|
Replies: 102
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Should terrorists be labeled Islamic or Christian?
Aug 4, 2015, 2:59 PM
|
|
I don't think so. To label terrorists as Islamic, you've given them what they want, and how can they be described as religious in any way when they murder people at the drop of a hat?
The same can be said about the KKK when they committed acts in the name of Christianity. Were they really Christians? Heck no. Are people really Islamic who take the Koran literally and go out and commit violent acts? I think the overwhelming majority of Muslims would say no.
Is it Christian to kill homosexuals as it says in Leviticus 20:13, or to take literally the hundreds of nutty Bible verses? No again.
These are two of world's great religions and to let terrorists co-opt these great religions makes it too easy for them. The biggest thing wrong with Islam is that they have millions of poor, uneducated, and ignorant subjects who are ripe to live any kind of cause that will give them hope, but once they succumb to committing murder and terrorism, they can't be labeled as religious in any way, except by themselves.
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If a terrorist is christian or muslim, then why not?
Aug 4, 2015, 3:05 PM
|
|
Call a spade a spade. It does not however mean that all christians or muslims are terrorists because a small percentage of the religion are terrorists.
I do find it humorous that whenever someone labels a muslim a terrorists nobody bats an eye, but if you label a christian a terrorists then he wasn't a "real" christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
And when should a person be labeled a "terrorist"?***
Aug 4, 2015, 3:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63266
Joined: 10/30/05
|
I don't think you can compare the two at all
Aug 4, 2015, 3:10 PM
|
|
I don't think we can understand the Islamic terrorists motivations, as much as we try. We try to rationalize their actions by saying , well they were poor, they were uneducated, etc. But in doing this, I think we're trying to sugar coat reality. Which is, their fundamental belief systems clash with our way of life, and no matter what, you can't reconcile that.
The fact is that they are islamic terrorists, that's just the truth. I understand why you would make the comparison to the KKK, but I do not think it's apples to apples at all. Islamic terrorism is on a totally different scale than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
um... what?
Aug 4, 2015, 3:14 PM
|
|
What is so special about Islamic terrorists vs other terrorists? Why can't they be compared to the KKK, because they are worse? You make it sound like on muslims can't be evil intentioned terrorists, when it's clearly not the case.
> The fact is that they are islamic terrorists, that's just the truth.
Sure, who says they aren't? Doesn't mean all who practice islam are terrorists though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: um... what?
Aug 4, 2015, 3:17 PM
|
|
* You make it sound like only muslims can be evil intentioned terrorists, when it's clearly not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63266
Joined: 10/30/05
|
They're far more prevalent, that is the difference
Aug 4, 2015, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to um... what? ] |
|
And yeah, they are worse. The KKK, or any other white supremacy group hasn't been relevant in what, 30 years?
Some of you guys want to act like muslims are rarely doing anything to cause harm, when that's far from the reality. And they're clearly doing it in the name of Islam. It's not like we've only got a handful of isolated incidents to pick from or anything.
For some reason you're hell bent on me saying that all muslims are terrorists. I won't say that, but I will say I'd be willing to bet it's a whole lot more than you'd be willing to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: They're far more prevalent, that is the difference
Aug 4, 2015, 3:27 PM
|
|
Honestly I was just trying to clarify what the argument was.
> And yeah, they are worse. The KKK, or any other white supremacy group hasn't been relevant in what, 30 years?
Ok sure, agreed.
> Some of you guys want to act like muslims are rarely doing anything to cause harm, when that's far from the reality. And they're clearly doing it in the name of Islam. It's not like we've only got a handful of isolated incidents to pick from or anything.
I'm certainly not saying that islamic terrorists attacks are rare, we see them constantly. And yes, they are doing it in the name of islam, no argument there.
As a percentage of their population though, it's not a majority of muslims, it's a relatively small percentage so you can't simply equate islam with terrorism.
To be as clear as I possibly can, I am absolutely not saying that there isn't a problem with islamic terrorists. There most certainly is, I'm just against the outlast against all muslims who are peaceful and cause no harm.
> For some reason you're #### bent on me saying that all muslims are terrorists. I won't say that, but I will say I'd be willing to bet it's a whole lot more than you'd be willing to believe.
