Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

How about, "the we-don't-like-it 'cuz-we-have-to-think" guy?

If you wish to discuss Islamic influence, you must face up to analysis. Sorry it's not all sweetness and light, folks, as you characterize, say, Christianity.
And the reason it was in both threads was that it was published in Paris so it fit this thread while it concerned the tsunami and fit that thread. Rather than have you all flail about helplessly, I made it easy for you so we could discuss both aspects: Europe and the affected areas.

By the by, I heard that France had donated a insignificant 150,000 USD. Does anyone know if that is in error? Sure seems like it must be. (I would not ascribe that to Islamic influence, BTW, but rather to the deficit that loss of trade with Saddam must have caused ).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the problem is the "official" part... most christians would take offense if i took the views of say, the pope, and projected them upon the entirety of christianity

The pope is an official recognized by the Catholic church, so when talking about the Catholic branch of Christianity, it is entirely valid to talk about the pope. When talking about the Protestant part, what the pope says on subjects is irrelevant, because Protestants officially do NOT recognize the pope as an authority figure.

in reality, there is no such thing as "muslim"...

I think you may have just surprised quite a few million people I think those that call themselves Muslims would disagree with you.

I do believe that you can't say all Muslims are the same. However, I think it's entirely valid to refer to Muslims, and their general beliefs and practices, especially since they themselves do.

so referring to them in any general way is mistaken... the same could be said for "christian"

I disagree. I think this is incorrect thinking. Christians are killed in some Muslim areas. Try to tell the Muslims who are killing the Christians, "Hey, those people aren't Christians, and you aren't Muslims! There's no such thing as Muslims or Christians!"

We're talking belief systems here, with official scriptures and leaders. If a person in Indonesia calls himself a Muslim, that's referring to the Islamic scriptures and leadership system. If a person in Indonesia calls himself a Christian, that's referring to Christian scriptures and leadership structures. If a Christian in Indonesia identifies himself as a Christian, he may be killed by those calling themselves Muslims.

I just don't buy this "nobody is anything" idea. I know that individuals may believe their scriptures in varying degrees, but no Christian is going to say, "I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible is entirely wrong, and there is no God."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sharon, I'm sorry that my response got you down; It sounds like you've got your hands full at the moment. Keep the heid and it'll soon be spring!

Thank you for the sympathy I'm starting to feel better today - got some good rest this weekend.

I'm also surprised that you didn't understand why I reacted that way.

I did understand, Gaffer I was just frustrated by what I saw as somewhat of a double standard, in a small way by you, and in a larger way by many others. Your post was the straw that broke the camel's back with me, and I let loose. There was a lot of pent-up frustration going on.

By and large, it's not the facts quoted in the article I have a problem with but the tone and emphasis.

And I appreciate your kindness, and awareness of how others are treated.

Here are some examples:

"racism is one evil Muslims cannot be accused of"

implying that there are others they can be accused of.

Gaff, I took that the exact opposite way. Usually the way I hear that phrase being used indicates that the people being talked about have been wrongly accused in some ways. To me, that meant that the author thinks that Muslims have been wrongly accused in some ways.

But also, when you say, "implying that there are others they can be accused of" - what? are you saying there are NO evils that Muslims can be accused of? Why would you think this, when further down your post you accuse Christians (and rightly) of some evils? Are Christians the only ones that can be accused of evils?

Note the use of "many", not "some" or "a few".

Well, from what I'm aware of, I agree with the use of the word "many", as opposed to "some", and also as opposed to "most".

Quoting the case of the Saudi Arabian government to characterise Muslims as a whole is hardly justifiable, especially since they are loathed by many Muslims worldwide.

But they are certainly a large group of Muslims.

The savage, once he has spent long enough in contact with more advanced peoples, begins to develop more civilised views.

I assume that's a sarcastic comment. Assuming it is, are you saying, then, that Muslim views on women and justice/punishment (just for 2 examples) should be held up as a standard for Britain and America, and we should attempt to emulate them as soon as possible? Which societies in general do you think is more humane - predominantly Muslim-based or predominantly Christian-based?

I know what you're saying with the "savages" comment, but we have to be careful. I think there are valid ways to say, "hey, I just think Muslim societies tend to have less regard for women and those of different beliefs" without saying, "Those Muslims are idiotic, infintile savages!"

Me too! And this article was doing precisely this, except using religions instead of countries. I hope I've explained enough my reasons for believing this.

