Nothing like proving the point-
 

Disagree- make a negative comment or a negative quote and they demand your death and act out in violence- sure, try to convince me this is a "peaceful" religion.

Pope must die

Pope burned in effigy

Murdered Nun, link to Pope's comments?

Militants vow war

Plus there have been many more in the last few days- how exactly does this help their cause? In my view- it proves exactly what the Pope said- and all he was doing was quoting someone from a very long time ago.

(bear in mind- I am not Catholic- this is not defense of the Pope, or my own religious protectionism- this is my view of the Muslim "faith")

Peaceful religion? There are extremists of all types in all relgions. I wouldn't base my judgements of all Muslims based on Muslim extremists.

Yup, clearly reactionary violence is a uniquely Muslim trait.

I did not say any of that- but in modern times there is NO other religion that reacts with so much violence and mob action when confronted by what they deem an insult.

Christians (as much as people might deride them) do not rise up and burn people in effigy and demand their deaths- nor do Catholics, Baptists or other large religious groups.

This is NOT just fringe-

How do people live in a world of moral relativism?

I've been to North Ireland, and know plenty of people that would disagree with that statement.

If 1.2 billion or so muslims were rioting, I think we'd know about it.

It may be one of the most well organized extremist movements currently (having surpassed the IRA, for example), but it remains an extremist movement.

heh- good point. Did not think of that- thanks

It is a shame that the most vocal part of this religion is a bunch of violent wackos who prove the point of the quote the Pope stated.

I'm with NA and GD on this point. Also, may I ask why you put Muslim "faith" in quotes? I'm not baiting, I'm curious.

I'm not going to bother lying- I am not going to pretend I respect this particular faith. I don't.

....and I know you were not baiting me, it's a fair question and I am being honest about it. Anyone who does want to bait me or judge me- save it.

However- note that I did not say AL Muslims- anywhere. So I am not judging all of any group- but I am pointing out that these actions seem to prove the quote from the Pope.

....and I never said reactionary violence was a Muslim trait- I said there were not other large religions who turned to mob violence when confronted with something they did not like (recall what some Muslims did about those cartoons in Denmark)- but then I conceded that the violence in Ireland is an example of another large group reacting with violence.

Buy you blame it on the religion, not the individuals.

For example, "try to convince me this is a "peaceful" religion." You're condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a small percentage of its followers.

All it proves to me is that Muslims are subject to the same human failings as any group of people.

I can't imagine that that's the first time someone's mentioned the IRA in a discussion with you. Heck, I'm quite certain I've used it as an example several times before.

But if you'd like more examples, look up "Army of God", "Lord's Resistance Army", "Nagaland Rebels", "Christian Identity", "Westboro Baptist Church"...

It's all about good PR.

The radical clerics use any pretext to pose for the cameras and play the media as expertly as our team, only better because they have God and oil on their side, and all we have is McDonalds and Jesus which ultimately sucks because McDonald's has no nutritional value and Jesus was a pacifist.

The cartoons. The Pope. It's all so predictable. And funny.

Unless you're the nun who got offed.

You beat me too it! :snap:

ya know what I find funny-

You have Christian radicals- and some people happily paint all Christians with that brush.

You have Muslim radicals- and people jump in to defend the group and insist that it's just a fringe.

Not pointing fingers- if you feel defensive about my comment, maybe you are one of those who does it......or not.

I guess I have seen too many people say that radical Christians are more dangerous than radical Muslims- meh.....

Exactly their point.

So, it's OK to paint all Muslims with the same brush as you did above but it's not OK do paint Christians with same said brush? Or, am I missing something very important here?

Don't forget the KKK - I think they burn things to the ground in the name of religion too, don't they?

...I think they're religious?



I

wierdo double post thingy

OOooooo how did that happen ??


anyhoo... I think the Hare Krishna movement has it right - you never see them causing violence !

