plazul wrote: I never thought I could say such a thing, but maybe the war against terrorism should really be a war against religion.
i hope that's just a poorly phrased thought. i'm hoping you mean that it appears that the war on terrorism may really be a war against religion - not that you are suggesting that it should be a war against religion.
Should We Blame Islam?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Should We Blame Islam?
You cannot base today's actions on mankind's misdeeds in the distant past. I do not remember the last time I saw a elementary school curriculum that included lessons on hating Islamists and memorizing passages out of the Bible that encouraged the killing of Muslims. Have you? I am unfamiliar with any Christian catechisms that glorify death more than life. I am not aware of any teachings of "obligation and faith" that requires its believers to turn their society/state/nation into the Christian faith by any means necessary.
This is 2004, not the 1400's. The Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades. Don't lump me in with them.
plazul wrote: Today the editor of the Washingtom Times issued a mild admonishment to President Bush for calling Islam, "a religion of peace." He said before we do that Islam must, "look and sound like a religion of peace."
Looking back on the violent history of Christianity might be helpful in gaining some perspective on what's happening to Islam. It would be easy to characterize the Christian Crusaders and the Conqistators as terrorists and the Spanish Inquisition under the Spanish crown was truly a reign of terror for heretics and Jews. Indeed, there are many other historical examples of what could be described as Christian terrorism but most Christians believe that the foundation of their their faith is peace and love.
Christianity and Islam are both "religions of peace" that provide a moral justification for violence and "just war." And as I see it, the root of all terrorism is the tension between Islam and Christianity and nationalism is just the catalyst for that tension to explode into a cultural war that will divide the world for the rest of this century.
I never thought I could say such a thing, but maybe the war against terrorism should really be a war against religion.
This is 2004, not the 1400's. The Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades. Don't lump me in with them.
plazul wrote: Today the editor of the Washingtom Times issued a mild admonishment to President Bush for calling Islam, "a religion of peace." He said before we do that Islam must, "look and sound like a religion of peace."
Looking back on the violent history of Christianity might be helpful in gaining some perspective on what's happening to Islam. It would be easy to characterize the Christian Crusaders and the Conqistators as terrorists and the Spanish Inquisition under the Spanish crown was truly a reign of terror for heretics and Jews. Indeed, there are many other historical examples of what could be described as Christian terrorism but most Christians believe that the foundation of their their faith is peace and love.
Christianity and Islam are both "religions of peace" that provide a moral justification for violence and "just war." And as I see it, the root of all terrorism is the tension between Islam and Christianity and nationalism is just the catalyst for that tension to explode into a cultural war that will divide the world for the rest of this century.
I never thought I could say such a thing, but maybe the war against terrorism should really be a war against religion.
Should We Blame Islam?
plazul wrote: I didn't lump you into anything but I reserve the right to do so if I choose. I minored in religious studies in college buddy and I know a little bit about history too so if you want to take me on on the subject of Christian superiority, make my day.
Make your day? I'm taking this as a joke, right? Minored in Religious Studies in college? Were you the guy back with his hand up all the time? Did you get an A+ on your "The Judeo-Christian Tradition Is Evil" paper? Were you impressed that you got to sample all the religions of the world? I'll be impressed when you can show me a Masters of Divinity Degree. Until then, you have much less formal training than I do.
If you're too thick to get the editorial spin of my remarks tough. Why don't you ask our Irish friends what's been happening over there thanks to sectarian politics.
You've made my point. That is a political conflict.
As far as I'm concerned the rabid religious right in this country is just slightly more civilized than the Taliban and they are very busy orchestrating their own holy propaganda war against Islam.
Are you denying what I said in the post above? Do you understand what is being taught in the Muslim schools? Have you ever read the Qur'an?
Like I said, nothing brings out the devil in people like religious tensions. "Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades." Bilge. Muslims were charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature, to name a few things, when your ignorant, uneducated, and superstitious ancestors were living like animals, and with animals, in filthy mud huts. See the thread on the 1500s for a look at how they lived.
You've made my point again. WHAT have the Muslims contributed to society since 1100 A.D.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Why is that? What happened to their short lived "Age or Reason?" I'll let you think about that. Could it have been the rise of Islam as we know it today? I don't consider that evolution. They are stuck in their practices from the 12th Century. To pass off their archaic social and religious beliefs as completely normal is ridiculous. To treat women and children as they do is barbaric. To argue that we are the evil ones is ridiculous. To even mention that we are only slightly more civilized than the Taliban tells me you are reacting rather than thinking.
Make your day? I'm taking this as a joke, right? Minored in Religious Studies in college? Were you the guy back with his hand up all the time? Did you get an A+ on your "The Judeo-Christian Tradition Is Evil" paper? Were you impressed that you got to sample all the religions of the world? I'll be impressed when you can show me a Masters of Divinity Degree. Until then, you have much less formal training than I do.
If you're too thick to get the editorial spin of my remarks tough. Why don't you ask our Irish friends what's been happening over there thanks to sectarian politics.
You've made my point. That is a political conflict.
As far as I'm concerned the rabid religious right in this country is just slightly more civilized than the Taliban and they are very busy orchestrating their own holy propaganda war against Islam.
Are you denying what I said in the post above? Do you understand what is being taught in the Muslim schools? Have you ever read the Qur'an?
Like I said, nothing brings out the devil in people like religious tensions. "Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades." Bilge. Muslims were charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature, to name a few things, when your ignorant, uneducated, and superstitious ancestors were living like animals, and with animals, in filthy mud huts. See the thread on the 1500s for a look at how they lived.
You've made my point again. WHAT have the Muslims contributed to society since 1100 A.D.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Why is that? What happened to their short lived "Age or Reason?" I'll let you think about that. Could it have been the rise of Islam as we know it today? I don't consider that evolution. They are stuck in their practices from the 12th Century. To pass off their archaic social and religious beliefs as completely normal is ridiculous. To treat women and children as they do is barbaric. To argue that we are the evil ones is ridiculous. To even mention that we are only slightly more civilized than the Taliban tells me you are reacting rather than thinking.
Should We Blame Islam?
Welcome to our discussion! 
I'm curious about your comment about Mormonism. Why do you feel that way?
Lunaverde wrote: It seems to me both Christianity and Islam have proved themselves over the centuries to be religions of violence, far more than religions of peace. What concerns me is why these religions, particularly the violent, arrogant, aggressive aspects, appeal to so many people? This is a real problem the world needs to address. Do we blame the religions, or do we blame the violent followers?
Naturally, there are many many Christians and Islamics who are not violent or arrogant or abusive. However, it drives me crazy to hear decent Christians (um, I actually don't know any Moslims at present, so I can't comment there) ignore or brush off the serious problems their religion has caused. If one points out the brutalities of the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or Ireland, a good Christian nearly always will say, with horror, "Those weren't REAL Christians!" And that's the end of the discussion. Problem is, they were and are REAL Christians and REAL Moslims who committed and continue to commit atrocities in the name of their religions. This problem needs to be addressed by all decent, non-violent Moslims and Christians. Both the Bible and the Koran are full of exhortations to violence. It does humanity no good at all to simply dismiss these obvious difficulties and to keep on denying and ignoring them.
Again, is it religion itself which is the problem, or some tendency in certain people? Mormonism is another religion that tends to be very violent. What is going on here, and what can we do about it? Religion is clearly here to stay, so how can we channel that tendency towards violence into something less harmful?
I'm curious about your comment about Mormonism. Why do you feel that way?
Lunaverde wrote: It seems to me both Christianity and Islam have proved themselves over the centuries to be religions of violence, far more than religions of peace. What concerns me is why these religions, particularly the violent, arrogant, aggressive aspects, appeal to so many people? This is a real problem the world needs to address. Do we blame the religions, or do we blame the violent followers?