I think you misunderstood somewhat (thru your kind concern for other people) and I hope you can re-read and re-consider. I think it is a VERY good point that a big tenet of Christianity is the concept of the good Samaritan (with all of its racial implications) and "love your neighbor as yourself", and that these are NOT big concepts we see acted out in Islam today. I think the hospital thing is a GREAT example. Yes, Christians were jerks in areas in the past, but that doesn't exempt other religious groups from having behaviors criticized. What we see today are Christian-based hospitals treating ANYONE, and Muslim-based hospitals NOT doing this. To me, this is a valid criticism, and is NOT Muslim-bashing to observe and comment on this.

BTW, our church supports missionaries in other countries. (and this has changed, btw - one of my favorite missionaries is in India, and works with disabled Indian kids - it's NOT just descend on a culture and throw out pamplets; it's move into a culture with love in your heart and look for ways to bless the people there.) We have some missionaries in Muslim countries. Let's compare some Christian/Muslim cultural reactions. In America, yes, there is some prejudice against Muslims, but it is NOT officially sanctioned, nor encouraged by leaders, and a Christian harming a Muslim will be prosecuted. In one Muslim country where we have some people living there, we can't even get pictures of them, because the chances are very good that they will be killed. Is it Muslim bashing for me to point this out? Or is it an impartial evaluation on my part as to what I consider to be better or worse? In general, it is my opinion that Christianity promotes loving one's neighbor of ANY belief more than Islam. I'm really not aware of Muslims leaving their country to go to America and to help disabled and impoverished American kids; are you? Now individual Muslims and Christians vary, but I'm evaluating official beliefs, as held by the majority of those that identify with those beliefs.

I also agree that Christians should be at liberty to say what they like. However, they should be prepared to take the heat if what they say is unacceptable.

I'm very familiar with taking the heat - my opinions are often unacceptable to many here. However, many opinions here are unacceptable to me, and I comment on them in a (hopefully) loving way. It just seems to me, from much experience, that a Christian saying they don't like an aspect of another faith will get wrongly accused of a hateful attitude more than a person of another faith saying they don't like an aspect of Christianity.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But they [the Saudi Arabian gov't] are certainly a large group of Muslims.

How many people make up the Saudi Arabian government, versus how many millions of Muslims worldwide? Or are you saying that they do characterize many Muslims.
If the latter, how exactly do you mean characterize? I imagine that this would be hard...


Slightly OT... but what are the racial implications of a good Samaratain? (Aside from Sarmatia being an ancient country IIRC.)

EDIT: Also, a more liberal/equal/whatever view of women doesn't imply a society is more civilized (I'm not saying you were saying that RÃ*an), it just means it's a more liberal society.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

How many people make up the Saudi Arabian government, versus how many millions of Muslims worldwide? Or are you saying that they do characterize many Muslims.
If the latter, how exactly do you mean characterize? I imagine that this would be hard...

I wasn't talking about the Saudi government specifically; I was talking about who the government represents. I"m not aware of any reports of the Saudi people sending tons of aid over because they were disappointed in what their government sent. I imagine the Saudi government is fairly representative of the Saudi people in this area.

Slightly OT... but what are the racial implications of a good Samaratain? (Aside from Sarmatia being an ancient country IIRC.)

Samaritans were absolutely despised by Jews. And in Jesus's story, He makes the Samaritan the good guy, and the Jews (and high-up Jews, too - a priest and a Levite) the guys who did NOT do the right thing. (and BTW, some of the Jewish laws that the priest and the Levite would have been WELL aware of were to help people in need, and even animals in need. They ignored these laws, and the despised Samaritan did the right thing.)

EDIT: Also, a more liberal/equal/whatever view of women doesn't imply a society is more civilized (I'm not saying you were saying that RÃ*an), it just means it's a more liberal society.

I don't think I used the word "civilized". Is it BETTER, IYO, to be a more liberal society? IYO, do Canadians treat women BETTER than predominantly Islamic countries? IYO, is it a BETTER thing to look out for your neighbor's good, regardless of his/her religious persuasion?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thank you for the sympathy I'm starting to feel better today - got some good rest this weekend.

Glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I did understand, Gaffer I was just frustrated by what I saw as somewhat of a double standard, in a small way by you, and in a larger way by many others. Your post was the straw that broke the camel's back with me, and I let loose. There was a lot of pent-up frustration going on.

