RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Care to retract anything? I think I've only used the rolley-eyed smilie about 4 times, but IMHO, your statement about having "as little power and influence as possible", especially after the following quote on arrogance, deserves a --> AND a

Certainly not, and I don't understand what your problem is with these two statements. I have no time just now but will try to explain what I mean a bit more clearly when I do have time.

[Rían]

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding going on - I'll back up and try to clear things up.

you wrote this:

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Christianity has its fundamentalists too. There are people here who think the Bible is literally true, homosexuality is a sin, evolution should not be taught in schools and God made the world in 6 days around 6,000 BC or something.

All religions have them. What we have to do is make sure that they have as little power and influence as possible.

Could you please explain what you mean by this and why, IYO, you think "they" should have "as little power and influence as possible.", especially in the light of your later statement of how it's arrogant to think one's own culture "inherently superior".

Also, I imagine you know that I think the historically-written parts of the Bible are literally true (there's also poetry and imagery parts, and IMO they're fairly easy to distinguish), and that homosexuality is a sin (along with gossip and other things), and that God made the world in 6 days around 6k years ago. Do you think I should lose my vote in my country, especially given that those things are unable to be shown right or wrong by anyone? (I do, however, think evolution should be taught in schools - I mean, school can be pretty boring, so why not discuss something amusing and far-fetched like some of the concepts in evolution )

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Could you please explain what you mean by this and why, IYO, you think "they" should have "as little power and influence as possible.", especially in the light of your later statement of how it's arrogant to think one's own culture "inherently superior".

Thanks for taking the trouble.

By "they" I mean people with extremist ideas who want to impose them on others, I didn't specifically mean Creationists, or you!

There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it's the imposition of them on others that I take issue with. That is what these Islamist extremists are doing to recruit these nutters, so we have to find out all the ways in which we can neutralise their effectiveness.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also, I imagine you know that I think the historically-written parts of the Bible are literally true (there's also poetry and imagery parts, and IMO they're fairly easy to distinguish), and that homosexuality is a sin (along with gossip and other things), and that God made the world in 6 days around 6k years ago. Do you think I should lose my vote in my country, especially given that those things are unable to be shown right or wrong by anyone? (I do, however, think evolution should be taught in schools - I mean, school can be pretty boring, so why not discuss something amusing and far-fetched like some of the concepts in evolution )

No. My intent was the opposite.

The views you hold would, to a non-believer, seem unreasonable. Some aspects of them may even be regarded as "extreme" (e.g. I think it's "extreme" to regard homosexuality as a sin). However, you do not go around forcing them on others and you do not use extreme methods to propagate them. That is the key distinction: between the "what" (no problem) and the "how" (no extremism).

We are in danger of conflating the beliefs (some of which may look extreme to us) with the methods (some of which are extreme) in our response to Islamist terror attacks. Do you see where I'm coming from now?

I can see how the misunderstanding arose and sorry if you were offended. I hope I have explained myself better now.

This should be seen in the light of the following comments made on this thread, which are examples of this conflation, IMO:

we have to explore the possibility that one of these causes is something inherent to Islam

I'd like someone with a bit more acquaintance with the Koran to list some verses calling for peace. I am acquainted with the ones declaring all non-Islamics to be fair game and to be converted at pain of death. NOT that they really mean that, of course, because the events in London are all peaceful explosions, RIGHT?

Pardon my cynicism, but where's the Koran say turn the other cheek?

This was all done by violent conquest, not by preaching a message of peace.

Osama Bin Laden calling for a polarised world -- Muslims versus the West -- was telecast on Al-Jazeera on Saturday November 3, 2001.

That's a pretty straight forward aim and one to take up arms against....or learn Arabic.

In particular, this one caught my eye:

I am forced to the conviction that most modern Muslims are not true Muslims. They don't believe what Muhammad believed- the "extremists" do. Most modern Muslims are good and decent. The extremists are not. Islam is not.

Hmm. Don't you think we should let the Muslims be the judge of whether they're true Muslims or not?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also, I imagine you know that I think the historically-written parts of the Bible are literally true (there's also poetry and imagery parts, and IMO they're fairly easy to distinguish), and that homosexuality is a sin (along with gossip and other things), and that God made the world in 6 days around 6k years ago. Do you think I should lose my vote in my country, especially given that those things are unable to be shown right or wrong by anyone? (I do, however, think evolution should be taught in schools - I mean, school can be pretty boring, so why not discuss something amusing and far-fetched like some of the concepts in evolution )

the funny part is that a devout muslim basically believes all those things too

[inked]

Originally Posted by sun-star

You didn't comment on any of the remarks you posted, nor did you give them any context (the link you provided doesn't work). If you didn't agree with them you should have said so, and if you knew they were inaccurate, IMO you shouldn't have perpetuated their errors by posting them here. This is indeed how internet myth is born.

