Muslims

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually that is a persistent mis-statement. Jews are a religious group as are Muslims. Race has nothing to do with it. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew and he wasn't the same *race* as Sharon.

Actually Jews are a bit of both and Judaism itself doesn't have a definite answer as to who is a Jew. Many Jews are a religious group like Muslims and many Jews are ethnic as Arabs. Ethiopian Jews for instance, who were really Christians, were still recognized as Jews by the state of Israel because of their Jewish ancestry (and were offered citizenship).

Back to Muslims now

[Spock]

bit of this bit of that, describes most all of humanity....they aren't a race for the purposes herein stated.

back to ...........

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think the West (this is a generalization) may be very hypocritical. Europe has expressed its support for the legality of the cartoons, yet many countries in the European Union have established laws against Holocaust denial. Isn't this saying, "freedom to insult Muslims and enrage them is acceptable, but freedom to insult the Jews and enrage Westerners and Israelis is not acceptable."

I posted my own doubts in a previous thread about making denial of the Holocaust a punishable defense, but really I don't think it can be compared to the cartoon situation. The Holocaust is a fact, which validity can only be denied (IMO) on grounds of stupidity, ignorance or political reasons. Comparing it on the same scale as insulting images of a most likely historical figure, yet whose validity mostly depends on a religious basis is like comparing an appel to an elephant. Like comparing two things so differently that I can't even find a suitable comparison. Most likely a westerner's view but I don't think religion can change 'recent' historical events. It's not because you're a christian that you can pretend the crusades and the inquisition were only imaginary. It's not because you follow the islam that you can forget the Holocaust ever happened.

Also I wonder: several magazines in dominantly christian lands publish cartoons insulting a muslim holy man. Several muslims respond by lashing out to the Jewish community by denying the Holocaust. I say: Eh?

Why not respond on the same level and slander christian holy people? That would have made perfect sense to me, now Jesus would have been too tricky but christianity's got more then a few others to choose from. Or maybe is it because the rallying parties realised most christians wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it? It does make one wonder. It all makes me start to believe that most demonstrations and out-cries were not so spontaneous as previously described and that a lot of people got riled up and duped into kicking up dust by a lot less orchestrators.

Of course, the Holocaust hits closer to home for Europeans but why not pick another genocide? Europe IIRC also recognizes the Armenian genocide (denying that would have made sense, Turkey still does), the genocide in Rwanda etc... If you must use a genocide why the Holocaust? Because it's the most famous? Maybe. Because this one was in the heart of Western Europe? Why not deny the whole World War then while you're at it? Or is it because of the Holocaust's unseverable tie with Israel and all things Jewish? Wouldn't that be rather hypocritical too?

I'm not saying that Europe is entirely free from hypocrisy (hey, I could probably rant for hours about that) but Europe isn't the only one suffering from hypocrisy in this conflict.

(I don't claim or pretend to know any of the answers to the questions I asked in this post, I just think they are questions to be considered.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I say: Eh?

(OT, but this just busted me up for some reason! )

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not saying it "should be" teased. I think it definitely should not be teased. However, should we imprison people for it? That plainly is a rejection of freedom of speech when it goes past a certain boundary.

Maybe we shouldn't; but I think the comparison between the cartoons and the holocaust is ridiculous.

If we are going to curtail freedom of speech in this area, an area that offends the sensibilities of hundreds of millions of us, yet allow things that evoke the same reaction in hundreds of millions of others, that looks like hypocrisy.

Lief, if publishing an anti-Christian caricatures was illegal in Europe, and yet anti-Muslim was legal - that would be hypocrisy. I don't see how you can compare a massacre with the mockery of a religion. If someone thinks a mass murder isn't as terrible as the blasphemy of a prophet there's definitely something wrong with him.

It's a Western mentality that says, "Holocaust denial is far worse than cartoon insults." That's a Western perspective. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly Western and Israeli. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, countless others would reverse the priorities and say, "cartoon insults that disrespect God are worse than claims that insult the memory of millions of humans."