Hate to say it, but I'm with Neph on this one.

In this day and age, Islam - thru the acts of its extreme and twisted adherants - is getting a repulation for violence. And its vast majority of peaceful practicioners are not doing enough to counter the label they are being stuck with unfairly.


This week, Colin Powell wrote, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Can we deny America's piss-poor repulation in the world? And yet it's true that most Americans are peaceful, justice-loving folk. But we are hiding our heads in the sand if we don't realize that our government is acting with powerful forces that erode our reputation in the world.

The same thing may be happening to Muslims. But it's no more mistaken, imo, to say that Islam is a violent religion than it is to say America is a violent nation.

Personally, I view interdenominational violence to be a hugely systemic element if Islam. But fortunately one that the vast majority of Muslims have rationalized out of their own practice of the faith.

Combine these systemic elements with social conditions that tend to create violent radicalism (poverty, lack of education, insularity) and widespread violent fundamentist Islam is pretty much inevitable.

It is a simple fact that the holy source text for the religion explicitly lays out how non-believers are to be overran, oppressed, and forcibly converted.

Certainly people of all faiths have found ways to use their faith in support of violence but some require more twisting than others (with Christianity, specifically, it tends to require going to the grumpy-God of the Old Testament rather than the specific teachings of "Jesus Christ."

Didn't we already establish in another thread that all religions - even those C'est la Vie Buhdists - were violent?

The old OT, a font of beauty and wisdom, also runs red with blood, anger and genocidal intolerance.


The holy source text for the Christian religion is not just the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is in great measure Paul, which is all about conversion and, impliedly, how the unconverted are not worthy. It is also, ultimately, Revelations. While the Christian holy source text has an eschatological focus, it appears that the world has not ended, and that same Christian holy source text has provided many with ample inspiration and opportunity to play God.

Um... I find quite the opposite to be MUCH more prevalent.

Granted the handful of posts in this thread have been defending the Muslim faith. But far and wide you will find the faith under severe attack in the Western World while those same folks are much more apt to dismiss the Christian fringe as just individuals.

To the contrary.

The New Testament (Paul's writings specifically) is about how none are worthy. Paul called himself the least of all and the greatest of all sinners. Paul was despised by the religious establishment during his day because not only did he turn from being a member of that very leadership, he dared to extend the circle from Jews only to include gentiles.

I won't bore people here by referencing his writings, but I very much disagree with your assessment.

Except for that pesky little Crusade thingy.

As a Pagan, I have a real hard time with that statement. Even to this day, Pagans are ostacized wholesale by a vast majority of Christians. There may not be actual burning at the stake going on, but the effects can be just as powerful.

Let us not forget John and George.

Though people mostly left Ringo alone.

Kevy, I'm going to argue against you, an unusual thing for me indeed.

I liken the comparison of Christianity today to the the crusades as something like being critical of white southerners today because there was slavery in the south 150 years ago. The southerners today don't own slaves. Christians today didn't go on crusades. This is about what is happening now in the current world climate.

As far as ostracism....I'll just have to take your word for it, as I'm not a Pagan so I would not have experienced it. I don't doubt it. Church would be great if it weren't for the people.

Edited to add: Christians often ostracize there own. I, sadly, have been on both sides of that, to my embarrassment and shame.

What's that "Harvest Crusade" thing - surely some infidels must be slayed?

Christians didn't bother with effigies- they char-broiled the actual people.


All religions, as our swanky leader pointed out, commit crimes against nature and humanity in the name of their god/s, goddesses and such. We can go around pointing fingers at everyone and get in a jab, but we are dealing with the here and now. I'm going to be honest- I am having a hard time trusting the Muslim faith to contain their (hopefully) 'fringe' element and I do fear that the hatred, mistrust and malice runs a bit deeper than the moderates would have us believe. I'm mildly literate in Islamic history and I have a fair idea of how and why things are so crazy right now, but the simple fact remains that the quote from the Pope regarding the Koranic command to slay the infidel was causing major problems six centuries ago, and continues to do so today. I fail to see how we can ever peacefully co-exist with such a mindset, particularily if we are to lead a New Testament type of life.

