don't burn their house down. At least not if you're a radical Muslim.

I know you're not trying to flame, but rather start an honest discussion, but prepared for huge shitstorm. Massive flames by page two.


Good call.

*stays in pool and orders some hot dogs*

There's a difference between acceptance and tolerance. You tolerate something you don't like, but can't really change without doing something drastic and criminal. You tolerate a crying baby on an airplane, you don't smother it with a pillow.

Similiarly, you tolerate your gay neighbors, you don't burn their house down. At least not if you're a radical Muslim.

But throughout history, Judeoa/Christo/Islamic believers have shown a definate tendency to destroy, or advocate the destruction of, anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. They have (and some still do) indeed "burn down their neighbors house". Even to the point of destroying others with the same basic beliefs under a different name.

But throughout history, Judeoa/Christo/Islamic believers have shown a definate tendency to destroy, or advocate the destruction of, anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. They have (and some still do) indeed "burn down their neighbors house". Even to the point of destroying others with the same basic beliefs under a different name.
You're absolutely correct about that, but I think any intellectually honest observer will concede that a Muslim is more likely to "burn down the gay neighbor's house" than a Christian or a Jew. Muslims are much more intolerant, and I know it sounds prejudiced or bigoted when I say that, but it's the cold, hard truth. It doesn't sound good, but someone's gotta say it.

There's a difference between acceptance and tolerance. You tolerate something you don't like, but can't really change without doing something drastic and criminal. You tolerate a crying baby on an airplane, you don't smother it with a pillow.

Similiarly, you tolerate your gay neighbors, you don't burn their house down. At least not if you're a radical Muslim.
So, if I, say, eat a dead person to survive a plane crash, I'm an intollerant xenophobe who hates the dead? :eek:

Makes sense, but the additions to these Scriptures are more intolerant and violent. Hence, the Koran.

Depends on one's interpretation and how one looks at the "intolerant" and/or "violent" parts of Qu'ran. I've spent a lot of energy showing this forum that it isn't really all that violent. 99% of what people see as violent, they forget to read the verse before and after and don't realise that it's talking about self-defense, not aggression.

I think people have the right to defend themselves, eh?

According to Qu'ran, you're not *allowed* to be the aggressor. Under any circumstances. Period. You can defend yourself tooth and nail until every enemy is dead or they seek peace with you, but you cannot instigate war.

So, if I, say, eat a dead person to survive a plane crash, I'm an intollerant xenophobe who hates the dead? :eek:
I don't know, does the dead person smell really bad?

So, if I, say, eat a dead person to survive a plane crash, I'm an intollerant xenophobe who hates the dead? :eek:

:eek: Necrophobe!!

Hot damn. I was right. Pay me, Jim P.

Depends on one's interpretation and how one looks at the "intolerant" and/or "violent" parts of Qu'ran. I've spent a lot of energy showing this forum that it isn't really all that violent. 99% of what people see as violent, they forget to read the verse before and after and don't realise that it's talking about self-defense, not aggression.

I think people have the right to defend themselves, eh?

According to Qu'ran, you're not *allowed* to be the aggressor. Under any circumstances. Period. You can defend yourself tooth and nail until every enemy is dead or they seek peace with you, but you cannot instigate war.
What I don't get is this. If that's a fact that Muslims can't initiate a war, how did Muhammad and those who came after him end up conquering so much land. It's not like everyone just decided to spontaneously convert from the religions their families, tribes, and villages had been following for ages. People just don't convert in massive groups like that.

Religion is tolerant? :rolleyes:

Depends on one's interpretation and how one looks at the "intolerant" and/or "violent" parts of Qu'ran. I've spent a lot of energy showing this forum that it isn't really all that violent. 99% of what people see as violent, they forget to read the verse before and after and don't realise that it's talking about self-defense, not aggression.

I think people have the right to defend themselves, eh?

According to Qu'ran, you're not *allowed* to be the aggressor. Under any circumstances. Period. You can defend yourself tooth and nail until every enemy is dead or they seek peace with you, but you cannot instigate war.
You see, the problem is that it's very easy to make yourself seem like the victim. For example, the fact that Jews have their own little country (Israel is less than 1 percent of all the land in the mid east) makes it seem to a lot of Muslims like their culture is being threatened by a secular, wealthy, powerful state that isn't Muslim simply because it's right next to them. Hence, the rocket attacks by Hezbollah.

And when bin laden issued his call for jihad against the US because we occupied Saudi Arabia (at the request of their royal family!!), he felt victimized because "infidels" were on Islam's holiest land.

The list goes on, and while there are some instances in which I can justify resistance by Muslims (Chechnya) because they are truly persecuted, it seems to me like in most cases, Muslims are the perpetrators of violence.

