General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe need a response to terrorism that addresses the problem without demonizing an entire religion.
We need to start from the proposition that we are taught in elementary school that you don't blame an entire group for the actions of an individual.
That said we can not bury our heads in the sand. Power loves/abhors a vacuum. If liberals don't confront the terrorists the conservatives will be more than happy to, and will bring on the clash of civilizations which will be to the detriment of all of us.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)hawkeyeman
(11 posts)To demonize all gun owners like all them are bad. There are bad people in every "group" of people. Even democrats. Some people here have a hard time admitting that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)But a Muslim is only "responsible and law-abiding" until he's not.
Just like gun owners.
Hence the occasional broad brush.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)A person who kills saying it is in the name of Islam is not a Muslim.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The silence tells a very big story
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You can just condemn the group attack. But of course we all know that some groups of people can be openly insulted here. I just do not care for the hypocrisy.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 16, 2016, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
**
**I.E. Sarcastic, due to these responses/handles being quite common for pro-gun people here...so NOT a personal attack.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)demonized and hated on here without repercussions.
One poster today even lamented that his armed robber was a gun owner. Not an armed robber, but a gun owner. Robbery and assault weren't even his concern - he/she was apoplectic that his or her workplace wasn't a posted gun-free zone. Because everyone knows that an armed robber would be stopped dead in their tracks by a NO GUNS sign. I mean, that's just common sense, right?
I've seen gun owners called every name in the book, from terrorist (yes, all gun owners are terrorists, all 80,000,000 of us) to R/W'er with nary a peep from the general DU population.
hawkeyeman
(11 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Francis Booth
(162 posts)Christians are an infinitely greater threat to world peace.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)You don't want to be judged by the worst people in that group? So I take it that applies to Muslims too and they are not to be all judged due to the acts of the worst among them.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)group based on the worst behavior of a few bad actors. If that were the case, then Trumps proposal to end all Muslim immigration would be a great idea.
But it isn't. It's a terrible idea. We need doctors and scientists and engineers from Middle Eastern countries to help meet our demand for these skills.
hawkeyeman
(11 posts)make assumptions of all the people based on a few.
ileus
(15,396 posts)MH1
(17,600 posts)It is not "ok to demonize all gun owners". It IS okay to demonize the fuckers with the mentality that their gun "rights" trump all rational rules of having a civilized society.
When your exercise of your gun "rights" results in the death of an innocent child, or an innocent, period, you can expect to be "demonized". When you don't want to even discuss the possibility of reducing those deaths, without resorting to insults or playing the victim ("oh poor me, that penis joke was directed at ME, it's all about ME, waaaaaaahhhh"
, then you can expect to be demonized.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)good discussion.
Some people are so delicate.
tman
(983 posts)What specifically do you advocate we do that we are currently not doing?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That is cold comfort to the victims of lone wolf attacks.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)are willing to die.
We need to create an atmosphere that stops demonizing each other whether it's race, or religion or sex or height or weight.
There seems to be too many people that have a need to feel superior to others.
But why?
Is it simply that we allowing the media to pit us against each other by giving us points of view to pick from and control the conversation ?
Francis Booth
(162 posts)of other religions. Not all its adherents, but a sizable enough minority to present a real problem for sane people all over the globe.
There is no solution. Fanatics aren't going to stop their irrational loathing of the West, any more than bigots or misogynists are going to stop hating minorities and women.
We have to treat it like the cancer that it is, cutting out bits and pieces when they grow large enough to represent a threat to peace.
If we leave them to flourish unmolested, we'll continually encourage ISIS-type groups to reconstitute themselves over and over again. In that regard, it will be like fighting organized crime. It will go on like this for however many hundreds of years it takes for these people to cast off their hateful dogma of their own volition.
Warpy
(111,261 posts)and feel they have nothing more to live for and go murder a bunch of innocent people as an elaborate suicide by cop. The Aurora theater massacre, the Sandy Hook massacre, and yesterday's massacre in Nice are just 3 examples. Sometimes they'll blame religion and sometimes they'll blame the voices in their heads but the result is always the same.
There's not a whole lot you can do about these assholes except be vigilant and always have a plan to hide or escape. Otherwise, you have to look at them as a form of rare but devastating natural disaster to be added to the risk of lightning, tornadoes, earthquake, and the other rare but extreme risks we live with.
Of course in the US we could probably reduce the carnage by making it less easy but the massacre in Nice shows us that a raging homicidal drunk will choose anything he thinks he can use to kill as many ordinary people as possible before the cops get him.
It is just as crazy to blame Muslims for the Nice attack as it is to blame Christians for Charleston. The combination of rage and despair is a potent one and that's at the root of all this stuff.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)it is a political movement.
And like many political fanatics, they use religion as a diversion.
I am more than happy to blame ALL political fanatics.
Democat
(11,617 posts)It's both religious and political, just like many right wing groups.
Marr
(20,317 posts)We need to stop ignoring these terrorists' frank proclamations that they're doing these things because their religion tells them to. We need to stop claiming we know their motivations better than they do, and citing geopolitical explanations they never claimed.
The fact is that men like this bomber are on very firm theological ground when they murder innocent people in this way.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)religion as a justification to kill innocent people is "on very firm theological ground."
Period.
Anyone who believes that either does not know what he is talking about or has a warped conception of theology.
The religions "of the Book," aka the three Abrahamic religions, have much more in common than not and all prefer peace over violence against inoocents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
Notably, the record for the killing of innocents over the centuries is still held by those who profess to be "Christian." There's that six+ million during WWII in the 20th-century alone, after all. And in the US, a lot fewer people have been killed by thugs who use Islam to justify their terror than by gun-toting RW evangelical fanatics.
There is NO FIRM THEOLOGICAL GROUND WHATSOEVER FOR KILLING PEOPLE!
Marr
(20,317 posts)Not to mention out of step with plain reality. These people tell us very flatly why they do these things. How on earth do you summon the gall to pat them on the head and say, effectively, 'you don't understand your motivations. Let me explain it to you'?
The Quran on unbelievers:
"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them..."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
The Hadith and the Sira are full of gems. The Sira is basically just one big account of violently spreading the faith.
Yes, there are more peaceful urgings on the topic as well-- it's as schizophrenic as any holy book. But it's something like 2% of the message. The overwhelming majority of references to nonbelievers concern murdering them, enslaving them, shunning them, etc.
