muslims PART 2

[Lizra]

Heh!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Don't put words into my mouth that aren't there I didn't say it invalidated it, and I said I'd be MORE impressed if it was a Muslim leader from a Muslim country. I'm just not too worried about the Muslims in Marin County!

No, I wouldn't be more comfortable. But I would be THRILLED if a major Muslim leader in a Muslim country did what the Marin County Muslim leader did!

And I've said before that I don't think all Muslims are bad, or violent, or evil, or any of those other things. No stretch for me to admit that; I've already said it.


I"ll repeat my second paragraph here, because I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts: I just come back to one thing over and over - in the U.S., England, and other predominantly Christian countries, Muslims can build mosques and attend services; in some Muslim countries that we have Christians missionaries, there's no way they can do this - in fact, they are so fearful for their lives (for the mere fact of being a Christian) that we can't show pictures with their faces on them - the pictures only show their hands or their feet or something like that.

Yes,i t's terrible and wrong- any person should have the chance to witness his/her religion (including us atheists) . That the Muslim world for the most part denies this is wrong- that a person can be arrested and threatened with death for converting to another religion is atrocious and a violation of internationally guaranteed human rights.

Hello, UN- anybody home?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Here's a sensible post:


Right on. And the other thing, that you alluded to earlier, is that the Reformation gave Protestants an instruction to find their own personal spiritual salvation and moral guide, rather than through the intermediary of the priests, bishops or other ("idolatrous") hierarchy. Our (Western) concept of freedom of expression has its roots in this revolution. As far as I know, Islam has not had an equivalent, hence "freedom of worship" or "freedom of expression" do not mean the same in those cultures.

But I find the market-place thing interesting. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran embody Islamic principles in everyday life in a way that is inimical to us. However, it may also be that it makes politics more accessible and personal to ordinary people, in a way that our apathetic consumption-obsessed cultures have lost. Unfortunately, it seems that our politicians are going the same way.

Interesting also that you mention Fukuyama, whose triumphalist nonsense he himself has recently acknowledged as specious. We have to ask ourselves who is selling us this story about clash of civilisations, and what do they get out of it?

Basically, of course, the real crime of Muslims is to have our oil. We are approaching an energy crisis and we need to create a political environment in which it is OK to invade and take it for ourselves. Oh wait, we already did...

This is quite true, and I liked Grey Mouser's awesome post too which you quoted. You guys are impressively well educated; I wish I'd finished college! Must go back & finish... Basically, the fabrication of a culture of fear-addiction and paranoia against an entire religion & an entire race of human beings - read: all Arabic peoples - is a deliberately constructed state of things in the United States more than anywhere else. I mean, what's the color-coded terror alert scare tactic all about??

[Rían]

Anyone can say they're a Christian ... just like anyone can say they're a Muslim. I think they should be judged by how closely they adhere to the doctrines of the faith. Hitler was clearly mentally unstable, among other things, and for him to take the ONE scene of Jesus in the temple (which Jesus Himself explains otherwise than Hitler did) and IGNORE the hundreds of cases of Jesus loving Jewish people is just another proof of his weird thinking. I would say he might be a cultural Christian (i.e., the product of a generally Christian culture), but he certainly isn't a "real" Christian, IMO.

Here's an interesting thought - how about looking at cases of "good" Muslims? When one thinks of "good" Christians, people like Mother Teresa come to mind. I wonder if Islam tends to produce people like that?

My main point here is to say that there is nothing wrong with comparing things, even worldview beliefs. It seems like many people think that it's wrong to compare, or there are no differences, or both. I'm not "against" Muslims per se; what I am very strongly against are the ideas that it's wrong to compare or that there are no differences.

*hang on, looking up a reference... *

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Yes,i t's terrible and wrong- any person should have the chance to witness his/her religion (including us atheists) . That the Muslim world for the most part denies this is wrong- that a person can be arrested and threatened with death for converting to another religion is atrocious and a violation of internationally guaranteed human rights.

Yay! That's why I always liked having you in debates, Mouser - you will speak out your honest opinion, plainly and clearly, whether or not it's "pretty" or PC. There's just been too much PC-ness and/or poor reasoning in this thread, IMO.