If you want to post the American news reports from which you or these posters, whoever they are, obtained their false information, that would be interesting. The BBC and all British reports give a completely different story.

Sorry the link didn't work. It did for me after I posted. And I din't comment because I thought the various types of comment spoke adequately for themselves. The context of the report was plain from the text.

Now, Sun-star, if the media events are as given in that article and so subject to error in the 1st world, what would e the situation in the 3rd whence so many of the terrorists appear to come? Did I miss reports of dancing in the streets like that for 9/11? Or were the numbers killed too few?

We are so accustomed to allegations of veracity in the media (you know they never make mistakes, right?) that most people take them at face value. Turns out they conveyed false information which you corrected by your information. I appreciate that. But I sense a an injured pride or response because of the reactions of folks to information they were given. I have the happy ability to get "second opinions" and local information which is not available to many.

We are on the same side.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the funny part is that a devout muslim basically believes all those things too

Hey, I've never said that I think Muslims should not vote in whatever country they legally reside in I've always been of the position that EVERY person should have an equal say in their government, no matter if I agree with their position or not. I don't care if an atheist believes that women should be veiled and a Muslim thinks they shouldn't - I think each one should get one vote.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Thanks for taking the trouble.

Oh, Gaffer ... I'll embarass your Brit sensibilities, but .... you're one of my all-time favorite people here, and a rift between us would sorely grieve me, and I want to keep things open and clear between us, so it's no trouble a'tall

By "they" I mean people with extremist ideas who want to impose them on others, I didn't specifically mean Creationists, or you!

OK, thanks - I'm sure I'm over-sensitive about things like that - it's just that I get tired of being lumped into a group into which I do not belong, and then being ridiculed unfairly

There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it's the imposition of them on others that I take issue with. That is what these Islamist extremists are doing to recruit these nutters, so we have to find out all the ways in which we can neutralise their effectiveness.

*ponders* But do you really think those "nutters" that are recruited are being imposed upon? I mean that seriously... just a thought. Are you saying that anyone that is recruited is just not smart/thoughtful enough to think things thru for themselves? What are you saying?

The views you hold would, to a non-believer, seem unreasonable.

Yes, I see that - and of course, I think "non-believer" views are unreasonable But I still like and respect them, and uphold their rights to believe as they think best (as do you)

Some aspects of them may even be regarded as "extreme" (e.g. I think it's "extreme" to regard homosexuality as a sin).

But can you see how it can be a sin, looking at it in light of the design issue, and going against a designer's design causes harm? I think that most of the stigma with the word "sin" is its improper use as a judgement tool that (very wrongly) segregates homosexuals. But that's another thread ...

However, you do not go around forcing them on others and you do not use extreme methods to propagate them.

*hides her fertilizer*

That is the key distinction: between the "what" (no problem) and the "how" (no extremism).

We are in danger of conflating the beliefs (some of which may look extreme to us) with the methods (some of which are extreme) in our response to Islamist terror attacks. Do you see where I'm coming from now?

*hmm, conflating - new word to me!*
Yes, I do - but I think they might be somewhat interwoven in some cases, and there's where it get complex ...

I can see how the misunderstanding arose and sorry if you were offended. I hope I have explained myself better now.

Yes, thanks

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This should be seen in the light of the following comments made on this thread, which are examples of this conflation, IMO:
...

I think those first 4 you quoted are valid questions - you don't? Now I'm open to any answer, but I think they're valid questions.

In particular, this one caught my eye: ...

Hmm. Don't you think we should let the Muslims be the judge of whether they're true Muslims or not?

But I think they disagree ...

And to me, one big difference is that I see current Muslims in position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion), while I don't see the equivalent in current Christian/Western leaders. We can discuss the past, too, but right now, I"m talking about current leaders and happenings.

And this also raises the question of definitions - I mean, will you consider anyone who wants to call themselves a Muslim a Muslim? Or will you say there should be some reasonable basic definition?

[Spock]

...."it's those double Muslims you gotta watch out for" ......Silver Streak

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

while I don't see the equivalent in current Christian/Western leaders.

Havent been watching the 700 Club then recently? or been to any of thousands of fire and brimstone sermens quite common in the deep south?