I'm sorry-- I realize most of my fellow liberals here in the west really want to believe that all religions are sort of equally docile, doughy little philosophies that don't really separate us, but it just isn't true. They're not all the same. Some are a lot more dangerous than others, and I think Islam is at the top of the list in terms of endorsing oppression and violence.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)acknowledging the world as it. Our ideas and politics have to be rooted in unvarnished reality.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)If we could apply your sane & sound philosophy to the gun violence issue, we'd push a LOT fewer voters toward the GOP.
Which is to say, the best first step would be to STOP LYING.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)According to your theology, that is.
The bible itself documents genocide as directed (and sometimes carried out) by god. Not so difficult to understand how killing others is on very firm theological ground.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)With some exceptions for protected non-Muslims (i.e. Jews & Christians who are paying Jizya).
So to say there is "NO FIRM THEOLOGICAL GROUND WHATSOEVER FOR KILLING PEOPLE" is simply white washing the reality of what the Koran says. You might want it to be true but it isn't true.
Now to be clear most Muslims today ARE non-violent but they are non-violent in spite of what the Koran teaches not because of it.
The end state of Islam as prophesied by Mohamad is a single world religion where everyone is a devout Muslim and he advocated direct violence to bring about that end state.
[quote]
191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah* is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun** [/quote]
* Al-Fitnah = disbelief in Allah. In other words you not believing in Allah is worse than a devout muslim killing you.
** Az-Zalimun = heretics (atheists & polytheists).
treestar
(82,383 posts)Every religion started out in pre-science, tribal days and most of these pronouncements are no longer followed in any present day religion. Muslims were starting to reform too - women were starting to go to universities (still do in some countries) before all this stuff started between the US and the middle east. Even so, it is their extremists, not their average person.
Malala is a Muslim - she did not agree with women not getting an education. So how does that square with the idea the religion itself causes these things any more than politics or indeed any religion.
7962
(11,841 posts)Such as killing gays, punishing rape victims, selling women, the use of terrorist attacks, jihad, etc.
Sorry, but its not just a few "bad apples"
treestar
(82,383 posts)They don't live in societies where they can freely state their opinion either. A poll of people in Iraq or Iran or Syria doesn't mean much.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)This is a large part of the reason why people have been ignoring the "Islam is terrible" group; they spread misinformation in order to denigrate an entire religion.
Here's a larger excerpt:
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
That you cut out the "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you" part and acted as if this is directed at all non-Muslims is a good example of how much people can trust the "facts" thrown out by the "Islam is terrible" crowd.
Corporate666
(587 posts)They condone slavery, murder, torture, rape, infanticide, genocide, etc.
The only reason they are "not on firm theological ground" is because people have realized that these religions are evil and have come up with various forms of convoluted logic to allow themselves to continue to believe in the religion while coming up with various rationales for why the religion isn't actually bad.
Things like...
"Oh, that is not meant to be taken literally"
and
"Oh, you're talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament is all peace and love and undoes everything in the OT"
and
"The thing in the bible are allegory"
and
"It's supposed to teach a lesson, not be a rule book"
and on and on.
Except it's all BS, conjured up by people to let them maintain a delusion. The words in the books are pretty clear.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)They are perverting Islam to start a holy war.
They hate the west and with good reason, I'm sad to say.
They had interviewed one of the few men that they had captured from ISIL and he said the reason that he had joined was because of the US bombing of Baghdad. He said at least when Hussein was in power everybody may have had to struggle a bit to get some food but at least we had food and our families were alive.--
They want revenge and need money for their families.
It is not a religious movement.
Marr
(20,317 posts)ISIS itself does. I think you'll find the huge majority of statements and justifications for not just ISIS' violence, but Islamic extremism in general, center on theological arguments, not geopolitical ones. To pat them on the head and say you know their minds better than they do themselves is amazingly arrogant.
I'd also just like to say that your suggestion that the victims in any way deserved to be hated or murdered by these lunatics is offensive in the extreme, and seems almost pathologically masochistic.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)To be hated or die and you know it
You're trying to stir the pot.
I stated the reason Isis is upset I used a quote from an actual Isis member so I am not talking for them.
Its from an article written by journalists who were there.
What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters
They’re drawn to the movement for reasons that have little to do with belief in extremist Islam.
Life under the Islamic State was just terror, he says; he only fought because he was terrorized. Others may have done it from belief, but he did not. His family needed the money, and this was the only opportunity to provide for them.
Many assume that these fighters are motivated by a belief in the Islamic State, a caliphate ruled by a caliph with the traditional title Emir al-Muminiin,“Commander of the faithful,” a role currently held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that fighters all over the world are flocking to the area for a chance to fight for this dream. But this just doesn’t hold for the prisoners we are interviewing. They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate...
"The Americans came,” he said. “They took away Saddam, but they also took away our security. I didn’t like Saddam, we were starving then, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”
"These boys came of age under the disastrous American occupation after 2003, in the chaotic and violent Arab part of Iraq, ruled by the viciously sectarian Shia government of Nouri al-Maliki. Growing up Sunni Arab was no fun. A later interviewee described his life growing up under American occupation: He couldn’t go out, he didn’t have a life, and he specifically mentioned that he didn’t have girlfriends. An Islamic State fighter’s biggest resentment was the lack of an adolescence. Another of the interviewees was displaced at the critical age of 13, when his family fled to Kirkuk from Diyala province at the height of Iraq’s sectarian civil war. They are children of the occupation, many with missing fathers at crucial periods (through jail, death from execution, or fighting in the insurgency), filled with rage against America and their own government. They are not fueled by the idea of an Islamic caliphate without borders; rather, ISIS is the first group since the crushed Al Qaeda to offer these humiliated and enraged young men a way to defend their dignity, family, and tribe. This is not radicalization to the ISIS way of life, but the promise of a way out of their insecure and undignified lives; the promise of living in pride as Iraqi Sunni Arabs, which is not just a religious identity but cultural, tribal, and land-based, too.
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
The man said he joined ISIS to get away from his life in Turkey, where he had few friends and his parents were pressuring him to study, marry and "straighten up" his life.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/captured-isis-fighter-joining-extremists-syria-ruined-my-life-n398976
Marr
(20,317 posts)I have no doubt there are multiple motivations, and different people take wildly different paths to groups like ISIS. But ISIS' openly-stated motivations are unambiguously religious in nature, as are the vast majority of statements I've read from it's adherents.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Like establishing the new caliphate, have been the biggest reasons I've heard.
