raeanna74

The Christian man should not have even been in jail. He probably would not have gotten tuberculosis even had he not been in jail. Then the whole situation would never have happened. He had not intended to commit "blasphemy". That kind of law would be hard to define and could be used in many selfish ways. They do need to get rid of it. Get the religion out of politics.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

brianna

I would propose that the anger that is obviously present in the islamic world has more to do with the clear divide between the haves and the have nots in the world than it does with religion. yes, religion is often used as an excuse but I think intreprating a fairly benign religious text such as the koran (or the bible for that matter) in such a way as to justify violent acts against others is inspired by a general anger, not by the religion itself.

Even if you could show that Islam is somehow responsible for the violence that is done in its name nothing is gained by condeming a whole culture as evil. We must ask *why* these people are angry and what can be done to help them. it is not productive to propose that we somehow kill all of them or somehow exclude them from society.

slimpi66y

you know what troubles me the most? Islam is going backwards in terms of civilization,

when Londonians are suffering from black death from uncontrolled rats in the dark ages, islamic surgeons are performing surgical procedures in a germ-free (as much as possible) environment in Terhan, but these fuckers made no progress when it comes to civilization development

troit

My thought on this thread -- It does not matter if a Christian was beaten by a Muslim or a Muslim was beaten by a Christian. The fact of the matter her is that someone was beaten and no matter the race that is a sad situation.

__________________
I've yet to dephile myself...

Kostya

Yes, and like I said, this act was not one that is condoned by Islam, thus, it is the misconceptions of the offender that are the problem not his religion.

I'm sorry, where did I claim that?

Please don't misconstrue what I say into something else denim. Yes, I will agree with you that the Crusades did happen, I am well aware of this historical fact. However, as you yourself said they were backed by the 'Popes' of their time. Jesus wasn't riding out in front against the Saracens screaming 'HOLD THE LINE' was he. Surely you must know by now that what a Church does in the name of Chrisitianity is rarely what Christianity is about. Thus, once again I reiterate to you that Jesus was unequivocal and absolute in his opposition to violence and murder. Moreover, since you brought them up, I believe the Crusades illustrate a very pertinent example.


Christianity arrived in Europe wholesale around the time of the conversion of the Frankish King in about the seventh century. Yet despite Jesus' vehement rejection of violence and war, nothing changed, people still went to war, slaughtered and tortured each other. The Merovingian Dynastic mechanism was one in which all legitimate sons of the King recieved a portion of kingdom, and thus rivalry between sons, uncles etc gave way to large amounts of regicide, fraticide, paricide, infanticide and so on. These actions are not Christian in any sense of the word. The fact of the matter is that despite the message of Jesus, the preexisting cultural values of the Franks subverted the universal message of peace preached by Jesus. These people could be called Christian, since that is what they would have called themselves, but quite clearly they are not acting in a way that would have been acceptable to Jesus. Similarly Islam was subverted by preexisting cultural values in the middle east.

denim

And you'd be wrong. Do some reading. Recommended book for this: The Closed Circle is a book that will explain their culture.

The violence is inherent in both their culture and the religion it spawned. If you don't understand this, you will have no chance to understand what's happening: our cultures are diametrically opposed. Theirs CAN NOT accept the existance of ours. Read the book, then get back to this thread. This advice is for any of you who think this is the western world's fault, or that it's a class thing, or that the Christian man's situation is relevant. Their culture is very different from ours, it's irreducable, and they want us to DIE. DIE, no real exceptions. If you don't want to be dead, you'd better damn well understand what they're after.

denim

Yup, or at least failed to keep up.

denim

Exactly, so where's your argument? The Christians did this, then moved on to moderating their extremists. The Moslems haven't done that yet, and it'll come down on all of them if they don't manage it.

Note that the violence is inherent in their system. A "good moslem" does do that kind of thing, by a strict reading of their holy book, as I understand it. Those who don't have moderated their attitude, as have their predicessors.

eribrav

denim, you've done a great job outlining the facts here.

brianna, I disagree entirely with your point about "asking why" and trying to understand their motivations. It's an unsettling feeling but we have to admit that evil does exist in the world. Islamic fascism is inherently evil. It's not to be understood. It's to be defeated.

brianna

eribrav: i would agree that ALL religious fanaticism is scary and wrong. how would you propose we "defeat" it?

I have no problem with targeting terrorists, but ultimately we will have to deal with the issues that are inspiring such behavior, to write off people as evil makes little sense. These individuals were not born "evil" and I think we would be wise to find out what has made them choose this path in life.