Does the "tolerant part" of Judeo/Christo/Islamic teachings even matter anymore, now that no one follows them?
What do you mean nobody follows them. There are billions of genuinely good Christians, Muslims and Jews in the world. The public image is ruined by a few loudmouthed hypocrites these days, much as it was during the time of Jesus.

What I don't get is this. If that's a fact that Muslims can't initiate a war, how did Muhammad and those who came after him end up conquering so much land.
You have to fill out a 10-73B which gives you a temporary exemption. They're usually next to the 11-51F.

Hot damn.. a topic like this and not a flame in sight. Well, no personal ones anyway.


...what's happened to the forums? Has everyone been neuralised?

What I don't get is this. If that's a fact that Muslims can't initiate a war, how did Muhammad and those who came after him end up conquering so much land.

A valid question. Difference being that Allah actually told Muhammed (according to Qu'ran) to purge Saudi Arabia of the Pagans. The Christians and Jews were fine, but get rid of the Pagans by any means necessary. I'm not sure why Allah hated the Pagans so much, but such is the way things went.

Allah hasn't spoken to anyone since (according to Islam). Not even George Bush.

As for the rest of the world, some places were taken by force and, well, you can still see the unrest and general bad vibes you get from those places to this very day. However, you look at a place that came to Islam peacefully (like Indonesia), they're not such hotbeds of seething hatred and boom booms.

A valid question. Difference being that Allah actually told Muhammed (according to Qu'ran) to purge Saudi Arabia of the Pagans. The Christians and Jews were fine, but get rid of the Pagans by any means necessary. I'm not sure why Allah hated the Pagans so much, but such is the way things went.
Allah hasn't spoken to anyone since (according to Islam). Not even George Bush.

As for the rest of the world, some places were taken by force and, well, you can still see the unrest and general bad vibes you get from those places to this very day. However, you look at a place that came to Islam peacefully (like Indonesia), they're not such hotbeds of seething hatred and boom booms.

Every religion hates pagans.

The list goes on, and while there are some instances in which I can justify resistance by Muslims (Chechnya) because they are truly persecuted, it seems to me like in most cases, Muslims are the perpetrators of violence.

Muslims? No. A small percentage of power-hungry assholes who prey on young uneducated men? Absolutely.

Muslims don't hate Jews. A few do, but nowhere near all.

A lot of Arabs hate Jews, but Arabs only make up 13-15% of the world's Muslims.

We're talkin' about a billion and a half people here (give or take). Bin Laden represents 0.0002% of them.

What do you mean nobody follows them. There are billions of genuinely good Christians, Muslims and Jews in the world. The public image is ruined by a few loudmouthed hypocrites these days, much as it was during the time of Jesus.
"A few loudmouthed hypocrites"? I think you're seriously underestimating the fanatical side to religion. I don't know much about Orthodox Judaism, so I'm not going to comment on that (although I'm sure they have their loonies), but let me tell you something: 5 million people in America watch the 700 Club,, Pat Robertson's show, Ann Coulter's books are best-sellers, some American politicians want to do away with condoms, so even in America we have our problems with fundamentalist Christianity.

Of course, that seems like child's play when you consider that in the Muslim world, you don't even have discussion on whether gays should be allowed to marry, and where you have this culture of martyrdom, where suicide bombers are glorified. The jihadists aren't exactly a fringe element, and the other problem is that there are a lot of Muslims who are silently accepting of the jihadis, even if they don't personally like them.

the other problem is that there are a lot of Muslims who are silently accepting of the jihadis, even if they don't personally like them.

How much more do you want?

Even a Google search yeilds 17,200,000 sites pertaining to Muslims against terrorism.

Have you spoken loud and vocally today against pedophiles? Does that mean you accept them?

Muslims? No. A small percentage of power-hungry assholes who prey on young uneducated men? Absolutely.

Muslims don't hate Jews. A few do, but nowhere near all.

A lot of Arabs hate Jews, but Arabs only make up 13-15% of the world's Muslims.

We're talkin' about a billion and a half people here (give or take). Bin Laden represents 0.0002% of them.
Actually, most suicide bombers come from upper-class families (I saw it on MSNBC), and even the assholes who kamikazed the WTC were Westernized to the casual observer. They frequented bars, cursed, slept around, and then, BOOM! down goes the WTC.

Aww..come on, everyone hates Jews. Jews have been driven and hounded out of nearly every land on this planet. They have suffered more than any other group of people, and yet they have still come out on top. A recent poll indicated that 37% of British Muslims think it's acceptable to attack British Jews. That's a large minority.

There's a difference between acceptance and tolerance. You tolerate something you don't like, but can't really change without doing something drastic and criminal. You tolerate a crying baby on an airplane, you don't smother it with a pillow.