And that's why genocide will always be an option, it's the only sure way to wipe out a contrary belief/cultural claim. The trouble is having the stomach to complete the chore.

Someone check the temperature in hell, because I'm now going to agree with scaeagles, a mere handful of posts after I agreed with Nephythys.


All this talk about the crusades, the holocaust, KKK lynchings and the like is red herringism. Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is a growing force, a violent force, and a very real danger to us, you and me, in the here and now of the year 2006. My apologies to innocent Muslims around the world, but I interpret their faith as a dangerous threat. And I'm hardly alone in that. Muslims have a bad rep, and I can't say as its undeserved.

Perhaps use Japanese internment camps as a warning not to go too far off the deep end. But try to understand why this is pushing the Deep End button for a lot of people.


I don't think Muslims in general are doing enough to counter the poor p.r. they are being saddled with. I don't fault any of them for that. Frankly, I don't think I personally am doing enough to counter my country's image as a warmongering death bully, and I am not surprised in the least that many in the world consider us a loathsome enemy.


So whining about poor, poor Muslims being tarred unfairly with the terrorist brush just strikes me as a bit disingenuous. This is their problem now. All of them. They've inherited it just as surely as I've inherited the "American" problem.

You say that, yet I do not see one word about Ringo.

This states things pretty well, in my opinion.

Hmm, this quote from that Slate article sums it up pretty nicely for me:

It's cool to say this, but do you really think at the next time some Imam says something extreme we go kill a random Muslim, or burn a Mosque? Does that really solve anything?

On the other hand I'm all for being a free speach advocate. Pop culture and porn are our best secret weapons. We just need to get their women to start thinking they're fat, and the men to start thinking they're small.

In other words, we need to westernize them?;)



Edited to add: I have an idea! Let's arrange a USO-type tour; get Nicole Richie, the Olsen twins, Lindsey Lohan and Dr. Phil to headline. We could throw in Rosie for good measure.


I think you're on to something, €uro.

I said impliedly, and I didnt' say anything against Paul. Paul was a ballsy MF (though a bit of a smug prig). However, the reality is that Acts and Paul's letters are a major part of the New Testament. The plot of those writings is conversion. If you're looking for an excuse--and a lot of people are--how hard is it to leap from that general concept to the persecution of others (which, of course, was Paul's first job).

Well c'mon we know that violence is just a cover for their feelings of inadequacy - all those guns? phallic symbols...who are they trying to kid? But can you blame them? look at what their women are wearing - it's no wonder they mostly prefer boys...

Maybe the women just feel fat.


(Guns? They've moved up to missiles....must be really small).

Wow. That's the best take on the Radical Islam vs The West I've seen in quite a while. I agree completely.

Why else would there where those sacks? must be hidding something...

Wmd's.

I got an idea...

Supersoakers filled with pigs blood. No "weapons", just millions of gallons of pigs blood sprayed all over the Muslim world. :evil:

A relative of mine, Gen. Pershing, was rumored to have done something akin to this to stop the insurgency in Palestine, I believe. From what I understand, he ordered bullets to be dipped in pig's blood and then had his men shoot a line of insurgents. Supposedly, this stopped any further attacks as the enemy was afraid that they would not get into Paradise with the taint of pig's blood upon them. I really doubt today's Martyr would be so easily swayed- they all ate BLT's and drank like fishes prior to the Sept. 11th attacks. (There must be some sort of Martyr upgrade being offered now).

Assuming you're talking about John Pershing, he was never stationed in the Middle East. The story your thinking of is about him putting down a Muslim insurgency in the Phillipines during our occupation of that country following the Spanish American War.