Frankly I don't see anyway that we can target or defeat such beliefs without understanding. We are all rightfully scared of terrorism but this is not a problem that we can just keep shooting at. Idiology is not defeated with fire power.

zxello

violence is inherent in the islamic religion NOW, its not suppose to be, Muhammed does not condone violence against anyone except against infidels during BATTLE, a.k.a the crusades and the like, homie chillin in a hospital bed with turburculosis being beatin by a cop does not constitute battle in my mind... =/

__________________
Old signature just wasn't doing it for me anymore, so now I have this new one. It's equally as stupid but at least it looks really long. I'm probably just going to keep typing until I run out of things to babble about and see how many people actually read this. I once ran down a hill, fell down and hurt my elbow; my mom said I would be ok, she kissed it and made it all better. I've run out of things to say now, so if you have read this whole thing, congratulations you get a gold star!

denim

You're Islamic?

KWSN

so are you saying that all muslims feel this way?

that's like saying all white people feel the need to beat up dan rather and yell "WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH!!!"

totally irrelevant

__________________
Your arms are broken!

KWSN

I couldnt have said it better myself.

__________________
Your arms are broken!

zxello

Negative, but I'm a history major in college and have taken quite a few classes on the religion / middle east, i've studied up on it and other religions quite a bit, I already said earlier that im agnostic.

__________________
Old signature just wasn't doing it for me anymore, so now I have this new one. It's equally as stupid but at least it looks really long. I'm probably just going to keep typing until I run out of things to babble about and see how many people actually read this. I once ran down a hill, fell down and hurt my elbow; my mom said I would be ok, she kissed it and made it all better. I've run out of things to say now, so if you have read this whole thing, congratulations you get a gold star!

denim

Have you read the Koran, or are you speaking from others' interpretations?

Kostya

Exactly what is my argument:

The Christians did not do this, people, under the banner of Christianity, acting in such a way as to completely preclude them from being within the bounds of anything espoused by the Gospels did this. Furthermore this was not extremism, it was fairly widespread and acceptable amongst Europeans at the time. It was not however Christian. Moreover, some might claim that Christians have now 'moderated' their 'extremists' as if this is some kind of sign of the inherently superior cultural values of the religion. I must remind you however of the 'Christian' tribesmen in Nigeria who routinely raid and destroy Muslim settlements in the north. What you are referring to has nothing to do with religious values and a lot to do with a myriad of interrelated social, cultural and political developments over many centuries upon which entire books could be written and still fall short of being accurate.

Note that violence is 'inherent' in their system...

What 'system' is that exactly?
Surely the same claim could be made about a society where schoolchildren shoot each other. I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

Moreover, may I also point out that the completely antiquated notion of social Darwinism has raised its ugly head on a few occassions in this thread. Frankly, anyone who appeals to the idea of a civilisation 'evolving' or being 'backward' is displaying a gross misunderstanding of the concepts involved.

denim, just for you:

*Sound of Kostya clearing throat*

Direct from Qu'ran, unfortunately in translation but never mind:

Surah 109

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Say: O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
TO YOU BE YOUR WAY, AND ME MINE.


Happy now?

Yes, that's right I have a Qu'ran on my bookshelf, no I'm not muslim, but I took the time out to purchase a copy of it simply to learn about this beautiful and brilliant tradition. I've been told by my Muslim friends however, and various lecturers who speak and write Arabic that it sounds much better in the original language than in translation.

Stud

It is not the lack of facts it was your incoherent post. Please state it in a way people can understand.

Thanks!

denim

It's not my problem whether the people doing it were being "christian" or not. They did it; they blamed/credited it on/to their religion. I agree they weren't being good Christians, but that's irrelevant. They did it to people not in their own brand of Christianity, let alone non-Christians. It was religious, whether the people doing it were honest about it or not. Truth. Deal with it.


Er, you misunderstand me. As far as I'm concerned, all Christians are heretics, being that I'm Jewish. "Jews for Jesus" are Christians by definition, and are therefore heretics too. I don't hold it against them, as it's not my problem, if it's a problem.


That done under the color of a religion is religious, whether it's done by doctrine or not.


Oh, I'm hurt! Don't let the fact that I'm not going into detail prevent you from doing so, sir! I'm aware that we're glossing over a God-awful amount, but that doesn't change the fact that these religions are involved.



It's the system under which the arabs as a group live. It spreads like many memes. It's family and shame-based. They'd say it's shame/honor based, but I say they are clueless about honor, so I'm saying it as I see it.


Probably true, but I won't commit myself on that. Historians, economists, and archeologists each have at least one opinion about everything, rarely agreeing with others in their field. There is usually another way to understand a given thing.

Yes, actually. You've made a good point that I should pick up a copy of the Qu'ran. Any Moslem would say that's a good deed, I suspect.


From what I've heard, they're precisely accurate in saying that. "Must be read in the original." is what I've heard since I've heard anything about it.

Furthermore, any translation of anything will necessarily contain inaccuracies. I would like to read Dante's Comedy in the original Italian, and I should read the Hebrew bible in the original languages too.

wallace1

I was unfortunate enough to spend 2 and a half years surrounded by "muslims" and oddly enough the things they ranted and raved about were no where to be found in the quran, go figure.