Naturally, there are many many Christians and Islamics who are not violent or arrogant or abusive. However, it drives me crazy to hear decent Christians (um, I actually don't know any Moslims at present, so I can't comment there) ignore or brush off the serious problems their religion has caused. If one points out the brutalities of the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or Ireland, a good Christian nearly always will say, with horror, "Those weren't REAL Christians!" And that's the end of the discussion. Problem is, they were and are REAL Christians and REAL Moslims who committed and continue to commit atrocities in the name of their religions. This problem needs to be addressed by all decent, non-violent Moslims and Christians. Both the Bible and the Koran are full of exhortations to violence. It does humanity no good at all to simply dismiss these obvious difficulties and to keep on denying and ignoring them.
Again, is it religion itself which is the problem, or some tendency in certain people? Mormonism is another religion that tends to be very violent. What is going on here, and what can we do about it? Religion is clearly here to stay, so how can we channel that tendency towards violence into something less harmful?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
plazul wrote: I know a little bit about history too
very little, apparently.
Like I said, nothing brings out the devil in people like religious tensions. "Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades." Bilge. Muslims were charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature, to name a few things, when your ignorant, uneducated, and superstitious ancestors were living like animals, and with animals, in filthy mud huts. See the thread on the 1500s for a look at how they lived.um. first off, the thread on the 1500's has already been shown to be poppycock. that post of how life was is internet myth. so, strike one.
secondly, your grasp of history is deeply flawed. you are conflating 'peoples of the middle and near east' with 'muslims', which is ridiculous in the extreme. Islam did not even exist before 550 A.D. The chaldean babylonians, the assyrians, and the persians were the ones charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature - in 600 B.C.
so you were only off by a thousand years or so. no big deal. sheesh.
very little, apparently.
Like I said, nothing brings out the devil in people like religious tensions. "Muslim leaders are the ones who have not evolved since the days of the Crusades." Bilge. Muslims were charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature, to name a few things, when your ignorant, uneducated, and superstitious ancestors were living like animals, and with animals, in filthy mud huts. See the thread on the 1500s for a look at how they lived.um. first off, the thread on the 1500's has already been shown to be poppycock. that post of how life was is internet myth. so, strike one.
secondly, your grasp of history is deeply flawed. you are conflating 'peoples of the middle and near east' with 'muslims', which is ridiculous in the extreme. Islam did not even exist before 550 A.D. The chaldean babylonians, the assyrians, and the persians were the ones charting the stars, doing advanced mathematics, creating magnificent buildings, and writing great literature - in 600 B.C.
so you were only off by a thousand years or so. no big deal. sheesh.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
Lunaverde wrote: You just don't find Buddhists killing each other or killing their neighbors throughout the centuries
of course, one of the fundamental precepts of buddhism is, 'if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him'.
:yahoo_big
of course, one of the fundamental precepts of buddhism is, 'if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him'.
:yahoo_big
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
plazul wrote: Masters of Divinity Degree, huh? Jerry Falwell has one and a PHD and I think his pal Pat Robertson also has a graduate degree. Are they friends of yours? You seem to have much in common. At least I had the good sense to be a CPA and leave the religiosity to pompous preachers of hate like you and your ilk. I did the minor in RS because I was flogged with Christian guilt every Sunday by a psychotic Christian pastor and I wanted to understand the mindset of the Christian theologian, never mind comparative religion. Which goes to your question about Muslim contributions after 1100. Ever heard of the Moors and a little Spanish town called Cordoba? They were there from 800 AD through 1600 AD and created one of the most brilliant societies in Europe. At least that's what I Googled up. There was too much material on Arab contributions to civilization to choose from. Pick your own gems if you like.
But every civilization has its dark and shining ages. Anyway, if my post seemed strident (make my day) it's because your bigoted remark about Muslims sort of set me off and reminded me of the bilge about Islam that they spew on the Christian Broadcasting network. Lots of Masters of Divinity types over there.
So, if you want to use your graduate degree to take the moral high ground, go for it.
BTW, what was the title of your thesis? I'm thinking something like, Understanding the Christian Libido.
it's odd. you talk about all the hate spewed by U, V, W, X, Y and Z, yet your own post positively overflows with hostility, anger, and hatred.
But every civilization has its dark and shining ages. Anyway, if my post seemed strident (make my day) it's because your bigoted remark about Muslims sort of set me off and reminded me of the bilge about Islam that they spew on the Christian Broadcasting network. Lots of Masters of Divinity types over there.
So, if you want to use your graduate degree to take the moral high ground, go for it.
BTW, what was the title of your thesis? I'm thinking something like, Understanding the Christian Libido.
it's odd. you talk about all the hate spewed by U, V, W, X, Y and Z, yet your own post positively overflows with hostility, anger, and hatred.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
plazul wrote: So you're saying that the Moors didn't do any of the things I mentioned? Do you think Arabs just stopped thinking with the advent of Islam? Yes, it's true that the ancient Arabs were scientific pioneers, nice of you to acknowledge that, but I think you latched onto *astronomy* and jumped to a Google conclusion about my point.
actually, i didn't google my conclusion. as i mentioned in another thread, i'm in the middle of reading a textbook of the history of the world. so rather, i paged to a conclusion.
but this is beside the point. what you said, as a matter of rhetoric and construct was, 'the muslims were doing great things while [an unspecified person's] ancestors were merely unsophisticated peasants'. for the moment, i'll leave your reference to 'arabs' aside.
that construct suggests that the muslims had a superior civilization to [whomever] at the same time. but that's just absurd. great civilizations have come and gone, while entire civilizations have lived 'like animals, with animals' - often, within the same civilization at the same time. the Moors were great. but that's not enough to make that argument.
or am i mistaken that there are still great numbers of nomads and tribal peoples throughout arabia and the middle east, who don't even have a 'mud hut' - right now, in 2004, while we're here typing on small plastic chiclets and looking at pixels. so, there were peasants in england at the same time as islam was flourishing. so freaking what? now, muslims are beheading people, and we're clucking our tongues a half a world away - discoursing with people from all over the world at the speed of light.
In my second post I did make a distinction between the Moors and "Arab contributions" to civilization because most people think Muslim is synonymous with Arab and I think our friend's remark was directed at Arabs as much as Muslims in general. Maybe the transition wasn't perfect but the meaning was clear.
strangely, the only person who has mentioned arabs synonymously with muslims in this thread has been you. oh well.
As far as the 1500 thing goes, I didn't talk about the sayings because that is probably apochryphal but if you don't think unwashed European peasants were living in mud huts in the 1500s I'm not going to get in a Google contest with you. Oy.
QED.
You know, all I did was think out loud about the problems religion has caused and it immediately got turned into a hate debate about Islam. I thought my remark about declaring war on religion would be seen as editorial, not a call to arms. I didn't even use the word, Republican. Anyway, I'm sorry but bigotry rubs me the wrong way and I get a little pissy when people cop bigoted attitudes.
the funny thing is, the only bigotry i've read has been coming from you - against all things 'right wing', 'christian', etc.