I'm guessing you mean that Christians' views are unfairly oppressed in some way while others' aren't. If so, I don't see it; there's barely a thread in this forum which hasn't become a discussion of religion.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Gaff, I took that the exact opposite way. Usually the way I hear that phrase being used indicates that the people being talked about have been wrongly accused in some ways. To me, that meant that the author thinks that Muslims have been wrongly accused in some ways.

OK, but that wasn't how I interpreted it.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But also, when you say, "implying that there are others they can be accused of" - what? are you saying there are NO evils that Muslims can be accused of?

My point would be that it's unseemly for one religion to accuse another of evils.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would you think this, when further down your post you accuse Christians (and rightly) of some evils? Are Christians the only ones that can be accused of evils?

Yes.

Sorry, just joking. I wouldn't accuse an entire religion of evils, though I might accuse religion itself, but that's another story...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I assume that's a sarcastic comment. Assuming it is, are you saying, then, that Muslim views on women and justice/punishment (just for 2 examples) should be held up as a standard for Britain and America, and we should attempt to emulate them as soon as possible?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the implication of that statement is that "Christian" influence is making Muslims more civilised.

I think you'll find a tremendous heterogeneity within Islam on the role and treatment of women. They certainly don't have a monopoly on oppressing women. However, I would regard many of the practices I have heard of as barbaric.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Which societies in general do you think is more humane - predominantly Muslim-based or predominantly Christian-based?

Christian. However, they are all human first and foremost.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know what you're saying with the "savages" comment, but we have to be careful.

Glad you agree

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think there are valid ways to say, "hey, I just think Muslim societies tend to have less regard for women and those of different beliefs" without saying, "Those Muslims are idiotic, infintile savages!"

I think you misunderstood somewhat (thru your kind concern for other people) and I hope you can re-read and re-consider. I think it is a VERY good point that a big tenet of Christianity is the concept of the good Samaritan (with all of its racial implications) and "love your neighbor as yourself", and that these are NOT big concepts we see acted out in Islam today..

Nor in Christendom. At least these "Muslims" of which you speak are being honest, instead of going to Church on Sunday giving it "love thy neighbour" then bombing the crap out of thy neighbour on Monday.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think the hospital thing is a GREAT example. Yes, Christians were jerks in areas in the past, but that doesn't exempt other religious groups from having behaviors criticized. What we see today are Christian-based hospitals treating ANYONE, and Muslim-based hospitals NOT doing this. To me, this is a valid criticism, and is NOT Muslim-bashing to observe and comment on this.

I agree, jolly well done. I think it's one of the best things about Christianity. It's part of the reason why, if I believed in God, I would probably be a Christian.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let's compare some Christian/Muslim cultural reactions. In America, yes, there is some prejudice against Muslims, but it is NOT officially sanctioned, nor encouraged by leaders, and a Christian harming a Muslim will be prosecuted. In one Muslim country where we have some people living there, we can't even get pictures of them, because the chances are very good that they will be killed. Is it Muslim bashing for me to point this out? Or is it an impartial evaluation on my part as to what I consider to be better or worse?

Well, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that there are other reasons than religion at work here (such as poverty, political oppression and criminality). It may also be that they are at risk from a minority of bigots and not the majority (or even "many") or else how could they work there at all?

I have massive amounts of admiration for the individuals who altruistically sacrifice themselves to this kind of work. But it's had precious little impact on poverty worldwide. There are still 30,000 people PER DAY dying because of preventable, poverty-related causes. We're rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic here.

To quote a famous Brazilian priest whose name escapes me, "If I give food to the hungry they call me a saint; If I ask why people are hungry they call me a communist".

One of the reasons why Christianity is so successful is because it offers succour to those who are oppressed and suffering. Christ's suffering elevates misery to a spiritual level. "You'll get your reward in the next life." One could argue that this encourages complacency and helps prevent people from rising up and insisting on a fairer distribution of wealth.

I'm just pointing out that there are many different ways of viewing any act, even one that seems altruistic and worthy.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In general, it is my opinion that Christianity promotes loving one's neighbor of ANY belief more than Islam. I'm really not aware of Muslims leaving their country to go to America and to help disabled and impoverished American kids; are you?

