quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You didn't notice the list of religions I'm not worried about which included many races and cultural minorities.
:snort: I noticed. It's rather like a person claiming not to be an abuser, because, although he regularly beats his wife, "I never touched the kids!"
Even more to the point, it's claiming not to be racist because you are not actively suspicious of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, Zoroastians, or whatever other ethnic and or religious group you can name. Just because you hold a special little racist place in your heart for Arabs and Persians doesn't mean you aren't fully on board the racist boat. You are.
FYI: you are using a rather poor definition of racism. Racism is not white supremacy (or belief in the supremacy of any race) although white supremacy is racist. Racism can take the form of selective interpretation of cultural attributes in order to draw false conclusions about ethnic groups. In fact, the majority of institutional racism is non-explicit, unspoken, and oft committed without real malice. It is nevertheless ignorant, and destructive.
quote: The KKK would regard themselves a "christian" organization. There is zero tolerance for this extremist organization in our country, rightfully so.
This is simply incorrect. There is tolerance for the existence of organized racial supremacist groups in the United States. The KKK is protected by the first amendment. Once again- the constitution doesn't exist for the purpose of advancing what you apparently believe is a general sense of right and wrong. Nor could such a document work in the way that the constitution does. It exists as a framework for the management of our justice system and government.
quote:There is zero tolerance for this extremist organization in our country, rightfully so.
From the Wiki:
quote:The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates.
posted
Racism has nothing to do with religion. There are followers of Islam from all races and there are Arab Christians. Arabs don't concern me, Islamic extremists do. As shown by my concern of Americans who convert to this religion of peace and waged Jihad against their fellow citizens.
If you have to revert to accusations of racism, you've lost the argument.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about the Americans who convert to Islam and don't wage Jihad? I'm going to keep harping on this point until it is addressed.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Every Muslim I've ever met (granted I've never been in a Muslim country, so we're talking California and Europe) has been politically moderate and open minded.
I'd note the caveat that you've also previously noted that you've never encountered someone against gay marriage below some age cutoff in the US, which you noted was a bit of a surprise when actual statistics came up.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that the vast majority of Islam in America are peaceful. I'll pose the question again, what percentage is a problem? 1% of millions makes a very dangerous force in every American city.
You can guesstimate some numbers behind your argument.
quote: Overall, 8% of Muslim Americans say suicide bombings against civilian targets tactics are often (1%) or sometimes (7%) justified in the defense of Islam. Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain were twice as likely as Muslims in the U.S. to say suicide bombing can be often or sometimes justified, and acceptance of the tactic is far more widespread among Muslims in Nigeria, Jordan and Egypt.
quote:Overall, 68% of Muslim Americans view al Qaeda either very unfavorably (58%) or somewhat unfavorably (10%). Of the rest, a large proportion (27%) declined to express an opinion on the terrorist group, while just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.
(Given the numbers of actual Muslims in the US combined with the percentages, I can't say I'm losing much sleep. I think I'm much more likely to get killed by a Christian rather than a Muslim when I next travel to the US for example)
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [... Even if every Muslim in the world were a member of some other religion, with totally different teachings, were they placed in a similar situation as they are in today, there would be violence.
Some violence, sure. But the same amount of violence I find doubtful.
For example, if you compare the Tibetan Buddhist situation and Xinjiang Muslim situation you find quite a significant disparity in how the two groups use (or don't use) violence despite fairly similar circumstances.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So don't tell me that Christianity isn't a political religion and don't tell me it hadn't done great damage.
Christianity isn't a political religion, at least not normally. Until Jesus shows up again it's full set of political ideals lie dormant.
Also lets not forget the crusades happened after the Muslims pushed up from North Africa, driving the predominantly Christian Byzantine empire before it. There were even Muslim incursions into Italy before the first crusade was even launched. People on both sides used their religion as a ticket to empire building. There is nothing in the Christian canon that states Christians need to be in possession of Jerusalem. It doesn't say that Christians need to speed up the apocalypse by inciting their enemies.