I don't have any problem calling a spade a spade. There are a lot of terrorists who are muslim, not doubt about it and that's a problem. I'm simply saying that not all muslims are terrorists. That's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42368
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63266
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Where what? Where are they more prevalent?***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10149]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/31/04
|
Re: um... what? Islamic terrorist are making a living by
Aug 5, 2015, 6:13 PM
[ in reply to um... what? ] |
|
training and targeting the enemy. The are fighting under a broad banner of islam.
They've clearly out killed the kkk, biker gangs, and the black panthers combined, all in the name of allah.
If the KKK starts killing folks you got to go after the organization and knock them out. Though I've never considered them a religious group, just as I've never considered biker gangs or the black panthers religious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
So, you think that anyone who labels themselves a Muslim
Aug 4, 2015, 4:19 PM
[ in reply to I don't think you can compare the two at all ] |
|
, or Christian, or Buddhist, is in fact a Muslim, a Christian, or a Buddhist?
I wasn't trying to sugar-coat anything. Those countries are backward as helll for the most part, and their ignorance buys into crap like this, much like the Klan 50 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63266
Joined: 10/30/05
|
I don't think the klan had quite the reach these radicals
Aug 4, 2015, 4:30 PM
|
|
do. I don't see why not, it's not like we have panels that decide who gets to be what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Just my opinion here, don't need a panel for that. People
Aug 4, 2015, 4:34 PM
|
|
who go out an murder people, can't be Islamic or Christian or Buddhist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Sure they can. It's all subjective.
Aug 4, 2015, 6:35 PM
|
|
We justify killing in several scenarios.
It's ok to kill soldiers during a war...because... well just because.
It's ok to kill unborn people because that's a woman's right to choose.
It's ok to kill someone who is trying to kill you because it's self-defense.
It's ok to kill certain criminals because their acts were evil.
It's ok to accidentally kill people as long as it's not your fault.
It's ok to kill a small amount of civilians because a just war is impossible otherwise.
It's ok to kill a lot of innocent civilians if our entire way of life is threatened. (ww2)
All religions make room for killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
None of that is actually subjective
Aug 5, 2015, 12:19 PM
|
|
Also, it's not very hard think of why it's ok to kill soldiers during a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
That actually all is entirely subjective.
Aug 5, 2015, 2:09 PM
|
|
The entire concept of something being morally acceptable vs not acceptable is subjective.
And why don't you explain, objectively, why it's morally ok for soldiers to kill during a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Well, you need to argue why that's the case
Aug 6, 2015, 12:38 PM
|
|
What you've actually posted are objective (ie. they don't depend on something about you) reasons why something is right or wrong. Your agreement or disagreement with those reasons is what's subjective, as long as it's not argued. So either you don't know what "subjective" means or you're just assuming that the fact that moral arguments might be contestable makes them subjective- in which case, you've got an entire ethical theory that needs to be argued, not just asserted.
One objective (and, really, I don't like the whole language of objective/subjective distinction, as if there were a difference between belief and truth) reason why soldiers killing other soldiers in war might be right is that soldiers are defined by their willingness to kill enemy soldiers. So they've mutually agreed to put themselves in harm's way; one soldier's stated intent to kill the other gives the other soldier the moral right to kill the first soldier in self-defense, and vice-versa. Then there's of the tradition of just war theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
This is easy. The definition of words handles this for me.
Aug 6, 2015, 9:15 PM
|
|
A moral valuation is necessarily subjective because an object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
If there is an objective, universal right and wrong we don't have access to it because we are all slaves to our perception. Unless you are able to somehow step outside of your perception. In which case I will be inclined to listen to you and probably join your cult.
2 + 2 is a mathematical truth.
Assigning moral value among the different types of homicide is not.
And if you are one of those "normative morality" people... reality tends to discredit that, considering rational people NEVER agree on complex moral issues.
The irony here is I actually believe in an objective universal morality, but I rely on my perception, making it subjective for all intents and purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
In principle, I agree with your sentiment, but...
Aug 4, 2015, 3:12 PM
|
|
you're equating the KKK, which is basically a dead/dying organization of maybe hundreds of folks (my guess without knowing for sure) localized to a small part of the US and essentially out of active operation to the many many different groups that would be classified under Radial Islam.
To me, prefacing with the term "radical" is appropriate enough to distinguish their beliefs and actions from "mainline" Islam.
I bet you could count the number of Christian churches on your hands that you could walk into and find any support for the KKK.