I think it's hard to be sure without knowing a heck of a lot more about Muslims. Many Muslims regard the US as an oppressor, and the US is one of the richest countries in the world, so why would they send missionaries there? Having said that, I do believe there is a strong tradition of Muslim missions in African-American cultures.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now individual Muslims and Christians vary, but I'm evaluating official beliefs, as held by the majority of those that identify with those beliefs.

"Official beliefs" are one thing and individuals are another thing altogether, as you acknowledge. What is the benefit of evaluating official beliefs? Are you considering converting to Islam?

I guess my point is that such evaluations, expressed in the way that article does, contribute to an atmosphere of prejudice towards Islam. My belief is that this particular article is calculatedly and deliberately so, particularly in the context of the tsunami. I find it hard to understand how anyone can fail to see this.

It's rather undignified for one religion to say to another "we have this principle of X which you don't so we're better than you". That's why I characterised it as intellectual (or theological) onanism. It's also pride and vanity, which IIRC are two of the Seven.

[inked]

The Gaffer,

Let's see if I have you correctly, any religion will do in a pinch and should be sacrosanct because it is a religion. Except Christianity because it is the root cause of all failure to live up to ideals in the world, ergo, all religions are created equal except Christianity. Right?

I do however agree "One of the reasons why Christianity is so successful is because it offers succour to those who are oppressed and suffering. Christ's suffering elevates misery to a spiritual level. "You'll get your reward in the next life." One could argue that this encourages complacency and helps prevent people from rising up and insisting on a fairer distribution of wealth."

You do realize that Marx's primary complaint was the latter in a society which was status-based and transitioning to contract-based. I wonder however if you realize that it was Christians who challenged the status quo on slavery, enfranchisement of women, child-labor, etc and beat down those evils? Are you aware that those problems persist in Islamic based cultures and others (and that Islamic slave traders continue to work today? It is not an attack on Islam to note the societal contexts in which it operates and its effects or lack of on those societies.

However, while you reserve your attacks for Christianity, you seem remarkably uninformed about Islamic social matters. My question would be that if you contend for equality of religions, why not attack all equally and on the same grounds? And, secondly, if it's all wrong, get busy setting it right would seem the proper course of action, would it not?

Finally, I must observe that one reason all threads on the Moot seem to lead to religion, is that Tolkien's work is at heart a religious act -"unconsciously in the making and consciously in the revision" as he said. This is a result of his Catholicism-Christianity. If you haven't read ON FAIRY STORIES, you might do so to see the light it sheds on this area. Tolkien was hardly writing an intentional, conscious manifesto of Christianity per se, but since a subcreator can work only in the given world, his subcreation of ME has much implicit and overtly Christian inluence. If you recall from the LETTERS, JRRT chose not to go into the matter of Britain and Arthurian legendaria BECAUSE it was overtly Christian and so identified with that material that it could not accomplish what he set out to do: to create the uber-mythos for England.

What is remarkable in this process is the demonstration of the essential unity of the enlightenment of all men as to the nature of the Creator and their responsibilities to that One by the gathering of the prismatically refracted light back towards its Source. Hence, the underlying basis of morality and good behaviours, however manifested, are shown to have a true origin and basis. In this regard Tolkien called Christianity "True Myth". Though he avoids the inestricable entanglement of Arthurian materials with Christianity by creating a mythos prior to Christ, he is INCAPABLE of pretending that the light gathered back towards its unity does not reveal the true nature of reality.

The point of this digression is that no one can avoid the underlying basis of Creation and morality in the assessment of religions. Tolkien's premise is that there is Good and it is knowable, though not perfectable, in human understanding, and that some approach it more adequately than others. This is explicit in Aragorn's comment that 'good has not changed". And, in fact, one of the major appeals of LOTR et alia is that it proclaims this reality in a relativistic world milieu which failed Tolkien's generation and every generation since. The broad multicultural appeal of Tolkien lies in this subcreatorial reality and its expression in a new mode: Middle Earth.

None of which is to deny the artist his artistry, but rather to acknowledge that the beauty and power of ME arise from the Source of all Beauty and Power, Who has made Himself known in this case via Tolkien's apprehension and expression of it as he perceived it. But you ank I are likewise called to the aprehension and expression of the same. Judging the approximation of the various religious expressions of that Truth and ranking them and embracing or rejecting them on that basis is at the very root of the human endeavor and unavoidable.

"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve" is not only a Jewish and Christian heritage. It is the heritage of mankind and as Tolkien demonstrates involves the whole person and the whole of the primary creation. It is the one unavoidable fact of human experience in all times and places. It is, in fact, eternal.