Christians frequently attempt to create their own nations which passes laws that allow it to flourish, but this too isn't in the doctrine, it's simply an idea people concocted on their own. It's natural for people to attempt to combine into groups based on ethnicity, belief systems, or against common enemies.
Mormons are Christians that also have political agendas that they often use religion to support. The ones in Utah come from a strong background of pioneers. People who had their rights taken away and so went somewhere else to practice their religion peacefully. The country caught up with them and it was not really an option to stay out of the union. So now they support their country, vote their consciences, and strive to live as all Americans live.
It's history taken as a whole shows such a lack of participation on the political front that only a fool would use the church as a synonym for Christian political activism. Yes it has gotten involved in politics, I will likely get involved again, but political activism is not one of the things discussed at church almost ever. I think in my 20 or so years of attending church I have heard politics come up maybe twice. But again this is a matter of Mormons also having political agendas, like everyone else. The prophet in the case of Proposition 8 made his opinion clear, and invited Mormons to become politically active if they so chose. Members who disagreed with the prophets opinions were not censured, isolated, ostracized, or chastised.
The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
In short, Christians have definitely been involved in numerous political movements, but the doctrine does not instruct that movement, the people choose to get involved and then reassure themselves they are right to get involved by looking at ideas espoused by the scriptures.
Is it hard to see that when the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" it does not describe all that is killing? It does not prescribe punishments, it simply says it ought not to be done. A Christian looks at abortion as says, "Hey that's killing, and they aren't going to stop." So they choose to pass laws forbidding abortion, or choose to bomb clinics, or murder doctors, or debate the idea, persuade others that they are right. The scriptures do not specifically prescribe any of those courses of action accept for being a living example of the ideas you espouse.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Every Muslim I've ever met (granted I've never been in a Muslim country, so we're talking California and Europe) has been politically moderate and open minded.
I'd note the caveat that you've also previously noted that you've never encountered someone against gay marriage below some age cutoff in the US, which you noted was a bit of a surprise when actual statistics came up.
True. I always try to make clear that my anecdotes are only my limited experiences. I invite others to tell me theirs, but they don't stand in place of other pieces of information. What I have found personally is nothing that I fear, in the same way that every Christian I have ever met has been equally non-violent. I can't say I have ever personally met an extremist of any stripe other than that of a survivalism, which seemed to be fairly a-political.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [... Even if every Muslim in the world were a member of some other religion, with totally different teachings, were they placed in a similar situation as they are in today, there would be violence.
Some violence, sure. But the same amount of violence I find doubtful.
For example, if you compare the Tibetan Buddhist situation and Xinjiang Muslim situation you find quite a significant disparity in how the two groups use (or don't use) violence despite fairly similar circumstances.
Hmm. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I'm not credulous of the idea that these people's religion is a primary factor in the expression of discontent through violence. Obviously, Xinjiang Muslims are living in a different situation from others, and I simply think that a person's living situation should be much more determinative of their political motivations, and any motivation they may have to commit acts of violence as a group.
In point of fact, the Tibetan Buddhists and the Xinjian Muslims are living in cultures that inherit very disparate circumstances. It's extremely difficult to determine whether these groups arrive in their current circumstances as a result of their religious beliefs, or as result of even slightly different histories. This gets fairly meta, but the political and social circumstances that bred the creation of these two religions continues to effect the experiences of these two groups- so in a way I'm trying to say that yes, it's simple and can be useful to peg these generalizations to religion, but in fact I think the root causes of pacifism as well as violence run deeper than any religion.