Hello, UN- anybody home?

Yes, they're home - but it's business as usual there so nothing will be done.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Right on. And the other thing, that you alluded to earlier, is that the Reformation gave Protestants an instruction to find their own personal spiritual salvation and moral guide, rather than through the intermediary of the priests, bishops or other ("idolatrous") hierarchy. Our (Western) concept of freedom of expression has its roots in this revolution. As far as I know, Islam has not had an equivalent, hence "freedom of worship" or "freedom of expression" do not mean the same in those cultures.

Interesting thought - what kind of "intermediary" structure is in Islam? I always thought that Muslims could pray directly to Allah. But perhaps interpretation of scripture cannot be carried out by the "regular" Muslim - does anyone know? That's my big beef against the RC church - the role of priests.


NOW - re the whole "it's wrong to compare" or "we're all the same in the final analysis" thoughts - let's look at, say, the group of religious people that worshipped Moloch. One of the ways they did this was heating up a metal statue of Moloch, then placing babies in the statue's arms where their flesh burned and then finally moving the arms into Moloch's mouth. I'm sure many people that did this were nice people. Should we be tolerant and say nothing against the tenets of Moloch worship?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Oz!

very true, look at GW Bush.... probably the most media covered man on the planet and he has no qualms about publically claiming that he believes he is doing "Gods Will" ...... and as far as i'm aware not a single recognised christian religion has debunked that fact that he is.... so he has their backing

Not that i'm complaining, i love the fact that the christians are finally being seen for what they really are..... can't beat honesty

Oh, and it logically follows that because they don't debunk him, they must necessarily agree with him. Shame, Oz! There's a hell of a lot I don't agree with that I don't debunk. Anyway, the only Christians whom one could reasonably expect to need to perform such a debunking are the Methodists.

Anyway, many, many Christian leaders, most famously Pope John Paul II of blessed memory have condemned his actions. If they say he's wrong, then I highly doubt they think he's doing God's will..

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Oz!

You don't need to explain it, nor am i painting christians with anything..... we can assume tho' that the mass of the christian population (in particular, the organised relgious leaders and their churches here in the west) do, in fact, believe that GW Bush is in fact doing God's work.... no?

No. It does not in any way follow.

They must do, or they'd publically refute his words and tell him not to use Gods name in vain (or for his own agenda), it's hardly as if the modern church doesn't have a voice which brings huge media attention.

Using God's name in vain means swearing a false oath by it; it is used common to mean using it impiously. Neither has direct correlation. Anyway, as previously stated, many have said he is wrong.

It is odd tho', for a coupla decades there after WW2 the church tried, once again, to bring people back to their churches by preaching peace and love.....and now their most popularised member is doing it again with war and terror..... i guess nothing really changes for long, as long as it fills the pulpits eh

He's no member of my Church. But if you think he is the most popularised Christian, you are, with all due respect, rather clueless as to what goes on in Christianity. Bush is quite unpopular. I think it was probably Pope John Paul II, who most definitely and radically preached peace and love.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wish that were so. Liberal Christians such as John Kerry and others have argued strongly against Bush's policies, however. The Pope asked Catholics to join him in a fast for peace, directly before the Iraqi war, and millions of Catholics were involved in it.

So now John Paul II was a liberal Christian?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Oz!

Yet not one of them will say directly to Bush "you are wrong, this is not God's will" ....... noticing a pattern here? Your most public figure is never debunked for his beliefs.... so we must assume, as no leading religious figure/theolgen will publically disclaim him ..... that Bush is leading a common belief, his actions are God's Will

If you claimed to be a poached egg, and I did not publically refute you, would that mean I agreed? No! The very fact that Christian leaders object to his policies shows that they don't believe they are God's will.

Nope, again, you are looking for a slure where there isn't one, simply observation. I'm saying that the churches are quite happy to have GW Bush as their most media covered member....... and back his actions..... they would excommunicate him otherwise, obviously.