[Rían]

Gaff and Inky - great posts; am looking forward to re-reading and responding to them; no time now - son's basketball game to get to.

Will resume use of pronouns when have more time

[inked]

Here's another interesting take on Islamic influence in Europe, specifically GB


Religious activists deserve our respect
By Janet Daley The Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 12/01/2005)

After all these years of fundamentalist apathy, religion has suddenly become a hot issue in British public life. We have the Muslims to thank for this, I suppose. They tend to see their faith as more than a social habit or a nominal adornment, and their ability to make politicians take notice of their sensitivities has made indigenous Christians (at least the more volatile of them) feel like mugs.


The people who allegedly made death threats against BBC executives for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera, are so far out on the evangelical fringe that they scarcely speak for anyone.[The Metropolitan Police have no record of any threats being reported according to BBC Website] Indeed, they may scarcely exist except in the mind of some clever BBC publicity manager. But, hyperbole apart, there is a real question being raised here that liberal society needs to answer if it is to survive in the form we know.

How much respect is owed to religious belief by a secular society? Or, to put it another way: is the belief in anything other than tolerance itself (which is to say, no-particular-belief) worthy of reverence? I use the word "reverence" advisedly. It may be true, as I tried to argue here a couple of weeks ago, that we have lost our sense of the sacred in any theological sense, but it is not true that we regard nothing as sacred at all.

Our education system and our human rights legislation are both dedicated to the proposition that toleration of differences - religious, racial and sexual - is the cardinal social virtue. It is more highly valued than being law-abiding (lapses of which may be forgiven on the grounds of social disadvantage), or being unselfish (a dubious inclination in an age when "self-fulfilment" is the aim of life). To fail in almost any area of personal responsibility, as a spouse or a parent or a neighbour, may be forgiven with extenuating circumstances, but a sin against tolerance is without excuse.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the point. As a member of an ethnic group that has been victimised by intolerance more often and more gravely than any other in history, I could hardly object to the fine intention, or the historical justification, of this principle. But what happens when tolerance itself is being challenged by groups whom we are instructed to see as the objects of religious toleration?

What is the liberal democratic society to do about Muslims who burn books in a chilling evocation of the least tolerant society in modern history, let alone when they issue a fatwa against a novelist? What is an enlightened country, which has not closed theatres on theological grounds since Cromwell's time, to do when Sikhs use violence to shut down a play? What happens when the principle gets turned inside out, so that the very thing that you are being instructed to tolerate is intolerance? The liberal secular society does not have an answer to this because its mock-theological first commandment - to tolerate indiscriminately - becomes useless.

Which is why we are, at the moment, flailing around: caving in to the Sikhs and the Muslims who are well-organised and have quite a lot of votes, while brushing off the Christians who are only beginning to get themselves together and have very few votes. That is presumably what is known as British pragmatism.

When the Energy Minister, Mike O'Brien, hints heavily that Michael Howard, a Jew, would be unlikely to stand up for British Muslims, what is he saying? Nothing less than that Labour is offering guarantees that Muslims will have the choice of "sending your children to faith schools", and the right "of Muslim women to wear the hijab". And what if those schools forbid to girls the educational equality that our modern liberal society believes essential? Or if Muslim women, who wish to join in the female emancipation that other British women take for granted, feel that they are being coerced into wearing the hijab? Whose rights is Mr O'Brien protecting? And whose idea of tolerance is it, that he is promoting?

Not that we are alone in this dilemma: France, a traditionally Catholic country where selling contraceptives was illegal within living memory, has banned schoolgirls from wearing the hijab. Everyone in post-religious Europe is confused and disoriented by a phenomenon that hardly anyone anticipated: the reintroduction into society of people who take religious belief seriously. Not only have Muslims and Sikhs themselves entered into public discourse with a robustness that has caught our liberal institutions on the hop, but, even more surprisingly, they have brought out of hiding an activist Christianity which had been invisible.

To add to the mix, there may be a developing comradeship between these groups. In the demonstrations against the Jerry Springer opera at BBC Television Centre, Christian protesters were joined by Muslims who participated in the ceremonial burning of television licences. There was a fellow-feeling here, partly because Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, but also perhaps through a shared sense that sincere religious faith was being treated callously by an institution that everyone must pay to support.