"ISIS provides a utopian political project, the so-called caliphate, the centralized Islamic rule," Gerges said. "ISIS provides these deluded young men and women with an adventurous trip."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/middleeast/isis-kids-propaganda/
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)they use and drag a very few people from the west and when they get there they find things are quite different than they wete told and either escape or are killed as spies.
There are literally dozens of stories
Interviews of actual former or captured ISIS members.
It isnt about Islam anymore than Westboro Baptists are about Christianity, Hitler was about Socialism Or North Korea being any kind of Democratic Republic.
I will post links if you want but they are easily Googled. There's a Newsweek interview
I'm on my mobile so its a pain to post from my work site.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Here's more reasons, many religious:
http://www.zwemercenter.com/sample-post-with-a-title/
What is it with DU and Islam? There's a lot of denial about terrorism, Islam, ISIS etc
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)It doesnt make ISIS sll about Islam
Its the bait
Scientology isn't a religion either they use religion to attract suckers.
Why cant some DUers grasp the concept of putting on a face, duping your victims?
I'll say its because you've been duped.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Despite the less than great reality.
Some people self-radicalize and are definitely believers like the San Bernadino couple. Hassan at Fort Hood. Etc
You're attempting to say that none of them remain believers in radical Islam but that's clearly wrong.
I've provided positive proof of my assertions, you simply refuse to accept it. No surprise
Ive never said All
But thanks for putting words in mouth
I'm saying those leading ISIS dont give a hoot about religion
People being recruited becaise they believe its about Islam when they find out its not they want out BECAUSE ISIS ISNT ABOUT ISLAM
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)...
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
...
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Cayenne
(480 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on
symbols of Islam’s past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who
consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural
and religious allusions to the holy Qur’an and some of its interpreters. He
appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity
and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources—Islam,
history, and the region’s political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances
against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of
sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)political correctness.
We ignore this truth at our own peril.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Not seeing a lot of Jain terrorists. And the Sword of Buddha Front has been awful quiet lately.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Actually, I see no benefit and only disadvantages to most religions.
But Islam takes the cake as an ideology which is working hard to stay violent and medieval.
The Quran says Muslims are the best of peoples and that non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. As long as these passages stand, I do not see much of a peaceful way forward.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Heck, Baptists think they are better than Protestants and Catholics. I was bathed in that growing up. I should add I had a Catholic friend who while he didn't believe Protestants were apostates he did believe they were inferior.
Let people believe what they want and focus on the loons who act on their beliefs.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Do that to kids, and you get wars 20 years down the road (see Ireland)
Anyway, we'd be better off without religions altogether, but that's just me
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Still need to focus on the bad guys.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Teach a kid he'd good because he/she is a (Christian/Nazi/Muslim/whatever),
and that the folks which are not (Christian/Nazi/Muslim/whatever) are evil,
wait 20 years, and, presto!!, you get a mess 
treestar
(82,383 posts)They were traditionally tribal. The other tribes could be a threat - that is the nearest ones wanting your land or what have you. People that ancient of course had religion. They had no science to explain everything - the sun had to have seemed to be a god to them. Random things like storms and drought had no explanation for them - must be the gods.
The Romans had an interesting view in that when they conquered an area, they let the local keep their own gods and did not force them into the Roman gods. So in a way they were "better" than European conquerors of other continents who proselytized and forced the Christian God on, for example, the Incas. South America has a lot of Catholics, because of the Spanish.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Agreements:
- humans are tribal
- one doesn't trample other cultures
Disagreements:
- tribalism is past. Caves to villages, regions, countries to alliances, we're getting better.
- some cultures are horrible: Maya human sacrifices, Hindu burning of live widows, Islamism
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because they thought it was what had to be done. All seems horrible to us now.
The Incas and the others made human sacrifices not to be mean to the person they were sacrificing. It was to give the gods what they apparently wanted to save everyone else. They lived in a harsh environment where lack of rain could cause everyone to starve. They had no way to know it was El Nino - whatever the scientific explanation was.
Of course we are still tribal to some degree - we are right here on DU claiming our not being Muslim makes us less inherently violent. Our tribe is better, of course. Humans always believe that.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Yes, I know, religious superstitions served an evolutionary purpose at the time: assuaging fears which had no rational answers at the time.
This having been said, there is an "arrow of progress" which flies from ancient Greece to the European Enlightenment to modern humanists everywhere today: there are some basic universal values: freedom(s), equality(ies), and, one would hope, some measure of fraternity.
After all, the US isn't, never was the only shiny beacon on the hill. At different times, the Greeks, the English, the French, the Scandinavians were/are too..
Marr
(20,317 posts)has several features that make it particularly easy to use in justification of violence.
For example, both Christianity and Islam urge followers to spread the faith, but only Islam contains detailed explanations for exactly how that is to be done-- and it isn't with bake sales. It calls very flatly for murdering non-believers. Christianity has no guide when it comes to spreading the faith, which, while leaving it open to promoting horrific abuses on that score in the past, also left the faith open to being tamed and put into a sort of box. That bomber in Nice was, according to his holy book, quite justified.
Islam also calls for murdering those who leave the faith-- not a feature of any other Abrahamic religion, so far as I know.
People sometimes say that Islam is in a sort of pre-Enlightenment period, and that it will progress into a more modern, peaceful, even secular sort of state in time. But I think there's a very good reason that it hasn't had an Enlightenment period by 2016. They've been putting their Voltaires and Newtons on chopping blocks for a very long time.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)that doesn't help matters, to say the least.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)
6chars
(3,967 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It tells them flatly to murder non-Muslims. And since Christianity apparently does not, then in the crusades it was the Christians who were holy, whether they killed anyone or not?
You need a lot more expertise in Islam to convince anyone that is literally what they all believe.
And you can find all kind of stuff in the old testament. Primitive people were primitive people. They always were ready to war with the neighboring tribe that threatened them.
It's a shallow study of Islam. Maybe we should hear from more scholarly sources on how the Koran is interpreted today.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I said that's what the texts say. That is undeniably the case, as the few quotes I provided upthread show. Some faiths are easier to view as justifying, or even calling for, violence/oppression. Islam is probably the easiest.