It is generally considered apocryphal though for a couple reasons. There is not evidence that the events happened. Also, Muslims do not believe that they will be barred from heaven for having having been touched by a pig or pig's blood. So the tactic wouldn't work even if tried.

There was an email glurge thing with this story back shortly after 9/11 so I'm sure there are details at Snopes.

Sorry, but just to reiterate, aren't the KKK burning gay churches in the name of the Christian God ?

This is a great piece of logic and it would work, look what it's done for the US.

Yes there are. Every movement has gross extremes, as has been mentioned. What the test is is what the mainstream does. You don't see partying on the campi of Christian Universities when there is a burning cross placed on the lawn of a home of an African American.

ROTFLMAO :D

Well, Paul was an Apostle, so his entire purpose in life was the establishment of the Christian church through Italy and Greece (primarily). And yes, there large majority of the NT is the writings of Paul (and we could get into the whole "inspired by God" aspect, but that's not the point).

I suppose the problem that I had with your original statement was that there is an implication that the unconverted are not worthy. The unconverted are not worthy of what?

As far as Paul being smug....there's a fine line between smug and certain. I suppose you could describe him that way, but being in prison, under house arrest, blind in later years, ship wrecked, facing beheading among other things.....those things might have a tendency to be humbling.

yes, you missed something, I did not say all Muslims-I didn't. You made an assumption.

I said -
You are pulling out something ancient in order to take offense at my words.

I'm sorry- but I don't think being ostracized is the same as being beheaded or gutted in the street by a Muslim extremist who is mad that you drew a picture of his god or made a movie he did not like.

Or how about a power drill to the skull? ... the new fave, all the rage among Muslim Death Squads.

In fact, let's just get out of the way, and let them all kill each other.

No, but you implied that the Muslim religion has some special property in it, as opposed to any other religion, that predilects it. And THAT'S the point of bringing up the Crusades. Obviously it has nothing to do with Christianity now. And obviously, as I mentioned, the extremist Islam movement is the most motivated and organized currently. But the crusades, the holocaust, and countless other examples disprove the notion that Islam is somehow special in that regard. At this time in history, that's where the religion is, but it's not a unique feature of the religion by any stretch.

No- I said that no other modern religion reacts with mob violence and threats of death or actual murder these days. Though if you want to start taking the Koran apart there are many verses that encourage and support that violence.

Sadly the Muslim faith has been like this for a long time- they just have scarier weapons now.

It just seems ironic, and throwing other faiths in is IMO a distraction. The Pope cites a quote that says that Islam is evil and inhuman and in response some Muslims demand his death- they demand his execution as the only way to right the "wrong" which I think- turns around and proves the point of the quote.

You come to me, and say that Christianity is evil and inhuman, and I'll likely be annoyed...but I sure as hell don't think Christians will rise up and demand your death as atonement.

Violent anti-aborition protests by "christians" who claim the bible says that life begins at conception? Organized abortion clinic bombings?

Violent gay bashings by "christians" who claim the bible says being gay is a sin?

All in the name of the bible. Any of that ring a bell?

I think there might be a slight apples and oranges here. My perception is that the types of violence are different. My impression is that much of the violence linked to the Muslim faith is reactionary - and to very specific triggers. Certainly some Christian violence is reactionary, but not to the same degree. For example, some Christians might choose to protest a local action (judicial ruling, political speech, funeral, etc...) but it tends to stay localized to the action.

I could be totally wrong. Maybe when the Supremes handed down Lawrence v. Texas Christian groups across the globe bombed bath houses. I don't know. I didn't hear about it, but it's not something I would have been listening for.

On the other hand, the Pope says something (in Germany?) that Muslims don't like and someone kills a nun in Somalia.

There's also a sense of tacit approval. Again, this is perception, but it seems like when a wacky Christian group blows up something many people nutter about how wrong-minded those people are, how they don't represent the right way to go about things, and there seems to be a sense of indignation. On the other hand, the impression the Muslim world gives off is more of a "well, *I* wouldn't have done it, but they had it coming."