So, paradoxically, a form of illiberalism (the prohibition of a play) was actually conducive to a bonding between religious groups that most liberals would want to welcome. In modern Britain, even the sincerely devout are accustomed to making their peace with the secular state. Roman Catholics who oppose abortion recognise the rule of law and confine themselves to lobbying for a change in it, rather than shooting doctors at abortion clinics.

But there is a new kind of challenge here to complacent non-belief, and to anti-religious puerility. Perhaps it is time to accept that the peaceful settlement cuts both ways: if the religious subjugate their beliefs to the will of the majority, then that majority (and those who speak for it) must show them, if not reverence, at least civility.



NB

[Rían]

Interesting article, Inky, altho I kept laughing at the term "indigenous Christians" - made me think of Christians peacefully grazing in a field for some reason ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Christ's suffering elevates misery to a spiritual level. "You'll get your reward in the next life." One could argue that this encourages complacency and helps prevent people from rising up and insisting on a fairer distribution of wealth.

Someone who does not know the Bible well could argue this I don't think you can support that position with Bible verses in context; can you? Suffering in and of itself is not worth anything. Suffering for the sake of doing something right is, tho. And having a good and right attitude in suffering is also worthy of praise (i.e., not getting bitter and vindictive, and returning love (but NOT "doormat" love) for hate).

I don't see the Bible saying to be complacent at ALL on the subject of relief of the poor. One of the more interesting verses in the Bible is about what God thinks of Sodom and Gomorrah. I"m talking what the Bible claims that GOD thinks. Here it is :

from the Bible, Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Helping the poor and needy, esp. the widow and orphan, is one of the most consistent themes in both Old and New Testament.

from Matthew 25, Jesus speaking
Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accused ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. .... Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

from James 1 and 2
This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress ... What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

Being poor is not in itself praiseworthy. If you are poor, you will not automatically have "your reward in the next life". But neither is it something that is bad about a person, unless it's from laziness. And riches tell nothing about a person's goodness, either good or bad. It's whatcha DO with whatcha got.

But I see your point, and will certainly correct it whenever it comes up, and now you have some ammo to correct it, too (i.e., if a Christian says, incorrectly, that we shouldn't help the poor).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm guessing you mean that Christians' views are unfairly oppressed in some way while others' aren't. If so, I don't see it; there's barely a thread in this forum which hasn't become a discussion of religion.

Any thread that deals with morals is automatically in the realm of religions/worldviews/beliefs, wouldn't you agree? I don't see refs to religion in the football or cricket or food or shoes threads! There's just a lot of moral issues being discussed now. And I see some Christians/Christian viewpoints spoken against here with no reprimands from others, but if you mention another religion, you get a hand-slap. And I don't mind people speaking against Christian viewpoints! If they disagree, they should speak out and support their views! I just noted that to me, it sometimes seems like Christians aren't allowed that same privilege.

And btw, political threads are also in the realm of worldview beliefs, because politics deal with what is good for the people, and people's views on what is good comes from their worldview beliefs.

My point would be that it's unseemly for one religion to accuse another of evils.

I see what you're saying, but I think perhaps you don't realize that there are two ways to do this. One is the way you don't like (condemning the people wholesale); the other is, at least IMO, entirely valid. As I brought up in another thread, there's a horrific god named Moloch that was worshipped in the Old Testament times. The way he was "worshipped" was to burn babies alive. Often there was a metal statue of Moloch, with outstretched arms, which would be heated up, and then the baby would be (it just wrenches my heart to type this) placed in his arms, and then rolled into the furnace.

Can you even pretend that "it's unseemly for one religion to accuse another of evils" is a good general rule, given practices like this?

Now it's quite different to just wholesale condemn individual people. But IMO it's entirely valid to speak out against something that a religion or worldview promotes, if you think it's wrong. In fact, it's more than valid, I think it's the right thing to do.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the implication of that statement is that "Christian" influence is making Muslims more civilised.

Well, do you think that's true? What is your definition of "civilized"? I think a Pacific islander that runs around naked is just as civilized as a Brit that runs around in a jumper and turtleneck, if they are both adhering to what their society views as modest and appropriate. It's the HEART that's important - that Brit, if she is trying to seduce men with the view of using them for selfish gain, is TOTALLY wrong, even if she's wearing a jumper and a turtleneck.

Nor in Christendom. At least these "Muslims" of which you speak are being honest, instead of going to Church on Sunday giving it "love thy neighbour" then bombing the crap out of thy neighbour on Monday.