Christianity doesn't contain a detailed guide on how the faith is to be spread. Neither does Judaism. Islam does, and it cites a collection of violent acts and methods of marginalizing non-Muslims. This is just a fact, and if we're going to discuss the motivations of Islamic terrorism, we should be willing to acknowledge both the texts, and the actually words of the people carrying out these attacks.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are to witness to others and spread the "good news." In fact there is in some circles a vague threat that if you don't, you will not be considered a real follower of Jesus. I remember being very young and not being outgoing and a good salesman, this got me feeling not good enough. I've never even been sure of what I believe, but to attempt to sell Jesus to others was something I never felt up to.
Judaism doesn't proselytize. Christianity does.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Again, Christianity does not have detailed instructions on how to spread the faith. That's why it's been possible to 'tame' it into the shape you describe, where 'spreading the faith' amounts to bake sales and door knocking.
I can only invite you to look up what the Quran and the Hadith say on the topic of spreading the faith; how it should be done, how the unbelievers should be treated, what should be done with people who renounce Islam, etc.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the Bible has a lot of things we don't follow literally.
There are ordinary Muslims. Start with Malala. She doesn't want to kill us all. I have a feeling that's the normal, like the ordinary Christian would no longer stone adulterers.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)something other than they do. If you look up the excerpts that they list, you usually find they're talking about something quite different (see post #176 for an example). Throwing around misinformation in order to demonize an entire group of people is pretty offensive.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Every tribe of people is special to themselves. In fact Christianity assigns every Muslim to hell period.
Every culture has a religion. One answer might be to try to create a universal religion for religious people convince them their God and Allah or Great Spirit is the same entity under a different name.
treestar
(82,383 posts)or ISIS or Boko Haram or El Shabbab.
But does it apply to Islam? You are judging them as a group by the worst among them.
Funny we judge groups we belong to ourselves by the best among us.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Muhammad (or whoever rewrote the story decades after his death) stuck the Muslim believers in a hole by:
a- writing extremely hateful verses in the Quran (as in the Old Testament, Torah, etc),
AND, at that's where it hurts:
b- stating there that each and every word of the Quran is intangible and sacred.
So the majority of good guys who 'believe' in Islam as a family/country heirloom are all the time put into the minority by the literalist, hateful minority.
Sadly, that's the Catch-22 the Muslim world is in. With no clear end in sight..
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Islam is especially toxic.
Islam in particular is at the core of so much ideologically-driven violence in the world. Islam has proven to be misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-democratic.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Your words are the exact truth.
The real difficulty is how to help the vast majority of Muslim 'believers' who are just like the majority of believers in any religion (i.e. who know practically zilch about it, but have been told it's the way of goodness) that what they 'believe' in needs to be amended to become something everybody (including non believers in their faith) can live with.
That's where humanity is stuck now, and it will take some very insightful and charismatic figure to figure a peaceful way out of the mess religions -most notably Islam- are putting us all in. If there's a peaceful way out, which is all we can hope for.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Come the fuck on. There is not even one iota of this sophistry applied when someone does something in the name of Christ, or is assumed to have done something in the name of Christ.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Oh, I abhor the bashing of Christianity. It is stupid , reactionary, and boring.
Democat
(11,617 posts)It's never more obvious than after a terrorist attack.
840high
(17,196 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)specifically about Christianity - it's more of a white attack on some other race as Christian is more dog whistle for European/White in this country than about the religion specifically.
But the Muslim religion has little to do with these terror attacks - Muslims in India don't get involved in this stuff, Muslims in Indonesia and other countries. It's those in the Middle East. It's the politics. And not every Muslim even there subscribes to it. They may hang onto the religion extra because it makes their anti-US anti-Western identity stand out to them. Our conflicts in the middle East have to do with oil and our attempting to dominate those countries. No use kidding ourselves that that has nothing to do with it and it's all merely arising out of their religion.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Muslims in India don't get involved in this stuff, Muslims in Indonesia and other countries.
You don't remember the Indian Mujahideen bombings? India likes to blame Pakistan and Bangladesh but last time I checked the number 1 IM boogeyman Tauqeer was still Indian.
The Bali bombings don't ring a bell? Both the above killed far more than Nice.
ISIS etc say they are Islamic. They attack religious targets. They punish those who interpret the same religion differently as well as those who follow others. One recent event, incidentally not in the ME, determined who lived or died by their ability to recite the Quran. What ridiculous mental gymnastics fueled by what self-loathing rich-whitey-always-evil nonsense must we go through to avoid believing thhe damned people who are doing it, telling us their reasons loudly and consistently, and demonstrating their religious targetting time and time again?
treestar
(82,383 posts)those were not attacks on the US. Desperate attempts to hang onto a "permitted" bigotry.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I will NEVER stop or apologize for being proudly bigoted, hateful and downright revolted toward religio-crazy killers of any denomination or sect. I'm not the one insanely pretending they don't exist for a start.
treestar
(82,383 posts)you are proud to be bigoted? You are judging several million people based on the acts of some. At least you admit it.
What of the Muslim victims of these terror attacks? That must be OK with you - they deserve it?
What about the victims of the Taliban? The ones who were killed because they did not want to live that way?
And yet I bet you don't judge all Christians/white people by the extremists in their grouping.
7962
(11,841 posts)Maybe try reading up on the views and admonitions of the Quran and the MAJORITY of Muslims.
treestar
(82,383 posts)in an effort to continue with a bigoted view. Again blaming an entire group for the actions of a few is not very liberal. You're not answering my points, you're only attempting to tell my I am stupid. Why the desperate need to believe the Muslims are inherently, by virtue of their birth into a Muslim family, more evil than you are?
7962
(11,841 posts)As far as "vague" references to polls, nothing vague about them; they are numerous and easy to find. National laws against gays, "honor" killings unpunished, female genital mutilation, attacking or killing rape victims, the list is long and the horrors arent isolated.
But you can stay up on that high horse of "tolerance" and watch Europe crumble. As it will, if they dont open their eyes.
I prefer Jimmy Carter's example from '79; no immigrants from countries that encourage of allow terrorist or islamist activities.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)A very western centric view you have. It doesn't make the nightly news because it is on the other side of the world but there is just as much religious violence in India by Muslims than in France or the US.