And maybe it's a cultural variation. Maybe within the culture they're having the same response we're used to seeing in our culture, but it doesn't translate.

I was going somewhere with this but I lost the train of thought.

No, that's exaclty it. I get a tacit approval or downright approval from the Muslim community at large ... those that are not hiding within their residences. I sure get that impression from the crowds that dance in the streets.

And yes, perhaps there was some irony in the Crusades. But today we are talking about the fantastic irony that in objecting to a 600-year-old quote painting Muslims as violent extremists, modern-day Muslims have a field day painting themselves as violent extremists.

By whom? I know clinics have (very rarely) been bombed (though rarity does not make it OK), but there have been organized conspiracies by large groups repeatedly? Why haven't I heard about that?

And the fact that you put "Christian" in quotes is a good thing. I would suppose many call themselves Christians and have no idea what it is to be so, those who bomb clinics included of course. Christian leadership will typically speak out against such actions and be asked if they condemn it, and they do (there are the odd exceptions, though). Islamic leaders either will not condemn it or will not address it. I don't hear any of them condemning it.

Fundamentalist/Extremist Islams are like the Borg. They want us to be assimilated.

No argument from me at all that the peaceful Muslims are not doing enough to counter the radical idealogy of the extremists. Until they step in, there won't be peace.

I suppose the thing that bugs me, however, is that prior to our invasion of Iraq, it was only the extremists that hated us. Now, I think the reason that the moderate Muslims aren't speaking up is that they are appalled at our actions as well. I seem to remember a very different attitude from the moderates after 9/11. There were many in the middle east that denounced the actions of Osama Bin Laden and his ilk. Now, they see us locking up people without a trail, some of which who are undoubtably innocent. They see us trying to change the law so that it is easier to torture. They see us building humungous bases in Iraq but neglecting the rebuilding of the infrastructure. This isn't the America they once knew and any fragile support that we once had has been decimated.

So I agree that they aren't doing enough to achieve the peace. I just don't think that, overall, they have seen much reason to, given that our attitude is to basically do whatever we want, whether the world is with us or not, and regardless of even our own laws and constitution.


Of course, I suppose it is just about time for the right to begin demonizing Colin Powell and branding him a islamo-fascist sympathizer. But he still makes a very good point.

There's not enough mojo in the world for this post.

MBC, while I typically find your posts to be grounded in reality, this is simply so far out there that I just don't get it. Either that or your definition of extremist is much broader than mine.

Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. Practically the entire populations of Syria and Iran. A large portion of the Islamic world has always hated the west, and the US in particular.

Both are right. But as it was mostly the Palestinans, Syrians and Iranians joyfully boogying to the 9/11 beat, now it's most Muslims worldwide, in my opinion.

And it's not enough to say that they all hate Americans. Our government and military have given them, and the world, good cause. But they hate "the West." That includes, and is especially dangerous to, Europe. They are slowly but surely conquering that continent, and they hate the Europeans despite not having the same rational cause they do for hating the Americans.

Muslims would hate us all no matter what we did. Our elected government and tax-funded military are also doing whatever they can to ramp up Muslim and world hatred and fear ... but that's not the entire story.

The entire population of Iran? Hardly.

This is from an American journalist who was living in Iraq around 2000-2001...

And another...

I will agree that our perceptions of reality differ greatly.

I won't argue with the validity of the view but this sentence is really weird:

It's weird since we weren't removing the Taliban from power until the middle of October 2001. It sounds as if Iranians were experiencing some premature jealousy.

You see headboard, whereas scaeagles sees only the pillow.

Great metaphor and presented in terms that even scaeagles can understand. Perfect! :D

I mostly just see mattresses.........every blanking day:eek:

I see the dust bunnies under the bed. (Need to take my medication now....)