You know Paul, you've been trying to goad me ever since I showed up and it's wearing on me. Maybe that's why I'm more touchy lately and making posts like this thread.
oddly enough, i feel the same way. i've felt you've been trying to goad me!
we disagree on some fundamental issues. we also have a pretty solid base of agreement in many areas. i apologize if my rhetoric has gotten heated, as i know it has at times - that's precisely that effect of feeling attacked, or not listened to, or dismissed. so i'll try to ratchet back and keep a goddamned civil tongue about me, or something like that. :yahoo_clo
actually, i didn't google my conclusion. as i mentioned in another thread, i'm in the middle of reading a textbook of the history of the world. so rather, i paged to a conclusion.
but this is beside the point. what you said, as a matter of rhetoric and construct was, 'the muslims were doing great things while [an unspecified person's] ancestors were merely unsophisticated peasants'. for the moment, i'll leave your reference to 'arabs' aside.
that construct suggests that the muslims had a superior civilization to [whomever] at the same time. but that's just absurd. great civilizations have come and gone, while entire civilizations have lived 'like animals, with animals' - often, within the same civilization at the same time. the Moors were great. but that's not enough to make that argument.
or am i mistaken that there are still great numbers of nomads and tribal peoples throughout arabia and the middle east, who don't even have a 'mud hut' - right now, in 2004, while we're here typing on small plastic chiclets and looking at pixels. so, there were peasants in england at the same time as islam was flourishing. so freaking what? now, muslims are beheading people, and we're clucking our tongues a half a world away - discoursing with people from all over the world at the speed of light.
In my second post I did make a distinction between the Moors and "Arab contributions" to civilization because most people think Muslim is synonymous with Arab and I think our friend's remark was directed at Arabs as much as Muslims in general. Maybe the transition wasn't perfect but the meaning was clear.
strangely, the only person who has mentioned arabs synonymously with muslims in this thread has been you. oh well.
As far as the 1500 thing goes, I didn't talk about the sayings because that is probably apochryphal but if you don't think unwashed European peasants were living in mud huts in the 1500s I'm not going to get in a Google contest with you. Oy.
QED.
You know, all I did was think out loud about the problems religion has caused and it immediately got turned into a hate debate about Islam. I thought my remark about declaring war on religion would be seen as editorial, not a call to arms. I didn't even use the word, Republican. Anyway, I'm sorry but bigotry rubs me the wrong way and I get a little pissy when people cop bigoted attitudes.
the funny thing is, the only bigotry i've read has been coming from you - against all things 'right wing', 'christian', etc.
You know Paul, you've been trying to goad me ever since I showed up and it's wearing on me. Maybe that's why I'm more touchy lately and making posts like this thread.
oddly enough, i feel the same way. i've felt you've been trying to goad me!
we disagree on some fundamental issues. we also have a pretty solid base of agreement in many areas. i apologize if my rhetoric has gotten heated, as i know it has at times - that's precisely that effect of feeling attacked, or not listened to, or dismissed. so i'll try to ratchet back and keep a goddamned civil tongue about me, or something like that. :yahoo_clo
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Should We Blame Islam?
Quite the interesting response. You were the one touting your superior knowledge of the subject matter. If you already forgot, you were taunting me to make your day. Now you are bringing Jerry Falwell into this? So you equate everyone with religious degrees to these fellows? But, it was o.k. to tell the world about your religious studies in college? What makes you different?
Oh, you are a CPA. Wasn't Ted Bundy a CPA? Son of Sam? Didn't a CPA shoot up an abortion clinic? Your comparisons are weak.
Now you are accusing me of being a pompous preacher? I think you need to read your own posts.
I am amazed at the amount of energy you spend defending the indefensible. I will point out in my obvious pompous, hateful, and self-preaching manner that there is right and wrong in this world. Some of us have a compass on which to base this. Others, like yourself, are obviously still trying to find their way.
plazul wrote: Masters of Divinity Degree, huh? Jerry Falwell has one and a PHD and I think his pal Pat Robertson also has a graduate degree. Are they friends of yours? You seem to have much in common. At least I had the good sense to be a CPA and leave the religiosity to pompous preachers of hate like you and your ilk. I did the minor in RS because I was flogged with Christian guilt every Sunday by a psychotic Christian pastor and I wanted to understand the mindset of the Christian theologian, never mind comparative religion. Which goes to your question about Muslim contributions after 1100. Ever heard of the Moors and a little Spanish town called Cordoba? They were there from 800 AD through 1600 AD and created one of the most brilliant societies in Europe. At least that's what I Googled up. There was too much material on Arab contributions to civilization to choose from. Pick your own gems if you like.
But every civilization has its dark and shining ages. Anyway, if my post seemed strident (make my day) it's because your bigoted remark about Muslims sort of set me off and reminded me of the bilge about Islam that they spew on the Christian Broadcasting network. Lots of Masters of Divinity types over there.
So, if you want to use your graduate degree to take the moral high ground, go for it.
BTW, what was the title of your thesis? I'm thinking something like, Understanding the Christian Libido.
Oh, you are a CPA. Wasn't Ted Bundy a CPA? Son of Sam? Didn't a CPA shoot up an abortion clinic? Your comparisons are weak.
Now you are accusing me of being a pompous preacher? I think you need to read your own posts.
I am amazed at the amount of energy you spend defending the indefensible. I will point out in my obvious pompous, hateful, and self-preaching manner that there is right and wrong in this world. Some of us have a compass on which to base this. Others, like yourself, are obviously still trying to find their way.
plazul wrote: Masters of Divinity Degree, huh? Jerry Falwell has one and a PHD and I think his pal Pat Robertson also has a graduate degree. Are they friends of yours? You seem to have much in common. At least I had the good sense to be a CPA and leave the religiosity to pompous preachers of hate like you and your ilk. I did the minor in RS because I was flogged with Christian guilt every Sunday by a psychotic Christian pastor and I wanted to understand the mindset of the Christian theologian, never mind comparative religion. Which goes to your question about Muslim contributions after 1100. Ever heard of the Moors and a little Spanish town called Cordoba? They were there from 800 AD through 1600 AD and created one of the most brilliant societies in Europe. At least that's what I Googled up. There was too much material on Arab contributions to civilization to choose from. Pick your own gems if you like.
But every civilization has its dark and shining ages. Anyway, if my post seemed strident (make my day) it's because your bigoted remark about Muslims sort of set me off and reminded me of the bilge about Islam that they spew on the Christian Broadcasting network. Lots of Masters of Divinity types over there.
So, if you want to use your graduate degree to take the moral high ground, go for it.
BTW, what was the title of your thesis? I'm thinking something like, Understanding the Christian Libido.
Should We Blame Islam?
Holy ****-balls! i can't believe i read through that entire argument just to stay with what's goin on. "oy" :rolleyes:
To stick to the thread topic- Plazul, i see your point well and clearly......though, apparently you're sucsinct knowledge on history is foggy and you let yourself get over-heated......i'm still goin to side with you, for i see the bigger picture you're gettin at.
Not long ago, i read about 95% of the material on the "vatican assassins and the forbidden knowledge" websites. Wether the information hosted there is credible, i know not.......but i did believe it to form logic and it shares Plazul's ideology about Religion being the cause of war.
I'm only 21.....I've been educated in a system that was shoddy and vague at best, and i've limited resources of credible information to educate me on the historic events that have partaken , of which have led us to the state of affairs, within which we all find ourselves residing.
In my new-found hunger to understand where my life is goin, what is ahead of me, and more importantly what in the past has manipulated the future, i've tried to attain information. The teachings of which i've stumbled across have shared the same truths (?) as what plazul professes.
Personally, i think they're credible.
I don't know whether to start to think of myself as a bit of a "kook"....but when i see Bush in power, bush and his buddies preachin the christian word, american money with the words "in god we trust" on it, masonry followings of all members of high bus./govt./military. levels and a huge conflict between two religious ideoligies.......well, i think you can see how i'd feel religion fuels a great part of it.
I'm sure you can put wars down to two things that are one and the same and those are "greed and power". You might argue that the church professes the exercise of thrift and is anti-avarice in it's preachings.......but on the flip side, the vatican's a pretty wealthy god-damned place, don'tchya think?
To stick to the thread topic- Plazul, i see your point well and clearly......though, apparently you're sucsinct knowledge on history is foggy and you let yourself get over-heated......i'm still goin to side with you, for i see the bigger picture you're gettin at.