To excommunicate, as can be seen from the etymology, is to cast out of communion. As regards my Church, he ain't in, so he can't be thrown out. As regards the Methodists, I don't think they excommunicate, though I could be wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So now John Paul II was a liberal Christian?

John Kerry yes. John Paul II no. I didn't say "anyone who is against Bush is a liberal."

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Lief, my oma lived in holland during the war, and let me assure you, she was more than aware of what was going on in Germany during the war.

I know everyone was aware of the anti-Jew discriminatory laws. Was she aware of the concentration camps and mass executions, though?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Basically, of course, the real crime of Muslims is to have our oil. We are approaching an energy crisis and we need to create a political environment in which it is OK to invade and take it for ourselves. Oh wait, we already did...

Do you see ships exporting tons of Iraqi oil to America? Has the Iraqi government, called the fourth freest in the world by an Economic Intelligence Unit Survey, complained that we are stealing their oil?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The key word being "ideals". The way people act, be they muslim or christian, is not a result of ideals, it is a result of their environment, how they grew up, what they experienced. The ideals they embrace are a result of this upbringing.

Environment is a factor, but there is more to it than that. Beliefs don't always come from upbringing. Mohammed himself is a prime example of this. Osama Bin Laden gave up a huge amount for his beliefs, refusing to allow the environment of US superiority get in the way of his convictions. Beliefs are what motivate, and environment influences people's beliefs. It does not make their beliefs, however. One also could point out that violent Muslim doctrines are part of the environment Muslims grow up in, whether they initially interpret them violently or not. Such passages, especially if the Muslims get an idea for the history of Mohammed and thus how he interpreted them, could easily have power to influence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Attin another the KKK. The middle east during muhammed's time was a similaacking or trying to change one's ideals is simply dealing with the symptoms, not the underlying problems. Post-ww1 germany or the post-civil war deep south are examples of environments that were ripe for idealistic fervor, in one case the nazis and r environment, as is today's environment in that same part of the world.

I agree that environment influences. It is not the only existing factor, however. Beliefs sometimes resist the environment. Mohammed formed his beliefs in an overwhelmingly hostile environment, as did Jesus and the early Christians.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Why do you have a peaceful muslim in california and a violent one in the west bank? It's not because one is more devout than the other. It's not about belief systems at all. It's about the environment that person lives in. And if you want to change that, you work to change that environment, not their way of expressing their discontent.

Here's an interesting article posted by a peaceful Muslim group:
Religious Extremism is Spreading Among Muslim Youth in the U.S.

[HOBBIT]

Also, I'm not convinced Judaism has really changed either. The actions of Israel are often of a violent, aggressive manner. Of course there are good reasons for some of this violence. Self-defense is completely legitimate. But some of their actions have been land grabs at other people's expense. While I know most of Israel is secular, there are a lot of religious Jews there too. I'm just not sure, on that one. The Jews have lacked political power, and it could be argued that that's one of the reasons they haven't been violent.

don't be ridiculous.

And on Hitler we'll have to agree to disagree. But there are plenty of other examples of opressive Christian rulers.

But that doesn't even matter. The point was and still is is that there has been plenty of Christian violence in the past 1000 years.

I'm getting the impression from Lief Erikson that Islam is inherently violent and hasn't really changed EVER and that he doesn't even think that Judaism has changed in the past 2 thousand years or so....... i guess we're a bunch of violent people too. We'd oppress the whole world if we only had the means.

Oh wait - Israeli army is one of the best in the world? Jews do have the means to be violent? Heh.

Of course Judaism has changed over the past couple thousand years, lol. Everything changes over time.

[Lotesse]

Oh Lief, Rian and Gwaimir, too - so silly pajamas! Muskrat... I say, Muskrat!

I don't even know what to say any longer in response to the things you put out here, Lief. There are so may things that you say, so many things, so many statements, which to me sound so virulently narrow-thinking, strictly christian-right wing biased, and determinedly anti-growth and anti-unity, that all I can really think of to say in response any longer is - muskrat. Wearing so silly pajamas!