I think people believe things according to what they need to do, not that they do things according to what they believe. The obvious problem arises when, I think, people are too quick to treat belief and action as synonymous. Though there is a useful and real connection between a person's established belief system and their personal actions, the actions of large groups of people correspond to political and social/economic situations in ways that are not predicated upon their religious doctrines. One could find as much violence in the Bible as in the Koran, mainly because these works are meant to appeal to vast and evolving swaths of the world population all at once. Really, any necessity of action is provided for with ostensibly or superficially sound theological basis in virtually any religion. That is why I will continue to say that the religion of a group is not likely to long interfere with that group's own will to act in its own service.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
Huuuhh... I've never before heard a fantasy about the second coming that involves a political struggle to install Jesus Christ as President of Earth. Usually these kinds of daydreams involve people flying up into the sky and the Earth opening to swallow up legions of dark skinned people and liberals into the flames of hell.
Look, I don't mean to stomp all over you here, but the genuine reaction I have to an idea like this one, expressed in this way, is not at all different from the one I would have if you started talking about the technicalities of the Tooth Fairy's corporate finance structure. It's kind of like doing an autopsy on a cartoon character- there's nothing to look at here. It's just kind of childlike and vaguely sad.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: The idea that the entire church has ever been galvanized under a specific political effort just does not hold water. When Jesus shows up again, yes the church will insist that the entire world allow Jesus to be Lord over this planet, but it won't have to do anything as Jesus will manifest himself to the world and there will be no doubt that he ought to be in charge.
Hell no. Reminds me of a story I was reading where Heaven decided to hand over Earth to hell... Earth's response? To declare war on both, When all Hell breaks loose on Earth, all Earth breaks loose on Hell.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... but in fact I think the root causes of pacifism as well as violence run deeper than any religion.
I think people believe things according to what they need to do, not that they do things according to what they believe. ...
See, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that idea. I believe that there are ways in which religion evolves and adapts. For sure, we can see that certain churches and faiths deal with changes like scientific developments and lifestyles by adapting.
But I do believe that that there are core decisions and beliefs that are embedded in certain religions that are very difficult to change and affect how people behave.
For example, one core one is whether the religion believes whether there is an exclusive god, many gods, or even no god, and this has pretty strong influences on how well a particular religion can co-exist with others.
In a way, you can think of where I'm coming from as a nature vs. nurture debate. Of course the parallel is not perfect, even if you model religions as memes, but I think the overall point is clear. While I think nurture is important, I think nature definitely has a very big influence as well.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: I wasn't saying there's going to be a struggle to seat Jesus. I was saying the church would not have to do anything in that regard as Jesus would openly manifest himself to everybody, and it won't be a question of whether you have enough evidence anymore. It will purely be a question of whether or not you are a good or bad person.
edit: I don't know where you got the idea of dark skinned people and liberals burning in the fire. You don't have to believe that Jesus will come again, I don't expect you to. When he does I just hope the transition isn't too hard.
Further I imagine the society Jesus would be helming is in such stark contrast to how things are now that it in many ways could be called for more liberal.
But I do believe that that there are core decisions and beliefs that are embedded in certain religions that are very difficult to change and affect how people behave.
For example, one core one is whether the religion believes whether there is an exclusive god, many gods, or even no god, and this has pretty strong influences on how well a particular religion can co-exist with others.
[/QB]
The monotheistic religions sure do seem to have trouble with the whole "love thy neighbor" concept. I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard of Taoist or Hindu terrorism. I'm pretty sure I haven't. Also, I don't remember the Taoists or Hindus doing a lot of fighting of holy wars. Finally, let's remember that the Hindus got along fairly well with the Muslims until the British intentionally (and with malice aforethought) stirred up tensions between them. I put that down to Hindu tolerance and openmindedness, because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
An excellent point, Mr. Mucus.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I see what you're getting at. I think though, that obviously characterizing Islam as a religion in sum that encourages terrorism is obviously a mistake, if only because the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. And, as I did point out, extremists of every stripe engage in terrorism or other violent means of furthering their beliefs or goals.