Not long ago, i read about 95% of the material on the "vatican assassins and the forbidden knowledge" websites. Wether the information hosted there is credible, i know not.......but i did believe it to form logic and it shares Plazul's ideology about Religion being the cause of war.
I'm only 21.....I've been educated in a system that was shoddy and vague at best, and i've limited resources of credible information to educate me on the historic events that have partaken , of which have led us to the state of affairs, within which we all find ourselves residing.
In my new-found hunger to understand where my life is goin, what is ahead of me, and more importantly what in the past has manipulated the future, i've tried to attain information. The teachings of which i've stumbled across have shared the same truths (?) as what plazul professes.
Personally, i think they're credible.
I don't know whether to start to think of myself as a bit of a "kook"....but when i see Bush in power, bush and his buddies preachin the christian word, american money with the words "in god we trust" on it, masonry followings of all members of high bus./govt./military. levels and a huge conflict between two religious ideoligies.......well, i think you can see how i'd feel religion fuels a great part of it.
I'm sure you can put wars down to two things that are one and the same and those are "greed and power". You might argue that the church professes the exercise of thrift and is anti-avarice in it's preachings.......but on the flip side, the vatican's a pretty wealthy god-damned place, don'tchya think?
Action Cures Fear.
"Hi. Nice to meet you...I'm "Mr. Everything's a conspiracy theory". "
"Hi. Nice to meet you...I'm "Mr. Everything's a conspiracy theory". "
Should We Blame Islam?
btw- take some time to sit down and think about how much real estate...and PRIME real estate at that, of which churches occupy.
Take into consideration the quality of architecture they boast......the choice location they offer........i'm sure you can come up with your own thoughts
For such a humble practice, it's sure kept up better then the jonses'
Take into consideration the quality of architecture they boast......the choice location they offer........i'm sure you can come up with your own thoughts
For such a humble practice, it's sure kept up better then the jonses'
Action Cures Fear.
"Hi. Nice to meet you...I'm "Mr. Everything's a conspiracy theory". "
"Hi. Nice to meet you...I'm "Mr. Everything's a conspiracy theory". "
Should We Blame Islam?
Both religons were religons of peace and love, both were hijacked by later schisms among the early leaders, they staretd arguing about what each meant, the christians fell out over whether you had to became a jew (and more besides) and be circumcised before you became a christian. Paul was a roman who found the practice distasteful, he won the arguement, perhaps if he hadn't christianity would never have taken off, on little things does the world change. It was the same with Islam, in the years after his death they started fighting about what he meant. The protestant reformation was as much abouit who ruled as it was about religon.
Both use the early jewish writings as a basis for fundamamtalism choosing to believe the words are the words of god and picking the bits they need to confirm their own beliefs.
Personally I think it is a chronicle if a primitive people living in a tough environment where death was arbitrary. hence the demanding god of the old testament. Archeology makes sense of a lot of the events described that were once thought to be made up stories-the flood etc, parting of the red sea. But the word of God?
you either believe it or not.
If you look at the history of the crusades the islamists at the beginning were a great deal tolerant than their contemporary christians, the early crusade was more about power politics in europe wrapped up in religious idealism and a desire for plunder. We learned a great deal from them but since they were trading with the far east maybe they learned from the chinese or India? the hebrew idea of hell looks remarkably like the greek idea of the underworld. Classical greeks incidentally seem to have been fair haired, not quite the way you think of them now
The world is a great deal more interconnected than people realise and peoples did not live in isolation. There is great good and great badness on both sides. ( I would say evil but describing something as evil is a way of not thinking about why a thing or people is the way it is)
The biggest problem if fundamentalism on both sides, most people just want to live in peace. When hate takes over rationality goes out the window and if we are not careful we are going to have a religious war every bit as bad as any from the middle ages. What is different is that this time it wont be in a far away country and both sides possesss the capacity to make and use of WMD's.
It's easier to demonise someone than it is to try and live with them and appreciate their value as fellow humans. It doesn't matter whether it is religon, race or politics.
As to Plazul's original point, it;s not so much a war against religon as against bigotry of any kind. The best weapon is education and teaching people to think for themselves. If I use the evolution over creation debate, teach both and let people decide for themselves. Anyone that wants to dictate what is taught in schools should be watched very carefukky, if you can control education and what is taught you can control the way people think. That's why seperate religious schools are IMO a very bad thing. You have to teach children to hate someone because of their religon or colour at 5 or 6 things are just interesting because they are different.
What is says to me is that some religions need to be watched carefully, as they tend toward violence. Blame it on the religion itself, or on the followers? -- I'm not sure. Much more research is clearly required.
Not just some all, especially those which teach theirs is the only way. Both Islam and Christianlty preach tolerance of others. There is no qualification tolerate and be respectful of others. What happened and why did such perversions gain such sway.
I live in an area where sectarianism is rife, christian hating christian and fighting an old battle over and over with those involved not really knowing why.they do it
Look at your posts, you are beginning to squabble over who knows most. we can all learn from each other.
As you sit there and do your calculations with arabic numerals and write your posts in roman letters using a derivative of an obscure anglo saxon dialect in turn derived from two germanic tribes that invaded an island off the shores of europe thirteen hundred years ago just remember the world is not simply christian against muslim or black against white.
I am bigoted against bigots, especially rational ones they are the most frightening because they are thebmost persuasive.
Both use the early jewish writings as a basis for fundamamtalism choosing to believe the words are the words of god and picking the bits they need to confirm their own beliefs.
Personally I think it is a chronicle if a primitive people living in a tough environment where death was arbitrary. hence the demanding god of the old testament. Archeology makes sense of a lot of the events described that were once thought to be made up stories-the flood etc, parting of the red sea. But the word of God?
you either believe it or not.
If you look at the history of the crusades the islamists at the beginning were a great deal tolerant than their contemporary christians, the early crusade was more about power politics in europe wrapped up in religious idealism and a desire for plunder. We learned a great deal from them but since they were trading with the far east maybe they learned from the chinese or India? the hebrew idea of hell looks remarkably like the greek idea of the underworld. Classical greeks incidentally seem to have been fair haired, not quite the way you think of them now
The world is a great deal more interconnected than people realise and peoples did not live in isolation. There is great good and great badness on both sides. ( I would say evil but describing something as evil is a way of not thinking about why a thing or people is the way it is)
The biggest problem if fundamentalism on both sides, most people just want to live in peace. When hate takes over rationality goes out the window and if we are not careful we are going to have a religious war every bit as bad as any from the middle ages. What is different is that this time it wont be in a far away country and both sides possesss the capacity to make and use of WMD's.
It's easier to demonise someone than it is to try and live with them and appreciate their value as fellow humans. It doesn't matter whether it is religon, race or politics.
As to Plazul's original point, it;s not so much a war against religon as against bigotry of any kind. The best weapon is education and teaching people to think for themselves. If I use the evolution over creation debate, teach both and let people decide for themselves. Anyone that wants to dictate what is taught in schools should be watched very carefukky, if you can control education and what is taught you can control the way people think. That's why seperate religious schools are IMO a very bad thing. You have to teach children to hate someone because of their religon or colour at 5 or 6 things are just interesting because they are different.
What is says to me is that some religions need to be watched carefully, as they tend toward violence. Blame it on the religion itself, or on the followers? -- I'm not sure. Much more research is clearly required.
Not just some all, especially those which teach theirs is the only way. Both Islam and Christianlty preach tolerance of others. There is no qualification tolerate and be respectful of others. What happened and why did such perversions gain such sway.
I live in an area where sectarianism is rife, christian hating christian and fighting an old battle over and over with those involved not really knowing why.they do it
Look at your posts, you are beginning to squabble over who knows most. we can all learn from each other.