And Rian - thanks for the backhanded compliment! I can't wait until you yourself actually puts forward a good, convincing, solid argument about any one of your ideas. I look forward to it. Bring it on!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nah, we can bring all this together by thinking about how Christendom, in guilt and horror at the Holocaust, has transplanted much of its fear and loathing onto Islam.

Recently, of course, we have seen this refocused more sharply for political ends. And that, in the end, is the only meaningful parallel with Hitler: exploiting and inflaming existing prejudices for political gain. If we allow them to get away with it, then the lessons of Nazism have not been learned.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Thanks for the compliment, btw, though I cannot claim to be particularly educated in this field. I did once review an excellent little book called "A Brief History of Blasphemy" by Richard Webster, which is a great source for historical context.

Bizarrely, it's the baby's favourite book: he always pulls it off the shelf and sits quietly turning over the pages. Must get a photo of that, one with the book's title visible, just in case he starts dating a minister's daughter in later life

Your baby sounds awesome - a thirsty young mind, already seeking out his own bits of truth and knowledge - sounds like me when I was about four & five; I was reading the Bible on my own - taught myself how to read out of both Dr. Seuss books and Curious George, and my mother's King James Version bible, actually, never went to school at that age, was traveling too much but had an insatiable appetite for reading & learning, even so young. But I could never "believe in god," even so young - always had a free and wild mind! I was born a blashphemous heretic, True Blue.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The key word being "ideals". The way people act, be they muslim or christian, is not a result of ideals, it is a result of their environment, how they grew up, what they experienced. The ideals they embrace are a result of this upbringing.
Attacking or trying to change one's ideals is simply dealing with the symptoms, not the underlying problems. Post-ww1 germany or the post-civil war deep south are examples of environments that were ripe for idealistic fervor, in one case the nazis and in another the KKK. The middle east during muhammed's time was a similar environment, as is today's environment in that same part of the world.

Why do you have a peaceful muslim in california and a violent one in the west bank? It's not because one is more devout than the other. It's not about belief systems at all. It's about the environment that person lives in. And if you want to change that, you work to change that environment, not their way of expressing their discontent

Indeed.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyone can say they're a Christian ... just like anyone can say they're a Muslim. I think they should be judged by how closely they adhere to the doctrines of the faith. Hitler was clearly mentally unstable, among other things,

Yet he was a Christian. Just as Osama bin Laden is "clearly mentally unstable, among other things," and yet is a Muslim. Let me ask you, Rian, does a person have to have a background in any non-Christian or pagan or Islamic, whatever, religion in order to fit the "evil" bill for you? Does a recognised recent leader of history have to have his (or her) image divorced entirely from Christianity in oder for you to be able to accept the fact that he or she is an evil person? Do you have to think of, say, Hitler as pagan or atheist in order for you to be able to accept that he was an "evil man," but if it were shown as it truly is, namely that he and his National Socialist party were Christian, heartily endorsed by both the Protestant and the Catholic churches - (the Catholic Diocese never even condemned the Nazi Party until 1961, yes 1961!!) does this truth just hurt too much? I know, I know, it makes you sad. Well, believe me, it makes me pretty sad too, Rian & Lief. We can not learn from history if we pretend to believe that historical truths do not exist, if we refuse to accept the facts and learn and grow from the terrible experiences and mistakes of the past - right? Hate-mongering against, as Lief states, " an inherently violent religion," will do nothing but continue to perpetuate the nonstop, ongoing machine of fear- and hate- fuelled violence and barbarism on our planet earth.

Christianity is just as violent and hate-filled and destructive as Islam ever was, it is a different kind of violence today that we see manifesting on both sides, but trust & believe, it is there on both sides, equally as strong & pernicious and evil. Fundamentalist Christianity (and for that matter, the Vatican, too) does NOT come out smelling like roses today. It smells just as rotten, rank and evil as the worst aspects of fundamental radical Islam, whatever offshoots are responsible for inciting mob violence &/or suicide bombs - Al Quaeda, or whatever. All of it stinks. Hate and intolerance-filled Christians smell just as nasty as the agro suicidal jihad-happy Muslims, it is all the same.

[Lief Erikson]

I did respond BoP, way up there somewhere long buried, probably .