Hindus are actually especially persecuted. The Koran is surprisingly favorable to Christians and Jews (as long as they accept Islamic domination, pay a lifetime tax, and allow their female children to be taken as wives for Muslims crusaders). Hindus, other Polytheists, and Atheists on the other hand well the Koran is especially hash in the teachings on how they should be handled. The can be taken as slaves or slaughtered in place unless they convert on the spot (no option for Jizya for them).
https://hinduexistence.org/category/attack-upon-hindus-by-muslims/
What about Bangledesh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide
3,000,000 Hindus murdered, at least 300,000 Hindu women raped, 10 million people displaced.
This isn't a middle east only thing. This happen pretty much anywhere in the world where there is a significant Muslim population. Most of it just never makes the Western news radar.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And those are separate questions - they are not attacking the US.
bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)Yes to the fact there is violence from Muslims in India with the majority of victims of extreme Islamic violence being Hindu, but ? to the suggestion that the violence is not reciprocal.
Marr
(20,317 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And it was an attack ON India from other Muslims. Like they were the victim of an ISIS type attack.
Mixing in other issues and other fights does not save your broad brush of a religion.
New York
Russia
Mumbai
Egypt
Paris x 2
Brussels
San Bernardino
Orlando
Turkey
Baghdad
Yemen
Bangladesh
Nice
synergie
(1,901 posts)Generally Induan Muslims are not the ones participating in these terror groups in India. Click on the links in your site to see what I mean. Indian Muslims in general do not get involved in this stuff, it's why the ISI brings in their own people to cause mischief.
Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #19)
BlueMTexpat This message was self-deleted by its author.
True Earthling
(832 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 15, 2016, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
and awards sexual favors to those who commit atrocities in defense of the religion...this motivation is what can tip the scale and pushes an already unstable individual over the edge.
One of the main factors in how some young Muslim men become ripe for radicalization is their failure to integrate and feel accepted in western culture due to the oppressive nature of Islam and ME culture. Their religion and traditional customs forbid them from adopting our customs and dressing and behaving like us...a number of young Muslims can't accept our our way of life and then can't understand why we don't accept them. They become resentful of our society as a whole. I never saw a Muslim in my area until about 5 years ago...now I go to the mall and I see them all the time. I see their women dressed in hijabs and burqas always walking behind their men.. so yeah, I don't accept that. I also don't accept the LBGT-phobia of their religion...not sure how many Muslims buy into it but I would bet it's the majority.
There's also resentment with western governments..i.e. the Iraq invasion etc. Some of it is a result of believing in delusional conspiracy theories i.e. Bush orchestrated 9/11 to start a war on Islam.
No other religion provides motivation for death and dying like Islam. Christianity is much different... they want to save lives and preserve life at all costs i.e. anti-abortion and anti-assisted suicide due to terminal illness. I'm not promoting Christianity ..just pointing out the culture clash of Muslims living in a country with a Christian majority and culture.
I am a hard core atheist so don't want to hear from Islamic apologists about how Christianity 500 yrs ago was as bad as Islam today.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In fact it's prohibitions against suicide are stricter than ours. Sexual favors (granted by women to men is the way that comes off, as if that is what sex is about, which is not equality) after a suicide don't really mean much.
It's the misdefinition of martyrdom that is the issue. Martyrdom does not include a blatant suicide attack, but the radical clerics/terror leaders make that argument.
"Their women" sounds a bit on the sexist side.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You clearly haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about in regards to Islam (that comment about Indonesia and India having Muslim populations that don't get involved with 'this stuff' proves that much). And yet, you're keenly sensitive to the use of a 'sexist' adjective by a fellow liberal, and scold them for their criticism of Islam.
If you're really that troubled by misogyny, you should not be defending Islam. It's probably the single biggest force for the oppression of women that exists on the planet.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I looked up suicide in Islam. It is not permitted.
The poster was being generally sexist by using "their women" and looking at woman as "sexual favors" regardless of religion. Certainly the West does better than Islam at women's equality but that was not the issue.
True Earthling
(832 posts)I'm not familiar enough with the Quran to know what the correct interpretation is. Below is a Pew poll on Muslim views of suicide bombings. The last column on the right gives you a clue as to how Muslims feel about it. Although those who oppose it are in the majority there's a large portion of the Muslim population who believe it's justified in some cases.
As to my being "generally sexist"...I was using that term in the context of how some Muslim men view women..that is not my view at all. I'm well aware that "their women" implies possession which is how some (most?) Muslims generally treat women.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Turns out that fighting them over there does not stop them from making terrorist attacks here.
And fussing over who comes into the country doesn't work either. They can radicalize anyone regardless of citizenship.
Solution is probably something to do with our relations with other countries. Not treating them in such a way as is to our interests without recalling the people there will get angry if they feel we are taking advantage of our might.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)And also treating those who are already in the US as full participants in all that our society has to offer. In that, we have a long way to go wrt ALL minorities, I'm afraid.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Pump up the volume about the scientific truth, and medieval, hateful ideologies will crumble.
GOP evangelicals (and the US Muslim Brotherhood) are the best allies of ISIS in the US.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)people in the name of religion you have no religion. You're just some angry asshole who kills people.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)without demonizing an entire religion is to start with speech. Now I know this gets into free speech concerns but If you hear someone saying something that sounds crazy, like "There should be no other religion allowed but ours" or "these people [insert any group] should be killed", maybe, just maybe, that individual, no matter their religion, is going to cause a problem or two down the road.
So maybe it's time to start taking what people say and preach more seriously?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Truth, even if it's an uncomfortable truth, must be acknowledged.
The Islamic religion & culture is partially to blame even if DU takes this approach to Islamic terrorism.
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)So, perhaps we should look at solutions that are realistic and accomplish-able. Removing religion from this equation is not feasible.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,686 posts)Something that doesn't get alot of supoort here in reality tv america.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and those who question or change their faith. These are practices in several nations, each of which say they lash people with whips and chop off their heads because of their religion. They are not fringe elements but the controlling majorities in entire nations. What is the defense of that which you offer when asking me to respect that faith?
treestar
(82,383 posts)We do not send troops over there because of their treatment of women/LBGT. We would let them alone if that were all that was going on. Not a single US troop goes there to protect the rights of women.
The pushback we get as far as terrorist attacks is not because of the equality we in the west have for women/LBGT. It's because we are over there overthrowing their government.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I asked the OP a question which you can't address and you have not even tried. Folks like you and the OP seem to be openly endorsing the 'non terror' versions, including those nations that murder LGBT.