Hypocrisy in anyone is abhorrant.

I agree, jolly well done. I think it's one of the best things about Christianity. It's part of the reason why, if I believed in God, I would probably be a Christian.

Well, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that there are other reasons than religion at work here (such as poverty, political oppression and criminality).

I think it's not that simple - I think Christian principles, enacted in a society, help REMOVE poverty, political oppression and criminality. IOW, it's not like Islam was plopped down in a society that was poor and Christianity was plopped down in a society that was rich.

I have massive amounts of admiration for the individuals who altruistically sacrifice themselves to this kind of work. But it's had precious little impact on poverty worldwide. There are still 30,000 people PER DAY dying because of preventable, poverty-related causes. We're rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic here.

Yes, we need to work on more global solutions, too, BUT - why stop giving love and aid, personally, to those in need? My husband, in his capacity of board member of that great children's charity that we support, visited people that live on a dump in Peru (they visit in person because of accountability purposes - they work thru people that LIVE in the area for more effective food distribution, and thus see the need for personal relationships with them, to be more effective.) Should he say, "I'm sorry, we're stopping deliveries of food to you guys, because we're focusing on global solutions. Never mind that we don't think we'd be effective in this area, and that we're TREMENDOUSLY effective in distributing food and toiletries and medical supplies to thousands and thousands of people. We're shutting down and trying to get thru to the government now, even tho it will be years and years before anything is accomplished."

I think we need to do both.

To quote a famous Brazilian priest whose name escapes me, "If I give food to the hungry they call me a saint; If I ask why people are hungry they call me a communist".

Sounds like a good guy.

What is the benefit of evaluating official beliefs? Are you considering converting to Islam?

First - are you suggesting I remain ignorant of the belief system of millions of people?

Second - I'm not considering converting to Islam, but someone I know might have questions about it, and I think it's good to be informed in many areas, don't you?

I guess my point is that such evaluations, expressed in the way that article does, contribute to an atmosphere of prejudice towards Islam. My belief is that this particular article is calculatedly and deliberately so, particularly in the context of the tsunami. I find it hard to understand how anyone can fail to see this.

I see a few areas that lean this way, but really, I think that you're oversensitive to them, because of the current belief going around that because it's wrong (and inaccurate) to condemn entire groups (such as Muslims) in one swell foop, that it's also wrong to say or think that an individual tenet in a belief system is wrong.

It's rather undignified for one religion to say to another "we have this principle of X which you don't so we're better than you". That's why I characterised it as intellectual (or theological) onanism. It's also pride and vanity, which IIRC are two of the Seven.

But I think it is right to say, for example, "I think this area of your stated beliefs is wrong and harmful", if you think it is; don't you? And one can say that with love and great respect, and NOT with pride and vanity.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nor in Christendom. At least these "Muslims" of which you speak are being honest, instead of going to Church on Sunday giving it "love thy neighbour" then bombing the crap out of thy neighbour on Monday.

Yeah - you're right. It was completely WRONG for us to go and bomb Germany or Japan. It should have been more - turn the other cheek. So 2005 - welcome to the world of nazism - it's great here. NO more Jews, world with concentration camps. But at least we went with the Christian principal of "turn the other cheek".

Sometimes wars are a necessary evil and I am perfectly aware of which one you are referring too. But youy make such general statements - it's ridiculous. Under CHRISTIAN principals -Hussein should have been dealt with long ago for killing his own people. Let me remind you that he murder millions AFTER 1991 - when Bush 41 wanted to take him out - but the world wouldn't let him. So the world sat back while millions were slaughtered. It's funny though how the world forgets history and likes to blame Bush '41 for not "finishing" it off. I would say under Christian principals - it was perfectly justified under the terms to go in their and save those people. Europe seemed not have a problem with us going into Bosnia - but then that was a European war and Europe was afraid and it was in THEIR interest. We should have let Europe handle it - too bad they couldn't though. Europe is a bunch of hypocrits when it comes to the war in Iraq versus the way they acted with Bosnia.

[inked]

Si, Senor JD,

At the risk of infuriating our European counterparts, I MUST observe that the preservation of alleged dignity allowed the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, and Bosnia.
The results of standing in one's dignity is all too obvious to we in the New World. But historically, the rescued berate the rescuers for the rescue as it assaults the ego, to mention two egregrious current examples France and Indonesia.