As you sit there and do your calculations with arabic numerals and write your posts in roman letters using a derivative of an obscure anglo saxon dialect in turn derived from two germanic tribes that invaded an island off the shores of europe thirteen hundred years ago just remember the world is not simply christian against muslim or black against white.
I am bigoted against bigots, especially rational ones they are the most frightening because they are thebmost persuasive.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
undefined
It will be incorrect to blame any religion for terrorism, but the circumstances force us to blame Islam for this problem. Followers of Islam say that Islam is a religion of peace, but muslim clerics have limited this peace to four walls of Islam. They have interpreted it as applicable to believers and non-belivers, the two types of people living in this world. Peace is only for muslims, the believers in Islam. Muslim clerics have only hate for non-muslims, the non-believers in Islam.
Another misinterpretation of Islamic teachings by muslim clerics relates to areas ruled by muslims and areas ruled by non-muslims. As per clerics, it is the primary duty of every muslim to fight to convert non-muslim ruled areas to muslim ruled areas. This is what is called Jehad.
It is unfortunate that a large section of muslim population all over the worls is under the influence of these clerics. Islamic jehad is seen in all parts of the world. It has polarised the world into two groups, one - muslims fighting for jehad, and two - non-muslims against whom jehad has been launched. Under these circumtances, it would be ignoring the naked reality to say that Islam is a religion of peace. Afterall, a religion is to be judged not only by its principles but by the way these principles are practiced.
It will be incorrect to blame any religion for terrorism, but the circumstances force us to blame Islam for this problem. Followers of Islam say that Islam is a religion of peace, but muslim clerics have limited this peace to four walls of Islam. They have interpreted it as applicable to believers and non-belivers, the two types of people living in this world. Peace is only for muslims, the believers in Islam. Muslim clerics have only hate for non-muslims, the non-believers in Islam.
Another misinterpretation of Islamic teachings by muslim clerics relates to areas ruled by muslims and areas ruled by non-muslims. As per clerics, it is the primary duty of every muslim to fight to convert non-muslim ruled areas to muslim ruled areas. This is what is called Jehad.
It is unfortunate that a large section of muslim population all over the worls is under the influence of these clerics. Islamic jehad is seen in all parts of the world. It has polarised the world into two groups, one - muslims fighting for jehad, and two - non-muslims against whom jehad has been launched. Under these circumtances, it would be ignoring the naked reality to say that Islam is a religion of peace. Afterall, a religion is to be judged not only by its principles but by the way these principles are practiced.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
anastrophe wrote: The war on terrorism may really be a war against religion or it should be a war against religion.
What difference it makes whether war against terrorism 'may be' or 'should be' a war against religion. Terrorism is known to muslims as Islamic Jehad - the holy war against non-believers in Islam. Terrorism will stop only when the last non-muslim is dead. The earlier the world understand it the better it would be for human mankind.
What difference it makes whether war against terrorism 'may be' or 'should be' a war against religion. Terrorism is known to muslims as Islamic Jehad - the holy war against non-believers in Islam. Terrorism will stop only when the last non-muslim is dead. The earlier the world understand it the better it would be for human mankind.
Should We Blame Islam?
What difference it makes whether war against terrorism 'may be' or 'should be' a war against religion. Terrorism is known to muslims as Islamic Jehad - the holy war against non-believers in Islam. Terrorism will stop only when the last non-muslim is dead. The earlier the world understand it the better it would be for human mankind.
Hey guys stand back and take a look at what has led up to the present war on terror and what led to people feeling terrorists attacks and suicide bombing was all they had left. Demonising or calling something or calling it evil is a way of not thinking about it.
If Christians and Muslims want to fight a holy war let them just don't get suckered in. This is not the middle ages.
If you want to fight terrorism you need to understand that conventional warfare does not work, it is just not that simple. whether it is ireland nicaragua or the middle east. If you go about it the wrong way all you do is throw petrol on the fire.
When someone says to you we need to go to war on terror and attack this or that country because they have WMD's maybe you should wonder why they have them, who helped them to make them and why are they now a threat to us. Most especially who wins at the end of the day? Sooner or later you end up talking to terrorists whether it was the IRA The ANC and Nelson Mandela.
There's a thing- at about the same time Saddam was being helped in his war against Iran and fundamentalist islam in Iran. Nelson Mandela was still being condemned as a terrorist. Ironic or what?
What is it that people need to have someone to tell them what to believe and who they should follow?
People go on about judeo christian religons. personally I think you could put a good case that our style of democracy owes a great deal to celtic, pagan anglo saxon beliefs as much as to judeo christians. Early celtic The early pagans tolerated christianlty as just anothjer religon. Early kings were proclaimed they were not hereditary that only came later. The viking althing was open to everybody even women. Christ was the selfish god he wanted none other but him an alien concept perhaps and his followers take it to extremes and make war on those who don't believe. We have an egalitarian streak in our culture that just isn't there in the middle east and i don't think it necessarily comes from christianity.
If you look at the behaviour of the muslims before and during the crusades it was a lot more tolerant and fairer than the christian crusaders. As to why they contributed nothing since the middle ages you could argue that they lost out in the cultural war to europeans who had better resources and a more aggressive nature and inclination to use them. If we go to war it tends to be a fight to the finish one way or the other. That's why we ended up with empires we are not peaceful people but the most aggressive on the planet.
Rather than a war against religon then it also be a war against bigotry, ignorance and intolerance.
Hey guys stand back and take a look at what has led up to the present war on terror and what led to people feeling terrorists attacks and suicide bombing was all they had left. Demonising or calling something or calling it evil is a way of not thinking about it.
If Christians and Muslims want to fight a holy war let them just don't get suckered in. This is not the middle ages.
If you want to fight terrorism you need to understand that conventional warfare does not work, it is just not that simple. whether it is ireland nicaragua or the middle east. If you go about it the wrong way all you do is throw petrol on the fire.
When someone says to you we need to go to war on terror and attack this or that country because they have WMD's maybe you should wonder why they have them, who helped them to make them and why are they now a threat to us. Most especially who wins at the end of the day? Sooner or later you end up talking to terrorists whether it was the IRA The ANC and Nelson Mandela.
There's a thing- at about the same time Saddam was being helped in his war against Iran and fundamentalist islam in Iran. Nelson Mandela was still being condemned as a terrorist. Ironic or what?
What is it that people need to have someone to tell them what to believe and who they should follow?
People go on about judeo christian religons. personally I think you could put a good case that our style of democracy owes a great deal to celtic, pagan anglo saxon beliefs as much as to judeo christians. Early celtic The early pagans tolerated christianlty as just anothjer religon. Early kings were proclaimed they were not hereditary that only came later. The viking althing was open to everybody even women. Christ was the selfish god he wanted none other but him an alien concept perhaps and his followers take it to extremes and make war on those who don't believe. We have an egalitarian streak in our culture that just isn't there in the middle east and i don't think it necessarily comes from christianity.
If you look at the behaviour of the muslims before and during the crusades it was a lot more tolerant and fairer than the christian crusaders. As to why they contributed nothing since the middle ages you could argue that they lost out in the cultural war to europeans who had better resources and a more aggressive nature and inclination to use them. If we go to war it tends to be a fight to the finish one way or the other. That's why we ended up with empires we are not peaceful people but the most aggressive on the planet.
Rather than a war against religon then it also be a war against bigotry, ignorance and intolerance.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
Thanks for a detailed and thoughtful reply.
War on terror has two components – one, to take immediate action for neutralizing terrorists and terrorism apparatus; two, to understand the causes for people turning to terrorism and take preventive actions. I agree with you that two should not be mixed and a nonpartisan approach should be adopted. Rather than only a war against religon, to fight terrorism a war against bigotry, ignorance and intolerance should also be undertaken.