The OP says the religion can't be criticized. I do not agree. I asked the OP why they feel LGBT must allow this genocide without speaking against it. Thus far you and the OP have not mustered an actual answer.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Of course they can speak out against it! All of us will! It is tough to speak out against anything in those countries without getting killed.
But you won't find the right wing clamoring for war because of the way some of those governments treat women or LGBT. Al Qaeda or ISIS don't attack us because of the way we treat women/LBGT.
And not every Muslim may agree either with that treatment.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And the OP is clearly not willing to defend their own works. You are making one straw man after the other and it is insultingly dismissive.
treestar
(82,383 posts)always resorting to insults instead of discussing the issue.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you look for homophobia you can find a justification for it in all the Abrahamic religions.
I want to defeat the terrorists without starting a war of the worlds or dogpiling on an entire religion.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and murders because the important part is not to insult the man with the lash some foolish rush to defend the man he's beating?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)and murders because the important part is not to insult the man with the lash some foolish rush to defend the man he's beating?
-bluenorthwest
I never said anything remotely like that.
I urge you to peer into your conscience, heed your better angels, and apologize for your character assassination of me.
P.S. I want to defeat the bad guys without going to war with 2,000,000,000 Muslims, nothing more and nothing less... I don't even know how one prosecutes such a war. That was the gravamen of my seminal argument:
-DemocratSinceBirth
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you ignored while your teammate went after me repeatedly.
What I asked you: So let me hear you defend the religion's wide spread abuse and murder of LGBT, apostates
and those who question or change their faith. These are practices in several nations, each of which say they lash people with whips and chop off their heads because of their religion. They are not fringe elements but the controlling majorities in entire nations. What is the defense of that which you offer when asking me to respect that faith?
You are demanding that the faith, not the persons in it, be respected and not criticized. You can't do that without explaining how you rationalize that faith as practiced in organized States, by massive institutions. You say it must not be criticized, the faith. But entire nations murder LGBT while claiming they do so to follow that faith. I'm going to criticize that, no matter what.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If a person mistreats people based on immutable characteristics that person is trash.
Homopohobes, anti-semites, racists, xenophobes, sexists, misogynists, et cetera are horrible people regardless of where they find their inspiration.
still_one
(92,190 posts)world today.
The question being poised is how you go after terrorists who purport to follow Islam without condemning the whole religion?
How does one go after purported Christians who bomb and kill people at planned parenthood clinics?
From what I can see, in the case of PP clinics, most do not view those actions as religious based, though in the mind of the perpetrator, they sure are.
The terrorism that is done in the name of Islam is based on groups such as ISIL, AQ, etc. No government will admit to being part of that.
This is the approach that the west takes. It is not going after Islam, but rather going after these groups who happen to wave the Islamic Sharia flag.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If a person mistreats people based on immutable characteristics that person is trash.
Homopohobes, anti-semites, racists, xenophobes, sexists, misogynists, et cetera are horrible people regardless of where they find their inspiration.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)mean one wants war with 2 billion people.
Do progressives not regularly criticize other religions? What if some of those religions were indeed the most commonly cited as inspiration (by terrorists themselves) for atrocities and oppressive societies?
As long as one isn't saying "yea, deport all Muslims" or "turn the ME to glass," or "one is permanently Muslim if his father is," etc., its a relevant topic and acceptable discussion to talk about the merits of that religion.
For me, the same reason I'm not into evangelicalism and the religious right is why I am not too keen on Islam, as widely practiced in the modern day, and why I don't hesitate to call out Islamism (political Islam).
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Quran 7:81 Islam
Leviticus 20:13 Judaism
Romans 1:26-27 Christianity
I deplore homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, et cetera but you can find it in all three Abrahamic religions.
I would rather look for what unites us in varying religions than what divides us.
I really don't know how we get on this tangent; Hezbollah, Isis, Al Qaeda hate and target other groups, including other Muslims. I want to defeat them, not all of Islam !!!
ericson00
(2,707 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)
however, I think there is a simple way to tell when criticism of Islam (as widely practiced, not theory; in theory, all religions are guilty) is principled and serious vs when its for the wrong reasons.
1. Does the person believe the lie that if one's dad is a Muslim, that one is permanently and immutably Muslim?
2. Does the person talk up how great Christianity is supposedly when he bashes Islam?
3. Does he talk about turning the ME to glass?
4. Does he cite poor sources, like Center for Security Policy, rather than good sources like Pew (this usually applies when discussion polling)?
If the person does any of those things, then yea its conservative bigotry.
But just as progressives can and should be frank about politics and violence associated with extremisms of stripes Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, it can be done with Islam too, and it must.
It is true that according to International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, a majority (but not all) of the countries on this map in red are heavily Muslim countries and all dark red ones are; it is also true that nearly all countries in this map presently with apostasy/blasphemy laws are heavily Muslim countries. It is true from this map that the heavily Muslim Middle East/North Africa is the most anti-Semitic region in the world. It is also true some pretty vile stuff is rather mainstream in the Muslim world, clips which you can see.
The paragraph above is not about holy texts; its about practice. A far smaller percentage on non-Muslim countries, whatever their religion, have such human and civil rights situations.
Does pointing this out mean that one hates all individual Muslims, or wants to ban all of them from stepping foot in this country? No. But if Democrats want to lose, then we can stifle such discussion. There is merit to criticizing political and militant Islam, and the GOP and conservatives must not be allowed to own this discussion.
Some people often say "what you say is correct but what is the solution?" Several remedies are simple; anyone who attacks in the name of militant strain of any religion (but these days it is mostly likely to be Islam) is a terrorist and must be hunted down. Also, in terms of immigration policies, personal/societal views, social media posts, etc are fair game for people who haven't entered yet (because they don't have US constitutional rights until they're here). Another remedy is to empower moderate Muslims, particularly apostate on LGBT/women/speech/conversion/Israel-Palestinians via asylum, even those who risk death at fatwas, and protect with security, and give them a platform.
The remedies mentioned above are not in any way, going to war with a quarter of the world population, you'll notice.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And if you want to go to war against all Muslims on the planet because some of them are doing this, then you have to go to war with all of Christianity too. The idea is to get people to progress forward, not kill all of them for not being forward enough. That's just a conflagration. No we are not comfortable with that at all. The man being beaten is a Muslim too in those countries. IF that man escaped and asked us for asylum, are we to deny him because of the culture he comes from?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The OP is about terrorism.