What I still think hasn't been shown clearly is that Islamic terrorists do definitely commit acts of terror because they are Muslim, where any totally different religious group in the same circumstances would definitely *not* commit acts of terror. That to me is the important bit- otherwise we're only justifying our views of their religion after the fact, claiming as a cause, or even a mediating factor, something that can't be controlled out of the equation. Perhaps this type of hair splitting is unfair, as it is mostly unfalsifiable, but I nevertheless reserve a healthy amount of doubt. I think Islam and all its traditions *do* provide convenient justification for violence, but I think such justification exists wherever a person is desperate enough to look for it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Racism has nothing to do with religion.
And math has nothing to do with numbers.
In point of fact, racism is the justification of ethnic supremacy based upon cultural differences that are valued according to the priorities of only one culture. So, the fact that Africans or native Americans were not Christian (and in fact had no familiarity with any part of Western European or Semetic philosophy) when the Spanish and English and Dutch and French and Belgians began colonizing these areas, was seen as a justification for the subjugation of those people according to race. Their racial features were used as an identifier for otherness, and stood in place of actual knowledge of or interest in their cultures or civilizations. The fact that they did not hold the same religious beliefs as white Europeans, and the fact that they *looked different* led many to believe and to postulate that they were sub-human, and incapable of adapting to our version of the modern world.
You throw out such a statement, I think, without even considering what you yourself have been saying. Your phantasmal "Black Liberation Theology" which is of course shadily connected to Islam, is supposedly a racist theological viewpoint. There: racism and religion, like milk and coffee!
In fact, nearly every religion on Earth has a history bound up with racism and race hate. Some modern religions have blatantly racist organizing structures, and theological justifications for such racism. Trust me, it's everywhere in religion, and the two are deeply connected.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
That kind of shallow thinking is where we lead ourselves because it's easy, and readily makes sense to us. It's also useless if you actually want to try understanding people or solving real differences. I'm not trying to justify bad behavior because I don't find justice in terrorism. I also don't find justice in ethnic and cultural prejudice, which is what Mal advocates and practices.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Orincoro, where are the Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist terrorists? At some point, you have to stop justifying bad behavior and face facts. To be clear, though, I don't think Christianity has cleaner hands, looking back over the last 1200 years.
That kind of shallow thinking is where we lead ourselves because it's easy, and readily makes sense to us. It's also useless if you actually want to try understanding people or solving real differences. I'm not trying to justify bad behavior because I don't find justice in terrorism. I also don't find justice in ethnic and cultural prejudice, which is what Mal advocates and practices.
You're trying to paint all religions with one broad brush. That's not realistic. Put it this way. Let's say you work in the HR department of a major defense contractor, one that's working on a really powerful new weapon, like a shoulder-mounted nuke (just a random example). Let's say you are hiring an outside scientist to come in and work on the project. You have two applicants who are the most qualified. Both have equal test scores, credentials, experience. etc. and are, for all practical purposes, equally qualified. One is a Hindu, one is a devout Sunni Muslim. Who would you pick?
If there's even a question in your mind, then you, my friend, need to step away from the crack pipe.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven: are you serious? Like the buddhists who used Sarin gas in Tokyo subways? The Sikhs who would stop buses in Punjab, take people off, and shoot them by the side of the road, assassinated the prime minister of India, and blew up an Air India flight? (Granted, Sikhs aren't on your list, but they're a good example; these are just things that spring quickly to mind).
(edit: and I'm restricting myself to religiously-motivated terrorism. There are tons of people of those religions involved in other terrorist organizations -- the Tamil Tigers has numerous Hindu, for instance, and other terrorist organizations opposing them have often been filled with Buddhists).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: steven: are you serious? Like the buddhists who used Sarin gas in Tokyo subways? The Sikhs who would stop buses in Punjab, take people off, and shoot them by the side of the road, assassinated the prime minister of India, and blew up an Air India flight? (Granted, Sikhs aren't on your list, but they're a good example; these are just things that spring quickly to mind).