Similiarly, you tolerate your gay neighbors, you don't burn their house down. At least not if you're a radical Muslim.

I take it you mean "if you're not a radical Muslim."

But there are also radical Christians who will happily beat a gay man to death. We just have a less radical society because we have more material comfort. Just like a broken impoverished Germany was a petri dish of intolerance and radicalism, so too is much of the Middle East.

By the same token, the poorest parts of the US tend to be the most religous and the least tolerant.

Actually, most suicide bombers come from upper-class families (I saw it on MSNBC), and even the assholes who kamikazed the WTC were Westernized to the casual observer. They frequented bars, cursed, slept around, and then, BOOM! down goes the WTC.
Not upper class, middle class. A large disaffected and well, bored, middle class.


Aww..come on, everyone hates Jews. Jews have been driven and hounded out of nearly every land on this planet. They have suffered more than any other group of people, and yet they have still come out on top.
Oh bullshit. Not everyone 'hates the Jews'.

A recent poll indicated that 37% of British Muslims think it's acceptable to attack British Jews. That's a large minority.
Link/Source?

Like all religions, these are based on the idea that they are right and all others are false. Therefore, their very foundation is based on intolerance, rendering the "tolerant" parts irrelevant.
Intolerance is not accepting, or working to eradicate other religions. It's not the same as believing one's religion to be true and telling others about it (not forcing it on them). Christianity is not based on intolerance, and neither are most other religions.

"The acceptance of beliefs other than your own, The acceptance of a persons right to have those beliefs."
I agree with that definition. Most religions are not intolerant. Some of their followers are, but not the religions themselves.

But throughout history, Judeoa/Christo/Islamic believers have shown a definate tendency to destroy, or advocate the destruction of, anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. They have (and some still do) indeed "burn down their neighbors house". Even to the point of destroying others with the same basic beliefs under a different name.
I don't believe that the majority of believers ever supported destroying other people for their beliefs. The powerful manipulated religion to try and justify it, but they can't change the fact that the Scriptures are not hateful, destructive or intolerant.

Remember, that all people are sinners. There are no perfect Christians, Jews or Muslims.

By the same token, the poorest parts of the US tend to be the most religous and the least tolerant.

Damn fine point, there.

How much more do you want?

Even a Google search yeilds 17,200,000 sites pertaining to Muslims against terrorism.

Have you spoken loud and vocally today against pedophiles? Does that mean you accept them?
As a matter of fact, I saw an interview last night about a boy who was kidnapped by a pedo and later decapitated. I told my friend that I want these people dead, that they shouldn't even be given prison sentences, they just oughta be shot on the street and left to the flies.

I'm actually really glad you brought this up, because I know you're a Muslim, and I've always been itching to ask a Muslim this question:

In 2004, Chechen rebels(who were all Muslim) attacked a school in Beslan, Russia, and killed hundreds of children. In 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, printed obscene cartoons of Mohammed, resulting in continuous "protests" and mob violence by Muslims all over the world. Even Christians in Nigeria were killed even though they had no connections to these cartoons. My question is, where were the protests after the Beslan debacle? A visiting alien would, quite logically, assume that according to Islam, it matters more what kind of pictures you draw than whether or not you kill chidren.

Damn fine point, there.


But utterly irrelevant
Folks pick their scripture to fit the actions they already wanted to do - and not the other way around.

Discussing what a book - any book - says, says little about the book, but plenty about the discusser.

In 2004, Chechen rebels(who were all Muslim) attacked a school in Beslan, Russia, and killed hundreds of children. In 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, printed obscene cartoons of Mohammed, resulting in continuous "protests" and mob violence by Muslims all over the world. Even Christians in Nigeria were killed even though they had no connections to these cartoons. My question is, where were the protests after the Beslan debacle?
Beslan was not motivated by religion, but by polticio-nationalism. It is inconsequential that the perpetrators were Muslim.

Beslan was not motivated by religion, but by polticio-nationalism. It is inconsequential that the perpetrators were Muslim.


It is highly consequential, in that it was the excuse.

Not upper class, middle class. A large disaffected and well, bored, middle class.
Oh bullshit. Not everyone 'hates the Jews'.
Link/Source?
Oh, well, I'm middle class, too, and I'm feeling kind of bored today. Should I go out and strap bombs around my waist.

A casual examination of histoy will show that Jews have always been persecuted. Right now, there's probably less anti-Semitism than ever, but it's still there. Just look at Europe's response to Israel's response to Hezbollah.

Fox News.