You're acting like a building termite inspector who finds fault with the building's alarm system when he/she should be looking for termites.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)You started it.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Straw man. Try again.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)If Western powers hadn't dismembered the Ottoman Empire, they still would be legal in many of the places they aren't now.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Remember the various patriot groups that set up "churches' and armed themselves to the teeth, advocated racial segregation, plotted to overthrow the government, told us to shoot federal law enforcement officers, etc? They were not religious, and we should never have allowed them to hide behind religion.
Same thing applies to these "Muslims" who use religion to facilitate terrorism. Anybody who advocates organized violence, terrorism, etc. needs to be stopped. If we need to revoke citizenship and send some of these guys back to Saudi Arabia or Yemen, that's fine with me.
I am very tired of "religious" groups trying to write their catechism into our civil laws.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)We would have to start dealing with these events for what they truly are...crimes committed by people against other people.
Treat incidences like this as the crimes that they are and prosecute the criminals that commit them.
The framework of a war on an emotion is ridiculous. Might as well go to war against love...it makes no sense. The Exorcist terrified me as child but I don't think calling in Delta force to deal with the people who made the movie is a rational response...
Anyone who is a victim of a violent crime feels fear or terror from the ordeal that they have gone thru. But that does not change the fact that a crime was committed against the victim/s by specific person/s.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And seek out terrorists as law breakers. Run this through the UN and the World Court. Terrorist attacks against a civilian target is a war crime.
We should develop systems that encourages local authorities both an incentive and aid in arresting terrorists and tyring them in courts of law.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dretownblues
(253 posts)Figuring out what sects are the most violent/fundamanilist. The two that I know of are whabbisim and Salafism, both practiced heavily in Saudi Arabia. Aince we know that these are the extreme sects of Islam we should be reaching out to Imams and Islamic leaders to denounce and educate. At the same time we should cease to support in any form Goverments and leaders who push the practice of these extreme sects of Islam. Thats where I would start.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Let's be honest.
7962
(11,841 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)read the polls that show what a majority of Muslims support, read the stories of the atrocities committed with the blessings of the state in so many areas, read what their goals are as a religion.
Its all out there and easy to find.
Europe has been ignoring it longer than we have. Look where its gotten them. And look where they're headed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fundamentalists, yes.
7962
(11,841 posts)Again, look at the polls.
Jimmy Carter stopped allowing any Iranians in back in 79. I see nothing wrong with closing the door again if you come from any of these muslim countries that do nothing to stop radical islam
We cannot allow ourselves to be inundated like Europe has been
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are you sure it is objective?
The Bible says a lot of things most modern people don't follow. These books were written in primitive times.
Nobody seems to cite these polls.
When you come across ordinary Muslims in life, do you really think they believe you should be killed?
7962
(11,841 posts)Among other things? Legally treating women as 3rd class citizens and property? No rights for rape victims? You really dont think these laws exist & the majority back them?
Where the heck have you been living? You're right, most people dont follow some of the repressive things in the bible. And a lot of the worst parts were Old Testament anyway. But many of the worlds Muslims DO support the violence taught in the Quran
In the US we have been lucky because in the past we have brought in Muslims who were willing to assimilate into American society. Thats why US muslims are less supportive of the most restrictive laws many Muslims push. But in recent years we have been letting ANYONE come in and those groups are where the problems lie. They do not want to assimilate. This has been the problem in Europe and its been coming for years. And we had better learn from the reality of what we SEE going on in Europe.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)As long as we as a species elevate a belief in make believe to the level of truth, we are going to continue to have these horrible situations.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)It wasn't fair then and it isn't fair now.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They encourage people to believe lies, many of which advocate for violence and/or intolerance.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)I myself think that institutional religion has been created by men mainly to control others even though in its best forms, it can also inspire comfort and great selflessness.
But it is not so much the religions themselves or basic premises such as "love one another" or "treat others as you wish to be treated" that are at fault, it is those who pervert religions to accomplish their own ends. It is the latter who should be demonized.
But I really wish to see a world where one's religion - or lack of it - is not something to be judged by.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would say that the two biggest religions worldwide both have texts that form the basis of their faiths that are filled with instructions that are problematic, to put it gently.
Perhaps a re-write of the "holy books" could help create the world that you are talking about while still allowing people whatever comfort they may gain from believing in the myths and fairy stories.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)probable than a wholesale revision of the US Constitution. 
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And Republicans and conservatives aren't going to change their doctrines any time soon either.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Human nature. Not that I have an answer to that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)We should not be afraid to subject them to the same sorts of criticism just because they are religions.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)And it should be pointed out that Islam is not, in any way, a progressive religion.
Feel free to dispute this.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)n/t
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe it would be possible to convince people that their religion, like their language, it just the ones their ancestors developed and no better than anyone else's. Convince them all it's the same God by different names.
If anything Christianity is the most dangerous in that way. It has specific instructions to convert others or they are going to hell and you are too if you don't "witness." That might be what inspires Eurocentrism/American Exceptionalism. Why is it the Europeans who set out to conquer the Earth?
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)and in response to one of my own responses below, I see that there are still too many on DU who are every bit as biased and bigoted as any Trump-Pence supporter ever could be.
The worst I have put on "Ignore" without responding and those I have left will not be responded to. Life is too short.
Sometimes it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong. Most of the worst have what they believe are erudite responses and they find themselves quite clever and me not. No worry - I wasn't intending to be. But those judgmental responses have nothing to do with real life or with the basics of any mainstream religion. ANY religion can be perverted by those who wish to control.
I pity such people because they will always find the disappointment and hatred they seek - it's undeniably there - without ever finding the enormous love of life and happiness that most of us who actually function in the real world experience, whether we practice a religion or not.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)And the "bad guys" don't come from one religion alone - although I would say that NOT ONE of them understands the basic elements of those religions.
One can search out words and phrases (often out of context) in each religion to support whatever action/argument one wants but the foundations of mainstream religion are to believe in/serve a Higher Being, to be a good person oneself, and to treat others the way one wishes to be treated, regardless of who those others may be.
While I cannot believe in any institutionalized religion myself (as a "cradle" Catholic in a Catholic undergrad institution, I had to take four courses in theology and four in philosophy along with all other requirements just to get my undergrad degree), I am among those who believe that one can be/do the latter two without having to believe in the first. But I sincerely respect those who can do all three.