The most important factor contributing to terrorism is the double standard of major partners of the global alliance against terrorism. USA and UK have been using one Muslim country against another Muslim country to establish their supremacy over all countries of the world. In Kashmir terrorism is being called as freedom movement by Pakistan, a trusted partner of USA in war against terror.
Another important factor contributing to terrorism is use of religion. Islam is in danger, all non-Muslim countries have declared war against Islam, it is the primary duty of every Muslim to fight against non-believers, are some of the inputs being fed for creating a force of jehadis.
If we want terrorism to stop then all the countries and the people will have to address the issues on both counts in a productive nonpartisan manner.
War on terror has two components – one, to take immediate action for neutralizing terrorists and terrorism apparatus; two, to understand the causes for people turning to terrorism and take preventive actions. I agree with you that two should not be mixed and a nonpartisan approach should be adopted. Rather than only a war against religon, to fight terrorism a war against bigotry, ignorance and intolerance should also be undertaken.
The most important factor contributing to terrorism is the double standard of major partners of the global alliance against terrorism. USA and UK have been using one Muslim country against another Muslim country to establish their supremacy over all countries of the world. In Kashmir terrorism is being called as freedom movement by Pakistan, a trusted partner of USA in war against terror.
Another important factor contributing to terrorism is use of religion. Islam is in danger, all non-Muslim countries have declared war against Islam, it is the primary duty of every Muslim to fight against non-believers, are some of the inputs being fed for creating a force of jehadis.
If we want terrorism to stop then all the countries and the people will have to address the issues on both counts in a productive nonpartisan manner.
Should We Blame Islam?
Another important factor contributing to terrorism is use of religion. Islam is in danger, all non-Muslim countries have declared war against Islam, it is the primary duty of every Muslim to fight against non-believers, are some of the inputs being fed for creating a force of jehadis.
I wouldn't agree that all non muslim countries have declared war on islam but there do seem to be vested interests wanting to stir things up and stop people thinking about it.
Personally I find fundamentalist christians every bit as intolerant and dangerous as fundamentalist muslims. The curse of our society (UK I Mean) is seperate schools on religious grounds, all it does is perpetuate sectarianism. If I can paraphrase Rogers & Hammerstein from south pacific-you need to be taught to hate and fear.
We should all worship the cosmic comedian. Life'a a joke we just don't know the punchline.
I wouldn't agree that all non muslim countries have declared war on islam but there do seem to be vested interests wanting to stir things up and stop people thinking about it.
Personally I find fundamentalist christians every bit as intolerant and dangerous as fundamentalist muslims. The curse of our society (UK I Mean) is seperate schools on religious grounds, all it does is perpetuate sectarianism. If I can paraphrase Rogers & Hammerstein from south pacific-you need to be taught to hate and fear.
We should all worship the cosmic comedian. Life'a a joke we just don't know the punchline.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote: I wouldn't agree that all non muslim countries have declared war on islam but there do seem to be vested interests wanting to stir things up and stop people thinking about it.
Personally I find fundamentalist christians every bit as intolerant and dangerous as fundamentalist muslims. The curse of our society (UK I Mean) is seperate schools on religious grounds, all it does is perpetuate sectarianism. If I can paraphrase Rogers & Hammerstein from south pacific-you need to be taught to hate and fear.
We should all worship the cosmic comedian. Life'a a joke we just don't know the punchline.
I would agree with you that all non-muslim countries have not declared war on terrorism. Those who have not been touched by terrorist attacks are keeping out. It is like that USA and UK were not interested untill 9/11 terrorist attacked. Then there are vested interests at work.
India is also having separate schools for Christians and Muslims and this has made a big contribution to creating hate for majority community.
Personally I find fundamentalist christians every bit as intolerant and dangerous as fundamentalist muslims. The curse of our society (UK I Mean) is seperate schools on religious grounds, all it does is perpetuate sectarianism. If I can paraphrase Rogers & Hammerstein from south pacific-you need to be taught to hate and fear.
We should all worship the cosmic comedian. Life'a a joke we just don't know the punchline.
I would agree with you that all non-muslim countries have not declared war on terrorism. Those who have not been touched by terrorist attacks are keeping out. It is like that USA and UK were not interested untill 9/11 terrorist attacked. Then there are vested interests at work.
India is also having separate schools for Christians and Muslims and this has made a big contribution to creating hate for majority community.
Should We Blame Islam?
I would agree with you that all non-muslim countries have not declared war on terrorism. Those who have not been touched by terrorist attacks are keeping out. It is like that USA and UK were not interested untill 9/11 terrorist attacked. Then there are vested interests at work.
What I said was they have not declared war on Islam. They are all agreed to fight terrorism. The two are not synonymous.
The west has been playing realpolitik in the middle east and everywhere else in the world for a very long time. Now it is not dressed up in the language of empire but the effect is much the same. What is different now is that oiur economies are so interlinked and dependant on oil that terrorists can cause a lot more damage by going after the economic foundations. Life has always been cheap but one way to get the west to sit up and listen is hit at the economy. When the palestinians blew up those airliners in 1972 they got the attention of the world's media on palestine such a thing ws new. Now the suicide bombings have little effect outside of israel as the world are no longer shocked. What they don't have is the economic clout to matter.
On the other hand by hitting the twin towers the effect on the world economies had an effect on the world economy out of all proportion to the loss of life per se. it is perhaps a new tactic of a long standing conflict. Its effective bacuse of the economic effect. Say what you like about the terrorists but stupid they are not. Dealing with them will require a deal of subtlety. picking new wars with sovereign states that don't really want war is not a smart move as theyu will fight back. Dressing things up in a religious cloak kind of misses the point.
Actually one thing that antagonises a lot if british voters is the religious crusade (Iknew it was the right thing to do) aspect seemingly touted by bush and Blair. It may work in america but in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag, we don't trust religious leaders and faith based leadership just does not appeal. Nor does any call for a crusade against terrorism-it's not about faith.
What I said was they have not declared war on Islam. They are all agreed to fight terrorism. The two are not synonymous.
The west has been playing realpolitik in the middle east and everywhere else in the world for a very long time. Now it is not dressed up in the language of empire but the effect is much the same. What is different now is that oiur economies are so interlinked and dependant on oil that terrorists can cause a lot more damage by going after the economic foundations. Life has always been cheap but one way to get the west to sit up and listen is hit at the economy. When the palestinians blew up those airliners in 1972 they got the attention of the world's media on palestine such a thing ws new. Now the suicide bombings have little effect outside of israel as the world are no longer shocked. What they don't have is the economic clout to matter.
On the other hand by hitting the twin towers the effect on the world economies had an effect on the world economy out of all proportion to the loss of life per se. it is perhaps a new tactic of a long standing conflict. Its effective bacuse of the economic effect. Say what you like about the terrorists but stupid they are not. Dealing with them will require a deal of subtlety. picking new wars with sovereign states that don't really want war is not a smart move as theyu will fight back. Dressing things up in a religious cloak kind of misses the point.
Actually one thing that antagonises a lot if british voters is the religious crusade (Iknew it was the right thing to do) aspect seemingly touted by bush and Blair. It may work in america but in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag, we don't trust religious leaders and faith based leadership just does not appeal. Nor does any call for a crusade against terrorism-it's not about faith.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote:
Dealing with them will require a deal of subtlety. i would submit that dealing with them requires the antithesis of subtlety. people who view non-muslims as animate meat can only be dealt with in the least subtle of terms possible: annihilation.