"A few loudmouthed hypocrites"? I think you're seriously underestimating the fanatical side to religion. I don't know much about Orthodox Judaism, so I'm not going to comment on that (although I'm sure they have their loonies), but let me tell you something: 5 million people in America watch the 700 Club,, Pat Robertson's show, Ann Coulter's books are best-sellers, some American politicians want to do away with condoms, so even in America we have our problems with fundamentalist Christianity.
These people are a small minority of Christians. Also, remember that not all fundamentalist Christians are pro-violence. They're a diverse group.

Of course, that seems like child's play when you consider that in the Muslim world, you don't even have discussion on whether gays should be allowed to marry, and where you have this culture of martyrdom, where suicide bombers are glorified. The jihadists aren't exactly a fringe element, and the other problem is that there are a lot of Muslims who are silently accepting of the jihadis, even if they don't personally like them.
The Muslim world is a hundred years or so behind Europe, but I don't think that it's all that mainstream to glorify suicide bombers. Only really in hard-pressed cultures, and militaristic cultures like Palestine and Iran respectively.

In the world's biggest Muslim country, jihadism really is fringe politics. Nowhere near mainstream acceptance of it.

Mind you, my knowledge of Middle Eastern internal affairs is limited.

Even a Google search yeilds 17,200,000 sites pertaining to Muslims against terrorism.
Did you put "Muslims against terrorism" in quotation marks? Because if you didn't it searches for all pages with the words "Muslims" "terrorism" and "against".

Islam is based on Christianity. Islam uses the Bible and the Torah as scripture. Islam believes Jesus existed and was a prophet, but not the son of God. Islam worships the same God as christianity and Judaism. To put it quite simply: Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, and Islam is a continuation of Christianity. So yes, the Koran is in fact Christian.

Oh, well, I'm middle class, too, and I'm feeling kind of bored today. Should I go out and strap bombs around my waist.

Of course not. I'm just correcting the misperception. Dont' get defensive.

A casual examination of histoy will show that Jews have always been persecuted. Right now, there's probably less anti-Semitism than ever, but it's still there.
A lot of people have been persecuted historically as well. That still doesn't mean everyone hates the XXXX today. An exaggeration.

Just look at Europe's response to Israel's response to Hezbollah.
You mean equal condemnation of the terorrists attacks, the cause of the situation being Hezb'allah and the disproportionate response of the IDF? (I don't think we need to get into this again- there are other threads for that)

Fox News.
Link?

As a matter of fact, I saw an interview last night about a boy who was kidnapped by a pedo and later decapitated. I told my friend that I want these people dead, that they shouldn't even be given prison sentences, they just oughta be shot on the street and left to the flies.

Well that's not very nice. That attitude makes you no better than those who call for the decapitations of people who aren't praying right. I, personally, believe in forgiveness. Punishment, of course, and justice, but tempered with mercy and forgiveness.

I'm actually really glad you brought this up, because I know you're a Muslim, and I've always been itching to ask a Muslim this question:

I'm apostate now. I've dropped Islam.

My question is, where were the protests after the Beslan debacle?

I don't know. Being Texan, I only saw what I saw on CNN and went about my day to day life. Most people have kids, jobs, school, laundry, housecleaning, and the rigors of day to day life and really don't have time to go about protesting and carrying on.

As for the cartoons, well, if you look at the protestors, most of them were rather young or rather old. All of the in-betweens had better shit to do.

Also, if you look at the numbers of protestors, you'll find they were a pretty small amount when compared to global Islam. The vast majority of Muslims looked at the protests over cartoons and rolled their eyes and went back to watching American Idol or Big Brother or whatever.

A casual examination of histoy will show that Jews have always been persecuted. Right now, there's probably less anti-Semitism than ever, but it's still there. Just look at Europe's response to Israel's response to Hezbollah.

Everybody hated Jews. If Hitler did anything good (inadvertently), he shocked and guilted the Western world out of ever hating Jews again.

I don't want to hear anything about criticism of Israel equating with anti-Semitism. If I criticise American policies, am I anti-Christian? If I criticise China, am I anti-atheist?

Thus, criticising Israel is not anti-Jewish just because they are a majority in Israel.

These people are a small minority of Christians. Also, remember that not all fundamentalist Christians are pro-violence. They're a diverse group.


The Muslim world is a hundred years or so behind Europe, but I don't think that it's all that mainstream to glorify suicide bombers. Only really in hard-pressed cultures, and militaristic cultures like Palestine and Iran respectively.

In the world's biggest Muslim country, jihadism really is fringe politics. Nowhere near mainstream acceptance of it.

Mind you, my knowledge of Middle Eastern internal affairs is limited.


Did you put "Muslims against terrorism" in quotation marks? Because if you didn't it searches for all pages with the words "Muslims" "terrorism" and "against".
Still, that's 5 million people who hang on every word that bat-shit crazy old fart says. That's a lot of people, my friend.