If it's not wrong where's the hypocrisy?
Do you agree that Holocaust Denial is more dangerous? If the holocaust would be forgotten in a few decades, what would prevent it from happening once again?


Btw, Gaffer is right - what united the Jews 100 years ago was not the religion but the race. Herzl himself was an atheist, IIRC.

[Rían]

I'd say Judaism is both a race and a religion. Rad, isn't a child Jewish if his mother is Jewish (and not necessarily his father?) And a baby can't have a religious opinion... but a person of any race can become Jewish (the religion).

[truthiscool]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Maybe we shouldn't; but I think the comparison between the cartoons and the holocaust is ridiculous.



Lief, if publishing an anti-Christian caricatures was illegal in Europe, and yet anti-Muslim was legal - that would be hypocrisy. I don't see how you can compare a massacre with the mockery of a religion. If someone thinks a mass murder isn't as terrible as the blasphemy of a prophet there's definitely something wrong with him.

If it's not wrong where's the hypocrisy?
Do you agree that Holocaust Denial is more dangerous? If the holocaust would be forgotten in a few decades, what would prevent it from happening once again?


Btw, Gaffer is right - what united the Jews 100 years ago was not the religion but the race. Herzl himself was an atheist, IIRC.

Yah (about the cartoons)

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd say Judaism is both a race and a religion. Rad, isn't a child Jewish if his mother is Jewish (and not necessarily his father?) And a baby can't have a religious opinion... but a person of any race can become Jewish (the religion).

That's what my ex said - and it broke my heart at the time too, because I wanted a family with him so badly, and he said that if we had a baby, that he wouldn't love or consider our baby to be completely his, because I am not Jewish - non-Jewish mother equals non-Jewish baby, even if Daddy is a purebred Israeli Jewish man. Even if I converted to Judaism, he said. Because I asked him hypothetically, "What if I converted?" He discouraged me from doing so - converting, that is. He said it was way more work than I realised or would understand, to be truly Jewish. But it crushed me at the time, when he said he'd never love a baby from me the same way he would if it were from a naturally Jewish woman. SO, from this I can only surmise that Judaism is unique, in that it is BOTH a religion AND a race.

[Spock]

Well, all I can say is, no matter how much it hurt, for him to say and feel that towards you and your offer, you're better off he is an ex!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

...and he said that if we had a baby, that he wouldn't love or consider our baby to be completely his, because I am not Jewish ... SO, from this I can only surmise that Judaism is unique, in that it is BOTH a religion AND a race.

And no offense, but from this, I can only surmise that HE is a jerk to not love a baby that the two of you would have.

[Lotesse]

Well, you guys, actually he WAS a jerk, in many personal ways - but that's my personal relationship, which has nothing to do with the insight I have into wheter judaism is a race or religion. I'm just tryna say, from what I experienced with Avi, it was definitely both, but the race part- the part where being truly a Chosen One you'd have to be BORN that way, was way, way more important than the religion part, i.e. deciding to convert to Judaism as an adult, after deciding to and studying for it. By this rationale, it looks like the race of Judaism is inherently a necessary component of being Jewish by religion, so the two terms are equal and interchangeable when talking about being Jewish. I think that this is unique in all the cultures and races and religions around the world, or correct me if I'm wrong. The only comparable thing is the idea and practice of Monarchy, I think, which has nothing to do with religion, but is a born-to-the-manner type of way of thinking, just like traditional Judaism.

[Rían]

From what I know about Judaism (which isn't a whole lot), I think an adult convert would be equal to a natural-born Jew in the eyes of the Law. Hobbit, any info for us?

(but of course the convert wouldn't be "equal" in the eyes of the Jewish mamas! )


edit - whoops, slipped OT onto Judaism on a Muslim thread!