The EU would have had its aegis 6 decades ago under Hitler save for GB and the US, and later, yes, Stalin (to give the Devil his due). But most likely the hegemony of the USSR would have annilhilated the third Reich for the establishment of the EU.

The point of which is that while rabidly chewing on the hand that has provided salvation 3 times (counting Bosnia), the learning curve is asymptotic!
It takes blinders of lead not to see it again, but fortunately there is sufficient supply in the derriers of most EU members to await their inevitable delayed recognition. The history of Turkey is particularly salient in regard to culture and Islam and Christianity and Islam and freedom and Islam and societal status and Islam, but they are so busy (if I may pardoned a Biblical quotation) straining at gnats and swallowing camels that they shall have depleted Islam of emigrants and given it Europe while blithely denigrating their saviours temporal and eternal!

End of rant. Let the attacks begin!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

But historically, the rescued berate the rescuers for the rescue as it assaults the ego, to mention two egregrious current examples France and Indonesia.

Side note on this. You should see the french news about the tsunami. They have to rely on us to get their medical equipment and teams into the areas and they are NOT happy about that at all. They have no helicopters there or anything at the moment. They finally got one helicopter there - but it was shipped over as parts and now has to be put together. Anyway - they feel very indignant about how this makes them look.

On last nights news they had on how we're in competition with them or some ****. They were going to set up a relief hospital in some location and when they got there - we were already there helping people - so they went off in a huff and set up a few miles away. I couldn't believe it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just don't buy this "nobody is anything" idea. I know that individuals may believe their scriptures in varying degrees, but no Christian is going to say, "I'm a Christian, and I believe the Bible is entirely wrong, and there is no God."

the point is that, short of roman catholicism, most religions do not have an "authority figure" like the pope... here on earth, at least

muslims share a basic belief system, but that is all... they comprise a huge variety of people, lifestyles, morals, etc... just like catholics

remember the "branch davidians" in waco, texas? guess what, they were christian... and they were also american... yet i wouldn't use their behavior to charaterize all christians or all americans

regardless of how we categorize people in this world, politically, regionally or religiously... they are individuals, not the category they fall into

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the point is that, short of roman catholicism, most religions do not have an "authority figure" like the pope... here on earth, at least

I believe I said authority figure AND scriptures, btw, but I still don't understand why you say that Why did Rushdie go into hiding, unless he thought some people would follow the command to kill him? Why do people see the Dalai Lama - does he just have some strange magnetic force that pull people against their will to see him? What about the leaders of the Mormon church? What about the guru masters for those who wish to follow the Hindu way of knowledge?

remember the "branch davidians" in waco, texas? guess what, they were christian... and they were also american... yet i wouldn't use their behavior to charaterize all christians or all americans

Why would you use the behavior of probably 0.00000....0001 percent of Christians (if they were) to characterize Christianity in general?

regardless of how we categorize people in this world, politically, regionally or religiously... they are individuals, not the category they fall into

Yes, they're individuals. And many individuals choose to follow some or part of some major belief systems. So what's wrong with acknowledging that? It gives you a starting reference point to discuss some interesting and good topics. It doesn't mean they came out of a cookie cutter.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would you use the behavior of probably 0.00000....0001 percent of Christians (if they were) to characterize Christianity in general?

because many people in this thread and elsewhere say... "the muslims" all think this, "the muslims" hate the US, "the muslims" just use the aid money to fund terrorism... when, in fact, the number of muslims as a whole that would act in such a way, or hunt down rushdie for that matter, is just as nominal as the one you point out for the waco group... and even if the numbers were much larger... people should still not be characterized that way

this is not some minor wordplay on my part... i think an essential component to any kind of cross-cultural issue is realizing that members of cultures are individuals... and often extremely different than one another

as different as you are from someone in waco or a jehovah's witness in the midwest or an irish catholic in boston

[Rían]

I don't think I usually use generalizations (I like to say "many" or "most" or "some", NOT "all"), but I'll be extra diligent in that area, because I don't believe that "all" Muslims act the same way.

However, I believe that the number of Muslims that would hunt down Rushdie is MUCH higher than the number of wacos in Waco

After all, 70 (or is it 72) eternal virgins in Paradise? (one wonders what those poor virgins did to get themselves into that hell! )

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah what a great argument against staying a virgin eh? "If you dont have sex with me youll have to have sex with millions of icky muslim suicide bombers!"