Completely contrary. The mainstream thing to do is to glorify "martyrdom." If their culture didn't glorify it, you wouldn't have it. It takes more than some explosives and an idiot to make a suicide bomber.

Which is the world's biggest Muslim country?

Everybody hated Jews. If Hitler did anything good (inadvertently), he shocked and guilted the Western world out of ever hating Jews again.

I don't want to hear anything about criticism of Israel equating with anti-Semitism. If I criticise American policies, am I anti-Christian? If I criticise China, am I anti-atheist?

Thus, criticising Israel is not anti-Jewish just because they are a majority in Israel.

Tangential - could you fill out the player-information?
So we all know where everyone stands.

Which is the world's biggest Muslim country?

Indonesia.

I believe Pakistan or India is next, followed by Turkey, Nigeria, and China.

Of course not. I'm just correcting the misperception. Dont' get defensive.


A lot of people have been persecuted historically as well. That still doesn't mean everyone hates the XXXX today. An exaggeration.


You mean equal condemnation of the terorrists attacks, the cause of the situation being Hezb'allah and the disproportionate response of the IDF? (I don't think we need to get into this again- there are other threads for that)


Link?
My point was that seemingly assimliated Muslims were suicide bombers. The kind of people that shouldn't have been suicide bombers.

True, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, they were all persecuted once, and still are in some parts of the world, but the Jews were persecuted and hated ever since the beginning, and they still very much are in the mid east.

Well, since you brought it up, I'm gonna argue with that point anyway. Hezbollah was the clear aggressor, so what do you think a "proportionate" response would be? To kill one Palestinian for every Israeli that's killed? Or to completely neutralise Hezbollah so it doesn't kill any more Israelis or any more Palestinians(inadvertandly).

You'll have to take my word for that statistic. I saw it on Fox News, and I don't think there are any links. Or you could search the internet.

Indonesia
Oh, isn't that the place where they're trying to ban Playboy, and where Islamic terrorists killed hundreds of tourist in Bali, 2004?

Actually, most suicide bombers come from upper-class families (I saw it on MSNBC), and even the assholes who kamikazed the WTC were Westernized to the casual observer. They frequented bars, cursed, slept around, and then, BOOM! down goes the WTC.

Middle class. It's just that in a society where so many are poor and unemployed, having a college education makes you look "upper."

But that's the case with most radicals. The poor are too busy just trying to make it through the day. They might follow the leaders of a radical movement, but that's usually because they see hope in them. People who see hope for themselves don't strap bombs to themselves. It's just like in all those South American revolutions. The peasants didn't usually take up arms, they just gave the occaisional hidden bed and hot meal.

The educated have the time to think about what's wrong with the world and what can be done to fix it. That's why revolutions always come from the Middle Class. Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro were both lawyers before becoming dictators.

Oh, isn't that the place where they're trying to ban Playboy, and where Islamic terrorists killed hundreds of tourist in Bali, 2004?

Yup.

And the United States is where Matthew Shepard got beaten to death for being gay and Tim McVeigh blew up a federal building containing women and children and we have, arguably, more serial killers per capita than any nation on the planet.

What's your point?

Incidently, there are 0 Muslims in Colombia ... last I heard, no Muslims =/= no violence.

Middle class. It's just that in a society where so many are poor and unemployed, having a college education makes you look "upper."

But that's the case with most radicals. The poor are too busy just trying to make it through the day. They might follow the leaders of a radical movement, but that's usually because they see hope in them. People who see hope for themselves don't strap bombs to themselves. It's just like in all those South American revolutions. The peasants didn't usually take up arms, they just gave the occaisional hidden bed and hot meal.

The educated have the time to think about what's wrong with the world and what can be done to fix it. That's why revolutions always come from the Middle Class. Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro were both lawyers before becoming dictators.
I think you're missing the point here. The contention is that only poor uneducated Muslims are suicide bombers, so if we just throw money at them and educate them, they will become peaceful and Westernized, and it will all be kitten farts and roses thereafter.

Now, if most suicide bombers are upper class, as MSNBC clearly stated(that's NOT middle class), then how in the fuck is educating the poor ones gonna help?

My point was that seemingly assimliated Muslims were suicide bombers. The kind of people that shouldn't have been suicide bombers.
Em.. ok?


True, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, they were all persecuted once, and still are in some parts of the world, but the Jews were persecuted and hated ever since the beginning, and they still very much are in the mid east.
How about homosexuals? Doesn't have to be religious you know.

Well, since you brought it up, I'm gonna argue with that point anyway. Hezbollah was the clear aggressor, so what do you think a "proportionate" response would be? To kill one Palestinian for every Israeli that's killed? Or to completely neutralise Hezbollah so it doesn't kill any more Israelis or any more Palestinians(inadvertandly).
Like I said, this thread is not where you want this debate. I still disagree however.