Actually one thing that antagonises a lot if british voters is the religious crusade (Iknew it was the right thing to do) aspect seemingly touted by bush and Blair. It may work in america but in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag, we don't trust religious leaders and faith based leadership just does not appeal. Nor does any call for a crusade against terrorism-it's not about faith.i must have missed bush and blair saying this is a religious crusade. can you provide some pointers? quotes?
i find generalizations of the type above rather egregious. 'in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag'. this includes the hundreds of thousands of muslims living in england? we don't trust religious 'leaders' to any greater degree here. there will always be a segment of the population - here and in the UK and elsewhere - who will fall for religious hucksters. by and large though, most people practice their faith quietly and without much fanfare. so we tend to 'reach for the sick bag' no less than you.
that is, again, if we're to engage in gross generalizations....
Dealing with them will require a deal of subtlety. i would submit that dealing with them requires the antithesis of subtlety. people who view non-muslims as animate meat can only be dealt with in the least subtle of terms possible: annihilation.
Actually one thing that antagonises a lot if british voters is the religious crusade (Iknew it was the right thing to do) aspect seemingly touted by bush and Blair. It may work in america but in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag, we don't trust religious leaders and faith based leadership just does not appeal. Nor does any call for a crusade against terrorism-it's not about faith.i must have missed bush and blair saying this is a religious crusade. can you provide some pointers? quotes?
i find generalizations of the type above rather egregious. 'in the UK it has people reaching for the sick bag'. this includes the hundreds of thousands of muslims living in england? we don't trust religious 'leaders' to any greater degree here. there will always be a segment of the population - here and in the UK and elsewhere - who will fall for religious hucksters. by and large though, most people practice their faith quietly and without much fanfare. so we tend to 'reach for the sick bag' no less than you.
that is, again, if we're to engage in gross generalizations....
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
anastrophe wrote: i would submit that dealing with them requires the antithesis of subtlety. people who view non-muslims as animate meat can only be dealt with in the least subtle of terms possible: annihilation.
Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!
Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote: What I said was they have not declared war on Islam. They are all agreed to fight terrorism. The two are not synonymous.
Hitting world economies is perhaps a new tactic of a long standing conflict.
Terrorism is not about faith.
No body has declared war on Islam. Everybody, as stated by you, has agreed to fight terrorism. But when terririst organizations start linking it with their faith (Islam) then treating it as a war against Islamic terrorism (jehaad) is a natural reaction. You may be right that terrorists have now adopted a new tactic to hit economies. But the result is same, innocent people, including women and children are still being killed.
Hitting world economies is perhaps a new tactic of a long standing conflict.
Terrorism is not about faith.
No body has declared war on Islam. Everybody, as stated by you, has agreed to fight terrorism. But when terririst organizations start linking it with their faith (Islam) then treating it as a war against Islamic terrorism (jehaad) is a natural reaction. You may be right that terrorists have now adopted a new tactic to hit economies. But the result is same, innocent people, including women and children are still being killed.
Should We Blame Islam?
i would submit that dealing with them requires the antithesis of subtlety. people who view non-muslims as animate meat can only be dealt with in the least subtle of terms possible: annihilation.
I tend to agree with you up to a point but the subtlety comes in getting the right people. Flattening city blocks to get at a few terrorists and killing thousands in the process is not a constructive approach and is more likely to generate support against those doing the flattening.
How about it's like trying to hit a sheep loose in a field of sheep, a rifle is better than a cluster bomb, you need to make sure you know what you want to hit and then do it, blasting anything near where it is causes more problems than it solves. This is not a conventional war with clear cut remedies. Iraq was a symptom not a cause of what is happening in the middle east.
Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!
Not only the right bastards but a field well away from innocent crops if you can.
Don't misunderstand I have no sympathy with the terrorists but you need something like the SAS going in not tank regiments and once you've dealt with them you need to think about why it happened. Dismissing tham all as a bunch of nutters avoids the question.
As to religon, well he does keep talking about crusades and believing it was the right thing to do, not having the evidence just believing it.
Not specifically about blair but some different opinions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/0,27 ... 75,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor ... 01,00.html
From the last article
The problem for the secularist is that the believer does set her faith higher. Jesus is the son of God; Mohammed is his prophet; Ye shall have no other God but me. This sets a culturally specific and transcendent law which is, by its nature, both unnegotiable and possibly tyrannical. Who says so? God says so. Who says God says so? I do. Extreme (or fundamentalist) believers differ from their more moderate coreligionists in the lack of discussion and debate they need before deciding what the word of God actually is.
To see just how divisive this merging of culturally specific forms with divine provenance can be, you only have to look at the recent history of ecumenism. What is the essential difference between the Catholic church and the Church of England? Almost none. Same deity, same prophet, same everything, except minor aspects of ritual and hierarchy. And here, with what has helped to stall that progress, we get right down to it. When the Muslim theologian was asked to give an example of where the secular concept of human rights might be seen as deficient by other societies, his immediate answer was: 'Women's rights.'
It's not just Islam I almost feel like running around like the robot in lost in space.
"warning, warning, the righteous are coming" God help us
I tend to agree with you up to a point but the subtlety comes in getting the right people. Flattening city blocks to get at a few terrorists and killing thousands in the process is not a constructive approach and is more likely to generate support against those doing the flattening.
How about it's like trying to hit a sheep loose in a field of sheep, a rifle is better than a cluster bomb, you need to make sure you know what you want to hit and then do it, blasting anything near where it is causes more problems than it solves. This is not a conventional war with clear cut remedies. Iraq was a symptom not a cause of what is happening in the middle east.
Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!
Not only the right bastards but a field well away from innocent crops if you can.
Don't misunderstand I have no sympathy with the terrorists but you need something like the SAS going in not tank regiments and once you've dealt with them you need to think about why it happened. Dismissing tham all as a bunch of nutters avoids the question.
As to religon, well he does keep talking about crusades and believing it was the right thing to do, not having the evidence just believing it.
Not specifically about blair but some different opinions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/0,27 ... 75,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor ... 01,00.html
From the last article
The problem for the secularist is that the believer does set her faith higher. Jesus is the son of God; Mohammed is his prophet; Ye shall have no other God but me. This sets a culturally specific and transcendent law which is, by its nature, both unnegotiable and possibly tyrannical. Who says so? God says so. Who says God says so? I do. Extreme (or fundamentalist) believers differ from their more moderate coreligionists in the lack of discussion and debate they need before deciding what the word of God actually is.
To see just how divisive this merging of culturally specific forms with divine provenance can be, you only have to look at the recent history of ecumenism. What is the essential difference between the Catholic church and the Church of England? Almost none. Same deity, same prophet, same everything, except minor aspects of ritual and hierarchy. And here, with what has helped to stall that progress, we get right down to it. When the Muslim theologian was asked to give an example of where the secular concept of human rights might be seen as deficient by other societies, his immediate answer was: 'Women's rights.'
It's not just Islam I almost feel like running around like the robot in lost in space.
"warning, warning, the righteous are coming" God help us
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
Sikes> Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the
Sikes> bastards!
gmc wrote: Not only the right bastards but a field well away from innocent crops if you can.
Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D. Ripper: "Your
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
Sikes> bastards!
gmc wrote: Not only the right bastards but a field well away from innocent crops if you can.
Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D. Ripper: "Your
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
Should We Blame Islam?
Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D. Ripper: "Your
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
I'm sorry too, it's ludicrous to demonise a whole religon like that. i have known protestants that' think it's Ok to go pape bashing on a saturday-"you can always tell catholics because their eyebrows meeet in the middle and they have piggy eyes". Completely irrational but oh are they so convinced. I can go on and on sectarianism is bad news whether its catholic/protestant, jew/muslim, muslim/christian, christian/hari krishna(people that wear dresses and ring bells are asking for a good kicking aren't they?).