[HOBBIT]

Yeah, it is like a race and a religion. (I made a post on that in the religious knowledge topic) That still is a pretty hurtful thing to say - that you wouldn't love your own baby just because he/she wasn't "completely Jewish"
Sounds like your boyfriend is Orthodox or something.

Converts aren't really encouraged in Judaism like in Christianity.

Some Jews would never marry a non-Jew and have kids with them. Others wouldn't care as much (more likely reform or conservative). You fall in love with who you fall in love with.

[HOBBIT]

Actually, I posted it in the Theological topic.

http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?p=525050#post525050

[Lotesse]

He MUST have been sort of Orthodox - I mean, he's Israeli, and his family back in Haifa are very strict. He once absolutely lost it - LOST it with me, when I left a take-out salad in the refrigerator that had bacon bits in it - I am NOT joking, he LOST it on me, and usually he was always such an even-tempered, calm/controlled looking kind of man. Go figure! Although I admit, that time I actually left that salad with bacon bits on PURpose in the fridge to see how he'd react, plus I was mad at him that day about something stupid and I was testing him, trying to see which "buttons" he might have. The "No bacon or pork products in my house" button was alive and well, I can assure you! He was fanatical about keeping meat plates FAR far away from the dairy plates, too; that was another thing. Another time he went bananas on me was when I got caught cutting cheese with his meat-only knife. Well anyway.

Here is a very, very informative website for ALL of us to be able to benefit from in here, the Muslims thread. They do a three-way comparison of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and I thought since this thread keeps ending up comparing religions in order to be able to discuss Muslim at all, that the least we could use here would be a handy comparison-chart.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/c...ristianity.htm

[Lief Erikson]

That site admits that it does somewhat generalize, and I noticed some generalizations in it too. Nonetheless, it is overall pretty useful.

The charts were good. Here's one part that isn't a chart, but which I liked anyway:

Is there a difference [between religions]? -brackets added there by Lief

In looking at these major belief systems and their views of God, we find tremendous diversity:

Hindus believe in 300,000 gods.
Buddhists say there is no deity.
New Age followers believe they are God.
Muslims believe in a powerful but unknowable God.
Christians believe in a God who is loving and approachable.

Are all religions worshiping the same God? Let's consider that. New Age teaches that everyone should come to center on a cosmic consciousness, but it would require Islam to give up their one God, Hinduism to give up their numerous gods, and Buddhism to establish that there is a God.
The world's major religions (Hinduism, New Age, Buddhism, Islam, following Jesus Christ) are each quite unique. And of these one affirms that there is a personal, loving God who can be known, now in this life. Jesus Christ spoke of a God who welcomes us into a relationship with him and comes along side us as a comforter, counselor and powerful God who loves us.

In Hinduism a person is on their own trying to gain release from karma. In New Age a person is working at their own divinity. In Buddhism it is an individual quest at being free from desire. And in Islam, the individual follows religious laws for the sake of paradise after death. In Jesus' teaching, you see a personal relationship with a personal God -- a relationship that carries over into the next life."

[Earniel]

We're getting slightly off topic here.

[inked]

Allah and the Trinity : http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=1000

Is that on-topic enough?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

We're getting slightly off topic here.

That's for sure! I have trouble staying on-topic here, which is why I've largely moved to the "Religious Knowledge" thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

And you think that's wrong. Then lives of people are less worthy to you than a belief system I suppose.

Belief systems make us what we are. The way we function in society is determined by what we believe as individuals. Our beliefs or nonbeliefs form who we are.

Martin Luther King Jr. predicted that he very well might not live to see the end of the Civil Rights movement, but he believed that what he was doing was worth the cost of his life. He died because of a belief, the belief that his people must be freed. Jesus Christ also died because of a belief- the belief that he was the Son of God. His disciples were persecuted and killed because they believed the same thing about him. Many heroes and heroines through the centuries have died for good causes, have died over beliefs and spiritual truths. I hope that I may be one of those who has the courage to die for his or her beliefs.