You'll have to take my word for that statistic. I saw it on Fox News, and I don't think there are any links. Or you could search the internet.
No. The onus is on you to back up your point. Otherwise I could say "I saw on TV the other week where all Jews drink the blood of babies... but you'll have to take my word for it."

Oh, isn't that the place where they're trying to ban Playboy, and where Islamic terrorists killed hundreds of tourist in Bali, 2004?

And the same place that gets hit by Tsunamis constantly? Yes. Coincidence? Maybe.

And the same place that gets hit by Tsunamis constantly? Yes. Coincidence? Maybe.


Now WHY should the Tsunamis be coincidence, wot?

Yup.

And the United States is where Matthew Shepard got beaten to death for being gay and Tim McVeigh blew up a federal building containing women and children and we have, arguably, more serial killers per capita than any nation on the planet.

What's your point?

Incidently, there are 0 Muslims in Colombia ... last I heard, no Muslims =/= no violence.
Hey man, every country has something to be ashamed of. I don't know about the serial killer bit, but I do know that most people who kill other people with guns in America obtained those guns illegally on the black market, and since we value the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), the black market for guns is thriving.

Here is the crux of my argument: If you look at the conflicts going on in the world, you begin to see a general pattern, Muslims vs. Christians in Nigeria and Ethiopia, Muslims vs, Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Russians in Chechnya(although the Russians are at fault, too), Muslims vs. Jews in Palestine, Muslims vs. Americans and other Muslims in Iraq (although as an American, I have to admit that we had it coming).

Why don't you just admit, that yes, there is a problem with extremism in Islam, that many Muslims in Europe are having problems with assimiliation, and Islam isn't exactly the "religion of peace."

That being said, let me just point out that most Muslims I've met here in America are normal, decent people, and I don't have a problem with them.

My point was that seemingly assimliated Muslims were suicide bombers. The kind of people that shouldn't have been suicide bombers.

The largest group of suicide bombers are the Tamil Tigers, an atheistic secular organization.

So, since they're the largest and most prolific, can it now be argued that atheists should be watchdogged?

Fact is, you really don't know who is and who is not a terrorist or whatever.

Tangential - could you fill out the player-information?
So we all know where everyone stands.
What?

Now WHY should the Tsunamis be coincidence, wot?

Well you got the hardcore Christians saying dead troops and 9/11 are the fault of fags, when the natural disasters occur mostly in places where the people are religious zealots.

If you look at the conflicts going on in the world, you begin to see a general pattern, Muslims vs. Christians in Nigeria and Ethiopia, Muslims vs, Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Russians in Chechnya(although the Russians are at fault, too), Muslims vs. Jews in Palestine, Muslims vs. Americans and other Muslims in Iraq (although as an American, I have to admit that we had it coming).

Christians vs Christians in Zimbabwe.
Christians vs Christians in the Congo
Christians vs Christians in Northern Ireland
Christians/Buddhists/Muslims/Falun Gong vs Atheists in China
Buddhists vs Atheists in Tibet

See a pattern? No, me neither - as I cherry picked the conflicts to suit my argument.

As you just did.

Em.. ok?


How about homosexuals? Doesn't have to be religious you know.


Like I said, this thread is not where you want this debate. I still disagree however.


No. The onus is on you to back up your point. Otherwise I could say "I saw on TV the other week where all Jews drink the blood of babies... but you'll have to take my word for it."
"Em...ok?" Is that all you can say? If by now you don't get it, I give up on you.

Homosexuals have indeed been persecuted, but they come from all religions, races, etc. Jews come from...Judaism, although there are Arab Jews, and even African Jews.

If you don't want to have this debate, why did you bring it up? I would be more than happy to debate it with you right here, right now.

You're right, the burden of proof is on me to back up that statistic, because I'm the one who's claiming it. The problem is that right now, I'm too damn hungry to spend an hour ferreting out that video, or transcript of it, for you on the internet, and I'm just gonna go have me some good pork and alchohol.
Peace out.

"Em...ok?" Is that all you can say? If by now you don't get it, I give up on you.
Well I don't know what your point was.

People be bombin' *shrug*

Homosexuals have indeed been persecuted, but they come from all religions, races, etc. Jews come from...Judaism, although there are Arab Jews, and even African Jews.
Right, so the historical persecution of Jews is higher than the historical persecution of homosexuals...because they're Jewish... riight.

If you don't want to have this debate, why did you bring it up? I would be more than happy to debate it with you right here, right now.
Because there are 2-3 other threads dealing with ongoing events in Lebanon where that exact discussion is taking place- its called "staying on topic".