I can name more Islamic terrorism that happened in the last week than Buddhist terrorism ever. Besides, I hardly consider those Tokyo terrorists to be Buddhists at all. Here's the quote from the wiki:
"Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a composite belief system that incorporates Asahara's idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga with facets of Buddhism and Christianity, and even the writings of Nostradamus."
How shocking that the one Buddhist terrorist act that you can name comes from a Buddhist cult that includes Christian beliefs. Shocking in that "not really" way.
Also, I didn't name Sikhs for a reason. They're not a mainstream religion in the way that the others are. My point is, you can find weird little religious offshoots that are exceptions to general trends. However, we certainly couldn't say that all Christians are peace-loving and nonviolent, just because of the Quakers. Right? Same difference.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More from the wiki on the Tokyo terrorists--
"In 1992 Asahara published a book, within which he declared himself "Christ," Japan's only fully enlightened master and the "Lamb of God." His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world. Asahara said he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad Karma. He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons and rival Japanese religions. Ultimately, Asahara outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a Third World War. Asahara's final conflict would culminate in a nuclear Armageddon. Asahara even used the term "armageddon," which he took from the book of Revelation.[1] Humanity would end, except for an elite few. Those elite few meant those who joined Aum.[1] Aum's mission was not only to spread the word of "salvation," but also to survive these "End Times." Asahara predicted Armageddon would occur in 1997.[1] Asahara incessantly attacked the Jews and even the British Royal Family as principals in conspiracies. He named the United States as the Beast from the Book of Revelation predicting America would eventually attack Japan.[1]"
I think I got you on this one, fugu. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven: Look into the civil war in Sri Lanka, a land filled with a majority of Buddhists. It went on for around 25 years, and at least 80,000 people were killed. Atrocities committed by both sides match just about anything you read in any other conflict.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: steven: Look into the civil war in Sri Lanka, a land filled with a majority of Buddhists. It went on for around 25 years, and at least 80,000 people were killed. Atrocities committed by both sides match just about anything you read in any other conflict.
So was it a religious conflict, and were the atrocities done in the name of religion? No.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, there are more people in the Southern Baptist Convention than there are members of the Sikh religion. I'm begging you, give me something harder. This is too easy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Please feel free to give us some links. Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
You may not have read the paragraph that I posted twice on the previous page, so I'll post it a third time, for your edification.
"A good example (of why I need BIG proof) is that I heard an interview with a Muslim college student on NPR about posted notices by Muslim students about Muslim student gatherings on the bulletin board at his college's student union (I think it was U of Chicago, but I could be wrong). He said that the English statements on the notices were all about peace, brotherhood, etc. The Arabic translation on the same notice was all about "kill the infidel", etc. No joke, these people are crazy."
Bear in mind, the students that were writing "kill the infidel" on these posters in Arabic were not even terrorists. How much sneakier and hate-filled are the terrorists themselves? They come into this country, get jobs, work, live, etc....but they still harbor so much hate and violence, deep, deep in their hearts. Other immigrant groups are different. You don't see the Hindus/Taoists/Buddhists blowing stuff up, committing mass killings, etc.
This is just how it is. Please don't think I see Christians as having clean hands, either. Currently they behave better, but historically, it's a dead heat.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read this paragraph several times. And you are still taking one example of what some Muslim students did at one college. What do you think of the Muslim student that reported it? Of the Muslims that oppose the actions of these students? Why do you think this made the news? Because it was an extreme event. It was dealt with.
You go from "some students" and "the terrorists" and "the extremists" to "the Muslims." Why do you keep doing that?
And please, tell me: how many Muslims have you met and talked to?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
No it was not. This student related something that happened years ago, when he was in college, as an example of how the Muslim community says one thing, and promptly does another. These other students committed no crime. None of them were terrorists. They sure hated American citizens, by and large.
My point is, if the average Muslim thinks/acts like those students, how much sneakier, more hate-filled, and dangerous are the crazy ones, that actually end up doing a 9/11?