So, that people should take such a strong stance on beliefs in the Muslim world should not be a huge shock. Religious belief is fervent in these Arab countries. To you, religion and belief may not be such a huge deal, but for a large percentage of the rest of the world, the outlook is very different, and religious belief can have an even higher priority than life. We have seen that with a variety of people ranging from suicide bombers to saints. It's another different outlook, one that I happen to share.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Do you agree that Holocaust Denial is more dangerous?

Yes. But if I was a Muslim, I might not agree. I might be one of those who questions the Holocaust; that belief is spreading in the Muslim world. I might also believe that a terrible insult to God and his final prophet is worse than an insult to their memories. We look from our Western perspective, but we have trouble seeing from another perspective. We must be able to respect both (not that we must respect Holocaust Denial, but it is probably a double standard to ban it) in order to have peace.

Though we cannot accept the extremist perspective that seeks to destroy us. That perspective, we can only fight against or change peacefully. Where changing it peacefully seems impossible, we must fight.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I posted my own doubts in a previous thread about making denial of the Holocaust a punishable defense, but really I don't think it can be compared to the cartoon situation. The Holocaust is a fact, which validity can only be denied (IMO) on grounds of stupidity, ignorance or political reasons. Comparing it on the same scale as insulting images of a most likely historical figure, yet whose validity mostly depends on a religious basis is like comparing an appel to an elephant. Like comparing two things so differently that I can't even find a suitable comparison. Most likely a westerner's view but I don't think religion can change 'recent' historical events. It's not because you're a christian that you can pretend the crusades and the inquisition were only imaginary. It's not because you follow the islam that you can forget the Holocaust ever happened.

I agree with you. I'm not defending Holocaust Denial; I think it only can be denied on the grounds you presented. However, I see religion and belief in it as vastly more serious than you seem to. It's more than just a guesswork to these people, as it is to me. It's a certainty that's worth dying for.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Also I wonder: several magazines in dominantly christian lands publish cartoons insulting a muslim holy man. Several muslims respond by lashing out to the Jewish community by denying the Holocaust. I say: Eh?

And I agree: Anti-Semitism.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Why not respond on the same level and slander christian holy people? That would have made perfect sense to me, now Jesus would have been too tricky but christianity's got more then a few others to choose from.

I think just about all of whom the Muslims also respect as holy figures. Plus, the cartoons were published in Denmark and throughout Europe, a part of the world that is not known for its religious fervor.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It all makes me start to believe that most demonstrations and out-cries were not so spontaneous as previously described and that a lot of people got riled up and duped into kicking up dust by a lot less orchestrators.

The key was international viewing. Once the international community had all seen it, once it had spread that far, that's when it became big. Just like the Abu Ghraib scandal. That was very limited, a horrible abuse that happened in a limited area and was not very widespread, but which got international attention nonetheless. Even if it's limited, the cameras of a global community bring it into greater focus.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Of course, the Holocaust hits closer to home for Europeans but why not pick another genocide? Europe IIRC also recognizes the Armenian genocide (denying that would have made sense, Turkey still does), the genocide in Rwanda etc... If you must use a genocide why the Holocaust? Because it's the most famous? Maybe. Because this one was in the heart of Western Europe? Why not deny the whole World War then while you're at it? Or is it because of the Holocaust's unseverable tie with Israel and all things Jewish? Wouldn't that be rather hypocritical too?

It's partly anti-Semitism, and also partly rage at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by Spock

So in effect, what your saying is that Westerners perceive millions of deaths as something not to kid about but Muslims don't view those deaths as important.

I would never make that generalization about Muslims. Anti-Semitism is growing in the Muslim world, but saying that "Muslims don't view deaths as important," is just absurd. I would say that many Muslims view religion as a lot more important than most people in the West do, though. Tragically for us, IMO .