__________________
Midway in the journey of our life I came to myself in a dark wood, for the straight way was lost.

KWSN

Funny, the things white people rant and rave about are found nowhere in the Bible. Go figure.

__________________
Your arms are broken!

Phaenx

Yeah that would be, but I'm not basing an opinion on this particular incident. It's part of why I feel suspicious but that's just not the case. Ignorance is ignoring key points of someones post, responding with a pissy comment and a

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Kostya

Well then, this leads us into the question of whether something is due to its nominal attatchments or is independent of them. Now take this example. The KKK were group which operated on the basis of 'race'. Now, unfortunately for Bubba & co., 'race' is quite simply a biological myth. Now, I'm not saying they didn't think that racial distinctions were very real, and performed very real actions based on this gigantic misconception. However, in the sense I am arguing, what they did had nothing to do with 'race' itself, since it does not exist, what they were doing represents in the specific a mistaken view about the existence of the mythical quality of race, and in a more general sense ignorance and stupidity. Now, the only difference between this example, in the way I am arguing, and the issue of 'religious' conflicts, is that I'm saying yes religion does very much exist, but that these people are subscribing to a mythical form that doesn't, and thus represent not the religion itself but the misinterpretation, manipulation and misapplication of a real religion. So we ought not really be arguing, all I am saying is they aren't fighting over a true religion and this means its not religious according to my reasoning, you on the other hand are saying that the imagined religious status of these people makes it religious so it is. Either way we're not really disagreeing with each other except in the most superficial way.

For the record, I maintain that racial issues still have a very real existence as a psychological phenomena, moreover as the socio-political repercussions of the widely held belief in the myth.


Well that's one way of looking at it.


No but what does prevent me is time and energy both of which I have very little at the moment. I applaud your recognition of the complexities however.



Well then I must ask you, what is the true nature of 'honour' then? Your mention of memes leads me to believe you have at least some familiarity with evoltionary theories of history, surely then you would agree that cultural values can only be really avaluated within the physical and social context in which they occur.

Well you kind of agreed with slimpiggy that they are 'going backwards' or at the very least 'failed to keep up'. This is less about the variety of approaches adopted by various diciplines, for I would contend with you that almost ANY academic with ANY familiarity with historical, sociological or anthropological theory would condemn and reject social Darwinism vehemently.

By the way, yes agreed a good deal of anything translated loses something in translation, something I wish Christians, the only revealed religion which studies their holy texts in translation.

denim

Let's pick an example.

As I understand it, the Crusades were less about religion than about economics. No, I can't use that as I don't have the time to do the research.

Maybe you'd be better off picking one?


See, you're way ahead of me!


I'm right there with you. If we can interbreed, we're the same race/species. The way they use (note current tense) the word has more to do with Hitler than with biology, though. They use it as a way to denote a scape goat group. And even Hitler wasn't making that up out of whole cloth. That anti-Jewish stuff has been endemic in Europe for a very long time, as in many centuries, more than 10 certainly.


In one sense we're arguing semantics, true. In another, we're agreeing very vehemently.


It's another way of saying the same thing you did, I believe.


I've done some reading, just not what I'd call "enough".


You want a definitive answer to that?? I could answer this in several ways, but you and other will be able to pick them apart, no problem. It can easily turn into another semantic exercise.

Honor is what you know about yourself. Reputation is what others know about you. Lois Bujold, Memory

That's as good a place to start as any. Arab culture confuses the two concepts of "honor" and "reputation", among other things. It's been a while since I read The Closed Circle, and I've not finished it yet.


Whoa, you're assuming too much. I speak of memes as concepts. You'll note that my comment to what you labeled as "evolutionary theory" of history was just to agree that Moslems didn't seem to have kept up. That is, they hadn't maintained their advantage. They were advanced in medicine, sanitation (IIRC), navigation, and other issues, but they lost the advantage this gave them when they were overrun by the (Christian) barbarians.

Exactly why the "Christians" did this is unclear to me, but I suspect it is related to the thesis I wanted to use as an example.

Kostya

Well my response to this would be to say that if this is true, then Arabs would simply reply that Lois Bujold makes a distinction where there is none. Their concept of 'honour' is different from Lois's. Yes, that's right I turned it into a semantics thing kind of. Nevertheless, my point is, honour is entirely subjective. What one person calls honour, another would call stupidity. Which is basically what you kind of did before, though to a lesser degree.


You misunderstand me, I wasn't labelling what you were saying as 'evolutionary history'. It's just that the concept of memes is one which is central to the evolutionary theory of history. My objection is against the use of words like 'backward', 'advanced' and phrases like 'keeping up' etc. These refer firstly to some kind of teleological history, and secondly apply value terms to historical developments where there ought not be any. This is not to say we shouldn't make value judgements about history, but they need to be within the context of non-teleological historical theory, moreover, I am not saying that judgements can't be made which make comparitive reference to our own time, only that these are not accurate for assessing the historical reality.

Stud

"White" people? Hmmmmm.......