These people are not to be painted with the same broad brush as other major religions. In my humble opinion.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that many. Probably less than ten, if you only count face-to-face meetings, and don't count interactions in convenience stores.
When I see beheadings on youtube, the evening news, etc., I don't need to meet these people in person. I don't WANT to, thank you very much. They can keep their machetes to themselves.
Beheadings? Man, these people are crazy. When's the last time you heard of a Hindu beheading someone, for religion?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You see a beheading on YouTube. Performed by an extremist. An extremist, by definition, does not represent the average views of his people. I don't know anyone who wants to meet an extremist.
And these are your words:
quote:Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Your words.
There is a Muslim in my lab. He's a great guy. One of my closest friends works daily with Muslims. She works for an inter-religious non-profit. She tells me stories of how they are great Americans. They care about their community and their children. They are open and friendly and give back to the community. Go talk to one of them. You'll learn a lot, unless you stick with your arrogant ignorance.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osama bin Laden isn't part of a splinter group. He's just a Wahhabist. Nadal Hassan wasn't part of a splinter group. They're just Islamic.
You can say, "oh, it's the fault of the extremist clerics. Only some clerics are extremists." Yeah, bullshit. They day the extremist clerics start calling themselves something different than the other Muslims around, then I'll call them a "splinter group." Until then, they're just Middle Eastern Muslims to me. If they won't give me a different name to call them, I can't call them by a different name. "Extremist" is not a religious denomination, genius.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Islamic Society of North America condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others. We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families.
quote:MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence."
quote:“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Nadal Hassan was an Islamic individual of which this Islamic community "condemned in the strongest terms" or "unequivocally condemned" or "condemned in the strongest possible terms." I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Well, yeah, I'd say so--and so would you, if we were talking about Christian extremism, you double-standard holder. If Hasan's fellow Muslims had really had a problem with crazy extremism, they'd have turned him in already. The warning signs were there. His superiors said so. At least, from what I've read.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale "I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism."
You're the first person I've ever dealt with that might actually deserve the name "LefTaliban." LOL
Grow up. I work with a Muslim too. She's actually pretty hot, doesn't wear the hijab. It's possible I'd even ask her out, if I got a chance. It's not her I'm really worried about, anyway. If she has a crazy brother, unmarried, in his 20s or 30s, yeah, now HE might worry me, if he worked there.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow right back at you. Who do you think would be safer, you on vacation in Western Pakistan, or a Pashtun tribesman or Taliban fighter on vacation in your town?
That's right. Those people's idea of appropriate behavior is vastly different from both yours and mine.
What really worries me is the deception and collusion. I don't mind someone hating me and wanting me dead, relatively. It's when that person pretends to like me, workes beside me for years, then, one day, yells "Allahu Akbar" and declares it's open season on stevens, that really ticks me off. LOL
I realize that the Muslims are carried along by forces larger than themselves. There's almost no economic opportunity in their homelands, and tremendous overpopulation, and they've lived in isolation for hundreds of years, ever since the Silk Road fell into disuse.
However, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Nobody gets a free pass with me. Let's face it, everybody who's arguing with me here would be more than happy to rail on Conservative Christians for pages and pages of thread. Fine. I support that, so long as its factual railing (and you don't have to get rude to rial on them, between Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, etc., they provide people with tons of material). However, Muslims don't deserve to be a part of our technological society if all they're going to do is fly planes into buildings and shoot up unarmed soldiers, unarmed pregnant women, etc. If my Muslim co-worker were male, that'd worry me, until I felt sure I had a better understanding of him. It's not like I suspect every unmarried Muslim male in his 20s or 30s...but I'm not about to trust sane Muslims to turn in crazy ones. When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I knew that a Taliban fighter was next door, that would freak me out. If I knew that there was a Muslim living next door, that would not freak me out. If this Muslim neighbor acted secretive, seemed angry all the time, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would freak me out. But the fact that he is Muslim would not. If anyone else lived next door, acted secretive, seemed angry, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would also freak me out.