I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who claims to believe in the first but does not follow the third, implicitly making the second moot. Tarring ANY religion as a whole, which implicitly includes tarring ALL its followers, rather than focusing on those few who do terrible things is NOT following the third.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)That is why you will not a distinct difference between majority Muslim and non-Muslim countries in how laws are made and how they are governed.
It's the only religion with a goal of world domination by it political system.
I think eventually we need to stop treating it like a religion at all and treat it like a political movement- because it is both.
Sit back and think- had we been crediting all the horrific acts of the last years to a political movement instead of the extreme sect of a religion would we still be tiptoeing around trying to pretend it wasn't that to avoid offending all the "moderate" members of that political movement?
If the Bundy gang had killed a bunch of people in San Bernadino and shop up an LGBT club in Orlando would we be sitting here trying to figure out how to fight terrorism without offending right wingers?
treestar
(82,383 posts)so no we would not.
Why should anyone be tarred because they belong to the same group as an evildoer? Do white men stand responsible for being more violent than others? There's Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, why don't white men get this treatment? They are raised to believe they are the superior race and sex. So why don't we condemn them all an inherently more likely to attempt to dominate?
Christianity has a goal of world domination. It's the First Amendment that protects us and science and the general backing off of religious authority. Catholics for instance are different from Catholics of the last generation - less likely to think they are going to hell if they skip church or go to communion without going to confession (when I was a kid that could send you to hell, but now nobody goes to confession).
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)it is a belief system that should be criticized. It's not a "group", it's more akin to an ideology.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)liberals".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I don't want to give the bad guys any quarter but I don't want to go to war with 2,000,000,000 people spread out all over the globe.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)of a population. I have friends that accuse me of being a traitor to the uniform for being engaged to a Muslim man of Pakistani decent. What they fail to understand is he holds a clearance higher than I ever did & does a job that has marked him for life in his home country. All while being Muslim. The demonization of a huge group of ppl is ignorant & dangerous.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)because of their faith. I just don't get it. I guess it's the fear of the unknown.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Because a lot of the terrorist attacks are being committed by those that are holding themselves out as Muslims. Without getting in a debate of who is and isn't really a Muslim the point is 99.999999999999999999999% of Muslims aren't involved in terrorism.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)based on religion that seems to be the go to of blame just because of their background.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Willful ignorance a lot of the time, too. I've had the following conversation multiple times:
"Islam is terrible! Look at these terrible quotes from the Quran!"
"You cut out the line immediately before that showed it wasn't talking about what you claim it was. Here's the full quote; what do you find offensive about it?"
"You just don't want to admit the truth!"
If people want to learn about Islam, they could listen to academics who specialize in it's history rather than a ill-informed polemicist like Sam Harris. But that's if they actually want to learn about it.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)that is the most frustrating of all and certainly most disappointing among those who call themselves "progressive" or "liberal." They don't even realize how it outs them and belies their self-labels.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"facts" they're using to attack a minority group in the U.S. was incorrect, I'd hope that would make them reconsider their positions and try to learn more (particularly if they got that "fact" from a hate site designed to denigrate said minority group). I mean, I would hope that they would have the inclination to learn instead of hate from the beginning, but particularly once they learn that their hate is coming from ignorance. But instead of seeing people reconsider things, they seem to ignore evidence and double down on their hatred.
Like you said, it's unsettling how many people who consider themselves progressive are OK with this bigotry.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If you actually give a damn about gay rights, you don't defend a belief system that throws them off rooftops.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)& a Muslim fiancé. All while being a damn atheist. Weird how so many ppl from different backgrounds can actually come together. Love each other & still hold onto their beliefs.
Take your ignorant bigoted bullshit elsewhere.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You're also excusing a belief system that results in gays being executed in less pampered parts of the world. Your personal demographics are of no interest to me. I'm gay myself-- it's irrelevant to this conversation.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Hundreds of Muslim intellectuals, scholars, clerics and mainstream people speaking out will have far more influence than what anyone else says.
6chars
(3,967 posts)Haven't heard from some of them recently though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_by_Islamic_extremists_in_Bangladesh
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Quran say Muslims are 'the best of people', and non-Muslims the 'worst of creatures'
How are "prominent Muslim leaders' going to soften that supremacist doctrine?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)actually believe that their religion is superior just because the Q'uraan says it. Only about 100K to 200K are fanatic. Rest of them are just normal people.
How many Christians believe everything in the bible?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)You say "Only about 100K to 200K are fanatic."
HALF of the 1Bn+ adult Muslims say adulterers/apostates should be stoned to death.
Would you call this a fanatic attitude or not?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Such polling is inherently fraught with errors.
Just because people tell pollsters something doesn't mean they believe in it.
Also, there is a geographic difference -- if you took the poll in one of the progressive countries like Indonesia or Turkey, you'll see a different result. If you took this poll in secular countries like India or South Africa, you'll see a different result.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Besides, Indonesia, a progressive country???
May I suggest you look into the policies in the Indonesian province of Aceh?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Yes: We need to start from the proposition that we are taught in elementary school that you don't blame an entire group for the actions of an individual. That said we can not bury our heads in the sand. Power loves/abhors a vacuum.
No: If liberals don't confront the terrorists... I have two problems with this statement.
First is the verb: confront. Confrontation is the wrong approach, imo, leading to more conflict.
Second: I'm bothered by the absolutism; that our nation is either liberal or conservative. I know you know that this is too simplistic to be reality based.
Maybe: There is some truth, though, in your intent. Maybe if we replaced the verb, to begin with. What verb, besides "confront," would be a better approach? Maybe "disempower?" Maybe "heal" or "repair?" Isn't addressing the source, the hate, more likely to disarm terrorists and reduce terrorism than confrontation? There is a certain contingent that will never put forward any solution that doesn't involve confrontation. Maybe we do have a responsibility to put ourselves and our solutions forward. Since the aggressive "confrontation" idea already has a host of supporters, shouldn't it be our responsibility to propose alternate solutions to address terrorism?
Rex
(65,616 posts)It makes women and children into slaves. It destroys the infrastructure of countries. It reduces human life to a few sentences in some book written by men thousands of years ago.
It doesn't apply to our modern world.
Gothmog
(145,256 posts)You cannot blame an entire region for the actions of a small minority
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)We boycotted South Africa and we were right to do so. We bow and scarp to Saudi Arabia even as they lash and execute LGBT and others. We are wrong to do so.