You're right, the burden of proof is on me to back up that statistic, because I'm the one who's claiming it. The problem is that right now, I'm too damn hungry to spend an hour ferreting out that video, or transcript of it, for you on the internet, and I'm just gonna go have me some good pork and alchohol.
Peace out.
Peace. I intended to have a juicy steak, but I might indeed have some pork chops with a bottle of Erdinger Weissbier to wash it down.

Why don't you just admit, that yes, there is a problem with extremism in Islam, that many Muslims in Europe are having problems with assimiliation, and Islam isn't exactly the "religion of peace."

I will admit there's a problem with extremism in Islam. Easily. Have done so on numerous occasions. There is not, however, a solution.

Assimilation is not a solution. Clearly.

I will not admit that Islam is not a religion of peace. It was said earlier:

Folks pick their scripture to fit the actions they already wanted to do - and not the other way around.

Islam is a religion of peace. It's people who suck.

You're absolutely correct about that, but I think any intellectually honest observer will concede that a Muslim is more likely to "burn down the gay neighbor's house" than a Christian or a Jew. Muslims are much more intolerant, and I know it sounds prejudiced or bigoted when I say that, but it's the cold, hard truth. It doesn't sound good, but someone's gotta say it.
I'd actually like to specify that middle eastern muslims are far less tolerant. Muslims who currently reside in an integrated western country, such as the US, or in Southeast Asia are quite tolerant.

What?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451499

Get to it. Please.

I'd actually like to specify that middle eastern muslims are far less tolerant. Muslims who currently reside in an integrated western country, such as the US, or in Southeast Asia are quite tolerant.

Iranians are quite tolerant, and so are the Lebanese.

I will admit there's a problem with extremism in Islam. Easily. Have done so on numerous occasions. There is not, however, a solution.

Assimilation is not a solution. Clearly.

I will not admit that Islam is not a religion of peace. It was said earlier:



Islam is a religion of peace. It's people who suck.


I have no love for Islam - I think I made that clear.

I hope I also made it clear that I don't endulge in extensive islam-bashing for the simple reason that the problem is the boldened bit, and not some book or other.

Well you got the hardcore Christians saying dead troops and 9/11 are the fault of fags, when the natural disasters occur mostly in places where the people are religious zealots.


Perhaps the part before the (,) is shite, and the part behind the (,) is indeed a manifestation of the Will of the Almighty.

Perhaps the part before the (,) is shite, and the part behind the (,) is indeed a manifestation of the Will of the Almighty.

I would find that amusing.

no, because religion, it doesent matter which one, is the main source of intolerance in this world.

no, because religion, it doesent matter which one, is the main source of intolerance in this world.

Indirectly. People are intolerant, and these people think its okay because of the way they interpret their religion.

Indirectly. People are intolerant, and these people think its okay because of the way they interpret their religion.
no. it is very directly. Some people are intolerant, some are not. there is usually a reason why its one not the other.so there has to be a source for the intolerence, and that source is religion.

no. it is very directly. Some people are intolerant, some are not. there is usually a reason why its one not the other.so there has to be a source for the intolerence, and that source is religion.

I disagree. I think religion is a justification and not a reason.

I disagree. I think religion is a justification and not a reason.
can you prove yourself. and don't just say "people are intolerant" tell me why you think that.

can you prove yourself. and don't just say "people are intolerant" tell me why you think that.

Why do bullies bully? Most would say its due to an inferiority complex. They need to feel better about themselves, and thats they way they go about doing it. I think some people are just naturally intolerant, whether its to turn attention from their own shortcomings or just to have someone that they can say "I am better than you" about. These people use religion as an excuse, and they feel "allowed" to do it.

According to Luxenberg, the chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the 16 most tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from Medina, are not “Islamic” at all, but Christian.

so who is this luxenberg character and where did you copy 'n paste this from?

Why do bullies bully? Most would say its due to an inferiority complex. They need to feel better about themselves, and thats they way they go about doing it. I think some people are just naturally intolerant, whether its to turn attention from their own shortcomings or just to have someone that they can say "I am better than you" about. These people use religion as an excuse, and they feel "allowed" to do it.
no i meant prove your theory.

no i meant prove your theory.

Um, I just told you the basis of my theory. Its your turn.

okay. i'm quoting someone else here, not sure who:

without religion we have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion
so that can mean that there are people who are not intolerant, and people who are, but religion causes more people to be intolerant.

okay. i'm quoting someone else here, not sure who:


so that can mean that there are people who are not intolerant, and people who are, but religion causes more people to be intolerant.

A good person doing evil things? First of all, good and evil are defined by perspectives. Next, I dont think religion causes these "good" people to do "evil" things. Without religion, these "good" people would fit in the category of "evil people doing evil things". Once religion comes into the picture, the evil can be justified by religion.