Do you think that the Muslims in this country that make up the organizations linked to above would not report terrorism if they knew of it? I'm guessing that you think that they would not, and that is what I just don't understand.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by an American Christian turning in another one? What, you never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Plenty of Christian terrorists, in fact given the demographics of the US, probably more of them (domestically) than Moslems.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm, going back and ignoring some of the emotions and stuff here.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Mucus, I see what you're getting at. I think though, that obviously characterizing Islam as a religion in sum that encourages terrorism is obviously a mistake, if only because the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Well, I'm not sure I necessarily buy that particular line of reasoning. The majority of the Aztecs probably didn't do human sacrifice, but I would be surprised if a majority actually opposed the practice.
That said, we can roughly guesstimate from the above Pew survey that a majority of Muslims do not in fact approve of say suicide bombing. However, we do have a level of support for it ("often/sometimes justified" support of roughly 8% in the US to roughly 16% in Western Europe and roughly 30% in Egypt or Jordan).
So yes, on one hand it is a mistake to characterize Islam in whole as a religion that approves of suicide bombing. But still, I'd be fairly surprised if we found anywhere near that level of support in say Tibetan Buddhism despite a much more critical situation.
quote:What I still think hasn't been shown clearly is that Islamic terrorists do definitely commit acts of terror because they are Muslim, where any totally different religious group in the same circumstances would definitely *not* commit acts of terror.
See, this is true. But in a way, I don't think there would be anyway to truly test this without a time machine and a mind writer ala Dollhouse. Otherwise, I think we could both go around and around arguing why this factor might explain why this group found terrorism a viable option or why not.
So this is why we have to settle for "close enough" and I think the histories of Xinjiang and Tibet before and after the end of the Chinese civil war are similar enough that we can draw some conclusions about how easily each group resorts to violence under pressure.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth pointing out that the West, too, has a tradition of approving people who make a last stand against overwhelming force, knowing they are going to die. The problem with suicide bombings is not the suicide, but the target. And the West has an extremely undistinguished record of deliberately targeting civilians.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone thought that "sometimes" justified could in fact be a Muslim who was thinking about a situation far different than the one they are in now? After all, there are few of us who wouldn't be willing to go to extremes if we were backed into a real corner, and we felt our very existence was at stake. It's that old philosophical problem of, "Would you kill 1 man you know to save a million you don't."
I would say that I believe it is possible, in some situation (though not any I know of at the moment), that suicide bombing could be the lesser of two evils.
Also, let us not forget, civilian targets have never actually been considered completely forbidden. In the Middle Ages entire villages were torched in order to prove a point. You may have reached the high point of avoiding civilian targets in the 17th and 18th centuries when Armies pretty much lined up on battlefields, but even then I suspect there were some civilian casualties. By the time you get to our own civil war, we're back to burning as we go, inevitably causing civilian death by starvation if nothing else. Once we got aircraft, it became standard procedure to bomb large cities of the enemy, long before there could be any serious attempt at pinpointing specific military targets. At the same time, submarines were sinking any and all "enemy" ships, including passenger liners. And of course, we can't forget the biggest of them all, our nuclear bombs!
Even today, we can't say we go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. We partner ourselves with Israel who seems determined to continue to live by "an eye for an eye". We've caused, by most eyewitness accounts I've heard, an under reported number of civilian deaths in Iraq (though still probably less than Saddam would have caused by now). I'm listening to "We Were One" (an audio book about US troops in Falusia), and there is a story about an allied Humvee that callously drove through a persons yard and killed someone, and never even looked back. Another one of the soldiers saw it, and did the best he could to make up for it, but nevertheless, nothing was officially done.
While I would not say I'm "for" suicide bombing, it's hard for me to really say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is NEVER a time or place for it. After all, we, as US citizens seem to be able to turn our heads away from the civilian casualties we cause, so long as we think it's for "the greater good".
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