[inked]

'xcuse me, IR, when have any of these programs noted above shown beheadings in say the last 200+ years? And which one showed dancing in the streets over the bombing of Towers with humans in the airplanes? (Not that the stricter sects would dance anyway, but you get the drift!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Rian

you're one of my all-time favorite people here, and a rift between us would sorely grieve me, and I want to keep things open and clear between us, so it's no trouble a'tall

* blushes *

* dunks tater in tea *

Ahem.

"Imposition on nutters": "exploitation of nutters" might be better. Images of "heroic" attacks against Westerners are used as a recruitment tool. These sorts of images are very powerful. But the end result is that the beliefs are propagated through the medium of nutters.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think those first 4 you quoted are valid questions - you don't? Now I'm open to any answer, but I think they're valid questions.

I don't. You could (and people have) started similar arguments about all sorts of religions.
- "Christian" countries gave us two world wars, don't you know
- There are textual references to all sorts of things in the Bible that the majority of us wouldn't think of as reasonable today (e.g. slavery)

I could go on. But I feel that posing these sorts of questions is mostly unhelpful in this climate because of their sweeping and divisive nature.

Maybe this is something it would be good to discuss further.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And to me, one big difference is that I see current Muslims in position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion), while I don't see the equivalent in current Christian/Western leaders. We can discuss the past, too, but right now, I"m talking about current leaders and happenings.

Ha! The difference is they've done it themselves instead of just inciting it. Our current leaders have invaded two muslim countries, with tens of thousands of innocent casualties, civil insurrection, suffering and general destruction as a result.

Imagine for a moment that you are a Pakistani muslim who believes that America and Britain used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and nab its resources. (Lots and lots of such people exist.)

What feelings do you think you would have about the West?

Originally Posted by Billy Connolly

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Because then, he'll be a mile away and you've got his shoes.

[The Gaffer]

Here's why it's especially important to act positively to prevent religious division:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4723339.stm

[brownjenkins]

here's a thought to ponder on religion and terrorism... whether it's in palestine or northern ireland, muslim or catholic, terrorist leaders tend to use religion and "the afterlife" as a motivation for people to sacrifice their own lives in a way that will bring them glory when the die (supposedly)

agnostics, like myself, don't believe there is an afterlife (this is the only one we've got)... so, for me, sacrificing this life simply isn't an option, no matter what the cause... might this "belief system" be a better one to encourage?

[The Gaffer]

Heh!

However, we all end up in the ground at some point. I'd probably sacrifice myself under certain circumstances even though there's no eternal reward.

[Spock]

By jove, brownjenkins may have something.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Heh!

However, we all end up in the ground at some point. I'd probably sacrifice myself under certain circumstances even though there's no eternal reward.

true... but at least, the "breaking point" would be lowered a good bit

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

'xcuse me, IR, when have any of these programs noted above shown beheadings in say the last 200+ years? And which one showed dancing in the streets over the bombing of Towers with humans in the airplanes? (Not that the stricter sects would dance anyway, but you get the drift!)

excuse me inked and allow me to not have you attempt to take this out of context by quoting the whole paragraph rian wrote:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And to me, one big difference is that I see current Muslims in position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger prior to provocation (or provocation in our opinion), while I don't see the equivalent in current Christian/Western leaders.

Everything I named above is directly parallel to "a position of authority inciting the populace to hate and anger". Please attempt to counter that. And keep it in context. Youll note she said NOTHING about cutting off heads or anything you pulled out of thin air.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Havent been watching the 700 Club then recently? or been to any of thousands of fire and brimstone sermens quite common in the deep south?

I don't think I've seen the 700 club for about 25 years or so, since I ran away screaming from the hairspray issues those people had - have you been watching it?

Even so, I doubt if they are calling upon people to hate Muslims, and to try to kill them on their own initiative (as opposed to within the context of a country's military action), and to rejoice if a Muslim is killed by someone, and I doubt that southern preachers are doing so, either. Do you claim that they are?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't. You could (and people have) started similar arguments about all sorts of religions.
- "Christian" countries gave us two world wars, don't you know
- There are textual references to all sorts of things in the Bible that the majority of us wouldn't think of as reasonable today (e.g. slavery)

I could go on. But I feel that posing these sorts of questions is mostly unhelpful in this climate because of their sweeping and divisive nature.

Maybe this is something it would be good to discuss further.

I'm not saying to only ask it about Islam; I'm saying IMO they're valid questions to ask about ANY worldview belief. I think it's good to analyze beliefs. Now, one answer might be "it doesn't apply here", but I still think it's a good question.