A good person doing evil things? First of all, good and evil are defined by perspectives. Next, I dont think religion causes these "good" people to do "evil" things. Without religion, these "good" people would fit in the category of "evil people doing evil things". Once religion comes into the picture, the evil can be justified by religion.
enough circular logic.

Hot damn. I was right. Pay me, Jim P.

I am set to see 40 posts per page and I haven't seen anything on page one I would call a flame. Let me look at page two.

Actually, I think religion is manufactured first as an opium, if you will, to give people comfort and hope, and then the rulers manipulate it towards their advantage.

Bullseye.

enough circular logic.

Circular logic? Oh you mean your argument that religion causes intolerance because intolerant people are religious?

I guess its impossible for an atheist to be intolerant.

Circular logic? Oh you mean your argument that religion causes intolerance because intolerant people are religious?

I guess its impossible for an atheist to be intolerant.
what. i did not say anything like that. i said that religion encourages intolerance because of what the texts say.

what. i did not say anything like that. i said that religion encourages intolerance because of what the texts say.

The truth of the matter is that noone knows what the texts say except for the people that wrote them. They have been translated and re-interpreted so many times. But I digress. What do the texts say that is so intolerant?

{snip}
I don't believe that the majority of believers ever supported destroying other people for their beliefs. The powerful manipulated religion to try and justify it, but they can't change the fact that the Scriptures are not hateful, destructive or intolerant.

The scriptures are full of hate, destruction, and intolerance my friend. Examples: the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, The Jew displacing the native of the promised land (sound familiar?), the plagues inflicted on Egypt. Even the Crucifixian was an example of intolerance of one set of believers by another.

Remember, that all people are sinners. There are no perfect Christians, Jews or Muslims.

According to one set of beliefs perhaps, but not all.

The scriptures are full of hate, destruction, and intolerance my friend. Examples: the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, The Jew displacing the native of the promised land (sound familiar?), the plagues inflicted on Egypt. Even the Crucifixian was an example of intolerance of one set of believers by another.

Where does it say "hate the fags" or "kill the nonbelievers?"

The scriptures are full of hate, destruction, and intolerance my friend. Examples: the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, The Jew displacing the native of the promised land (sound familiar?), the plagues inflicted on Egypt. Even the Crucifixian was an example of intolerance of one set of believers by another.

Where does it say "hate the fags" or "kill the nonbelievers"? Where does it promote the intolerance?

Where does it say "hate the fags" or "kill the nonbelievers"? Where does it promote the intolerance?

It promotes intolerance by example. Read the bible someday, or if you are too lazy to do that, then there are websites out there that chronicle the bodie count for you.

I forget which verse it is but "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Very tolerant and non-violent.:rolleyes:

I forget which verse it is but "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Very tolerant and non-violent.:rolleyes:

Spot on.

It promotes intolerance by example. Read the bible someday, or if you are too lazy to do that, then there are websites out there that chronicle the bodie count for you.

I forget which verse it is but "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Very tolerant and non-violent.:rolleyes:

Thou shall not kill?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven?

Do unto others?

Thou shall not kill?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven?

Do unto others?
Nice people study the nice parts, naughty people study the naughty parts.

Nice people study the nice parts, naughty people study the naughty parts.

This is what I am saying. The people who are inherently intolerant look at their religion for the naughty parts and use it to justify their naughtiness.

This is what I am saying. The people who are inherently intolerant look at their religion for the naughty parts and use it to justify their naughtiness.

What of us who are not Xtian? I have read the bible not looking for any specific part. There are many parts that preach non-violence and tolerance. However failure to see the intolerance and violence is not my failure, just a failure of those who will not see the negative aspects of their own holy text.

Where does it say "hate the fags"

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

...I thought everyone knew that one?

The scriptures are full of hate, destruction, and intolerance my friend.
But they are more full of love, tolerance and charity.

I forget which verse it is but "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Very tolerant and non-violent.:rolleyes:
There's also the "Thou shalt not kill" which is in a more important part.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

...I thought everyone knew that one?
It's a sin, doesn't in any way justify hatred. The Christians who go about hating are, IMO betraying their religion.

If NationStates ever gets its wet dream and Islam and all of its followers are wiped off the face of the planet, I wonder which religion the world will turn on next?

There's also the "Thou shalt not kill" which is in a more important part.

Which everyone gives the regard and respect that they give to a United Nations resolution.


It's a sin, doesn't in any way justify hatred. The Christians who go about hating are, IMO betraying their religion.

If the physical act is the sin and not the disposition towards such acts, then it would be unChristian to go for the jugular of paedophiles who have not actually molested children either. But "Hate the Sin not the Sinner" is another Biblical teaching that gets as much respect as a UN resolution.