I would very much like to hear your oma's first-hand account of what she believed of the Nazis at that time, and on what evidence she believed what she did. I know some Jews were terrified of the Nazis and went into hiding. Nazi anti-Semitism and cruelty were pretty well known. Whether they knew about concentration camps and death camps is a very different question, though. I'm very curious indeed what your oma has to say on the matter, of what she believed during that time, and why.

Also, is your oma a Jew?

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Do you have to think of, say, Hitler as pagan or atheist in order for you to be able to accept that he was an "evil man," but if it were shown as it truly is, namely that he and his National Socialist party were Christian, heartily endorsed by both the Protestant and the Catholic churches - (the Catholic Diocese never even condemned the Nazi Party until 1961, yes 1961!!)

The Christian Socialist Party Hitler tried to form only amounted to 600,000 people, and I have never seen any evidence that it was endorsed by the Catholic and Protestant churches. According to the Washington Holocaust Museum, there was tension between the Protestant and Catholic Churches and Hitler. That they were silent about Hitler (the churches didn't endorse him either, even at the height of his power!) does not mean they approved of him.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

.... equally as strong & pernicious ....

when as a child I did childish things but when I became older, I put away childish things

so too do people change from 'christening' or 'bris' or 'vows'. Even cuteness doesn't last forever.

so it follows to call them that which they were is to refute what is or what was in these cases.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

John Kerry yes. John Paul II no. I didn't say "anyone who is against Bush is a liberal."

Nice save.

Originally Posted by Lotty

There are so may things that you say, so many things, so many statements, which to me sound so virulently narrow-thinking, strictly christian-right wing biased, and determinedly anti-growth and anti-unity, that all I can really think of to say in response any longer is - muskrat.

What exactly do you mean by "anti-growth" and "anti-unity"?

Originally Posted by Lotty

Yet he was a Christian. Just as Osama bin Laden is "clearly mentally unstable, among other things," and yet is a Muslim.

Hitler was not a Christian, at the very least not during the height of his reign. He said, "Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)


10th October, 1941, midday

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)


14th October, 1941, midday

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)


19th October, 1941, night

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."


21st October, 1941, midday

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the
instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)


13th December, 1941, midnight

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe
transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)


14th December, 1941, midday

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,
under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)


9th April, 1942, dinner

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)


27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)"

Your quotes are either too old to be of any value, or indicate theism, but not necessarily Christianity. These quotes establish pretty well that he was not a Christian. He also desired to establish a nationalistic "German Church without Pope or Bible". You can't have Christianity if you cut that out.

Let me ask you, Rian, does a person have to have a background in any non-Christian or pagan or Islamic, whatever, religion in order to fit the "evil" bill for you? Does a recognised recent leader of history have to have his (or her) image divorced entirely from Christianity in oder for you to be able to accept the fact that he or she is an evil person?

Allow me to answer for myself. No, a person does not have to have a non-Christian to be evil. I can't think of a modern example (Bush comes to mind, but I wouldn't call him evil, just misguided), but the Rennaissance Popes are fine examples from history, and there are plenty of others.

But Rian, more or less (of course this is radically simplifying for the purpose of the discussion) believes more or less that only those faithful to the teachings of Christ are Christians, so she probably would deny that an evil person could a Christian, or vice versa.

Do you have to think of, say, Hitler as pagan or atheist in order for you to be able to accept that he was an "evil man," but if it were shown as it truly is, namely that he and his National Socialist party were Christian, heartily endorsed by both the Protestant and the Catholic churches - (the Catholic Diocese never even condemned the Nazi Party until 1961, yes 1961!!)

Again, answering for myself: No, I can think of a Christian as an evil man. I consider Pope John XII to have been both. It is simply untrue to say that Hitler was Christian. It has not in any way been shown that Hitler was Christian, nor that the National Socialist party was (though of course many members were, that does not mean the party itself was). A lack of condemnation, while certainly wrong, does not an endorsement make, only a lack of courage.

[Earniel]

Please stay on topic. I notice a lot of posts about Hitler, World War II and christianity. All of those topics can be discussed in more appropriate threads.