I know christians who believe everybody is going to hell except them because they don't believe the right way-the whole thing is ludicrous. maybe Plazul has a point it should be a war against religon. If you want a religious go ahead but if you go that route it will be a long long time before it ends.
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
I'm sorry too, it's ludicrous to demonise a whole religon like that. i have known protestants that' think it's Ok to go pape bashing on a saturday-"you can always tell catholics because their eyebrows meeet in the middle and they have piggy eyes". Completely irrational but oh are they so convinced. I can go on and on sectarianism is bad news whether its catholic/protestant, jew/muslim, muslim/christian, christian/hari krishna(people that wear dresses and ring bells are asking for a good kicking aren't they?).
I know christians who believe everybody is going to hell except them because they don't believe the right way-the whole thing is ludicrous. maybe Plazul has a point it should be a war against religon. If you want a religious go ahead but if you go that route it will be a long long time before it ends.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
Sikes> Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D.
Sikes> Ripper: "Your Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
General Jack D. Ripper was a character in a film called "Dr. Strangelove or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
http://www.britmovie.co.uk/directors/s_ ... y/002.html
I was just using a quote from that film, replacing "Commie" with "Muslim" to
draw attention to certain parallels.
Sikes> Ripper: "Your Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
General Jack D. Ripper was a character in a film called "Dr. Strangelove or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
http://www.britmovie.co.uk/directors/s_ ... y/002.html
I was just using a quote from that film, replacing "Commie" with "Muslim" to
draw attention to certain parallels.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote: I'm sorry too, it's ludicrous to demonise a whole religon like that.
I agree with you that it is ludicrous to demonise a whole religon. All religions teach to love. But if some religion is practiced only to hate and its followers justify it by saying that it is the directive of God or Allah, then what alternative is left but to demonise it. When innocent people are killed in the name of religion then how can that religion be called a religion of peace.
I agree with you that it is ludicrous to demonise a whole religon. All religions teach to love. But if some religion is practiced only to hate and its followers justify it by saying that it is the directive of God or Allah, then what alternative is left but to demonise it. When innocent people are killed in the name of religion then how can that religion be called a religion of peace.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Should We Blame Islam?
Bill Sikes wrote: Quite right. We should round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!
if you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, by all means do so. i see nothing of value in the quote above.
if you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, by all means do so. i see nothing of value in the quote above.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Should We Blame Islam?
I was just using a quote from that film, replacing "Commie" with "Muslim" to
draw attention to certain parallels.
Ah, didn't get the connection-haven't seen dr strangelove, must admit i was a bit surprised.
draw attention to certain parallels.
Ah, didn't get the connection-haven't seen dr strangelove, must admit i was a bit surprised.
Should We Blame Islam?
That's the trouble with forum's what is an inoccuous remark when you can see the facial expression or get the reference looks different written down. Plus there are cultural differences-try explaining why a carryn on film is funny to an austrian
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
anastrophe wrote: if you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, by all means do so. i see nothing of value in the quote above.
Whoooosh!
Whoooosh!
Should We Blame Islam?
irony1 // n. (pl. -ies)
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
2 an ill-timed or perverse arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable.
3 (also dramatic irony) a literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
[Latin ironia from Greek eironeia ‘simulated ignorance’, from eiron ‘dissembler’]
Not having seen Dr Strangelove I didn't get it
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
2 an ill-timed or perverse arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable.
3 (also dramatic irony) a literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
[Latin ironia from Greek eironeia ‘simulated ignorance’, from eiron ‘dissembler’]
Not having seen Dr Strangelove I didn't get it
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote: irony1 // n. (pl. -ies)
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
2 an ill-timed or perverse arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable.
3 (also dramatic irony) a literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
[Latin ironia from Greek eironeia ‘simulated ignorance’, from eiron ‘dissembler’]
Not having seen Dr Strangelove I didn't get it
I'm having problems with understanding the threading here.... Are you referring
to my "whooosh"?
1 an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.
2 an ill-timed or perverse arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable.
3 (also dramatic irony) a literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
[Latin ironia from Greek eironeia ‘simulated ignorance’, from eiron ‘dissembler’]
Not having seen Dr Strangelove I didn't get it
I'm having problems with understanding the threading here.... Are you referring
to my "whooosh"?
Should We Blame Islam?
Nope this one.
Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D. Ripper: "Your
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
I thought you meant it seriously hence
I'm sorry too, it's ludicrous to demonise a whole religon like that. i have known protestants that' think it's Ok to go pape bashing on a saturday-"you can always tell catholics because their eyebrows meeet in the middle and they have piggy eyes". Completely irrational but oh are they so convinced. I can go on and on sectarianism is bad news whether its catholic/protestant, jew/muslim, muslim/christian, christian/hari krishna(people that wear dresses and ring bells are asking for a good kicking aren't they?).
Then when i read General Jack D. Ripper was a character in a film called "Dr. Strangelove or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
I realised my mistake. the definition of irony was for the american readers who allegedly don't understand irony and assume a piss-take is a british colloquialism for a urinal.
Assuming you were of course being ironic and not the narrow minded bigot I mistook you for.
I'm having problems with understanding the threading here.... Are you referring
to my "whooosh"?
Do try and keep up
Sorry - Kenny Everett (sp?). Also, to paraphrase General Jack D. Ripper: "Your
Muslim has no regard for human life. Not even his own".
I thought you meant it seriously hence
I'm sorry too, it's ludicrous to demonise a whole religon like that. i have known protestants that' think it's Ok to go pape bashing on a saturday-"you can always tell catholics because their eyebrows meeet in the middle and they have piggy eyes". Completely irrational but oh are they so convinced. I can go on and on sectarianism is bad news whether its catholic/protestant, jew/muslim, muslim/christian, christian/hari krishna(people that wear dresses and ring bells are asking for a good kicking aren't they?).
Then when i read General Jack D. Ripper was a character in a film called "Dr. Strangelove or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
I realised my mistake. the definition of irony was for the american readers who allegedly don't understand irony and assume a piss-take is a british colloquialism for a urinal.
Assuming you were of course being ironic and not the narrow minded bigot I mistook you for.
I'm having problems with understanding the threading here.... Are you referring
to my "whooosh"?
Do try and keep up
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Should We Blame Islam?
gmc wrote: Nope this one.
Oh blast these rissing threads - not simple like reading Usenet through Nitscrape,
is it!
gmc wrote:
I thought you meant it seriously hence
Then when i read
I realised my mistake. the definition of irony was for the american readers who allegedly don't understand irony and assume a piss-take is a british colloquialism for a urinal.
And the quoting is really, really broken! See above.
gmc wrote: Assuming you were of course being ironic and not the narrow minded bigot I mistook you for.
Oi! "I'm not saying that we should go out and burn down the nearest Eye-tie, Chink, Froggie or Pakki restaurant - I think the army should be doing that"
(From: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mpbigot.html - and extract from
From The Brand New Monty Python Papperbok)
gmc wrote: Do try and keep up
I'm not sure how I should be reading these threads - I will go off and practice.
Oh blast these rissing threads - not simple like reading Usenet through Nitscrape,
is it!
gmc wrote:
I thought you meant it seriously hence
Then when i read
I realised my mistake. the definition of irony was for the american readers who allegedly don't understand irony and assume a piss-take is a british colloquialism for a urinal.
And the quoting is really, really broken! See above.
gmc wrote: Assuming you were of course being ironic and not the narrow minded bigot I mistook you for.
Oi! "I'm not saying that we should go out and burn down the nearest Eye-tie, Chink, Froggie or Pakki restaurant - I think the army should be doing that"
(From: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mpbigot.html - and extract from
From The Brand New Monty Python Papperbok)
gmc wrote: Do try and keep up
I'm not sure how I should be reading these threads - I will go off and practice.