Considering ISIL/ISIS, AQ (various forms), Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, etc...I think you'd need an awful lot of hands to count the mosques where these groups would find support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Agree with all of that. Islamic countries are backwards
Aug 4, 2015, 4:02 PM
|
|
as hell and many years behind our civilization. How many churches could you go into a hundred years ago and find support for the KKK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Still were many years behind the west.***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Still were many years behind the west.***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:26 PM
|
|
sure, but it was't quite the cesspool it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42368
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
probably more of an "irrelevant detail" actually***
Aug 4, 2015, 5:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37166
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Not really sure...I'm not that old :)....
Aug 4, 2015, 4:59 PM
[ in reply to Agree with all of that. Islamic countries are backwards ] |
|
I assume they had some support in some rural churches in the South, but that's just an assumption. I guess technically 100 yrs ago, the 2nd klan was just starting, so probably wouldn't have had much support in churches. Now 1950s-60's is probably another story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Who says they are backwards? Just because they don't follow
Aug 4, 2015, 6:30 PM
[ in reply to Agree with all of that. Islamic countries are backwards ] |
|
our social constructs? Because they don't live their lives on the internet?
There is no objective relative value between the way people in Algeria live vs the way we live. It's ### for tat. Violence isn't any more backwards than people who spend their lives on their phones. It's just not as dramatic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Also, the KKK was not Christian in the same way...
Aug 4, 2015, 6:16 PM
[ in reply to In principle, I agree with your sentiment, but... ] |
|
that Islamic terrorist organizations are Islamic. The KKK (in its various iterations) saw itself as standing up for a certain ethnic identity and for a certain ethnic tradition that included Christianity, but which they could not have claimed was explicitly sanctioned by Christianity. They're white, Anglo/Saxon or Celtic, and Protestant, but they don't follow any specifically protestant belief in carrying out whatever it is they do. They're more interested in the politics of white power.
By contrast, we call Islamic terror "Islamic terror" because those perpetrating it believe it's directly sanctioned- if not directly mandated- by Islam. They believe their violence is a religious duty, not just a political mission carried out by Muslim people of a certain ethnicity (or some other identity).
Maybe the KKK is closer to something like the PLO or the Hezbollah of the 80s in Lebanon. Even if that's a more accurate analogy, I think we're still making a mistake by thinking of religiously associated violence as if there were some general category of "religion" that all theistic belief could be boiled down to without reference to specific theology. In other words, while Christianity and Islam might share a belief in one god, the "religion" and everything that flows from comes from the specific and particular theology. In the case of Islam, there is a much more direct link between the political and the theological. And that's why you'd find so many more Islamic groups associated with terror, as well as why you'd find more Muslims in support of those groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
This is not "No True Scotsman"
Aug 4, 2015, 6:31 PM
|
|
It's simply paying attention to the nuances of theology and to what the groups actually say about themselves. I don't doubt that some person with a true belief in Christ could be involved in terrorism or violence they believed was commanded by Christianity. However, we shouldn't pretend that "religion" is some general topic that motivates people to do the same things in the same ways. Doing that is just lazy, and ignores what they people say about their own motivations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This is not "No True Scotsman"
Aug 5, 2015, 11:25 AM
|
|
> "However, we shouldn't pretend that "religion" is some general topic that motivates people to do the same things in the same ways. Doing that is just lazy, and ignores what they people say about their own motivations."
I'm not sure i understand your point about religion being a general topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
There is no "religion"
Aug 5, 2015, 12:03 PM
|
|
There is only Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. You can't talk about general "religious" motivations, or "religious" violence, or "religious" government without importing a background from a specific religion. When we try to talk about Islamic terror or Islamic government, we often assume that the natural state of things is a separation between the clerisy and the state, or that the proper way of thinking about things is to divide the spiritual kingdom from the earthly kingdom. But this is a Christian way of thinking, not an Islamic one.
Using "religion" as a kind of general sociological principle both ignores the particularities of each body of belief and ignores the each claims to be true. If we want to know why people are doing certain things, it isn't helpful to ignore the ideas they impute to themselves just so we can reduce them to a scientifically digestible morsel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Re: There is no "religion"
Aug 5, 2015, 2:29 PM
|
|
Considering all religions have some very key overlaps, I think you are doing yourself a huge intellectual disservice if you ignore the general idea of "religious" motivations. Human beings have a natural inclination to pursue a cause bigger than their own life and have a natural tendency to believe in a creating or ordering force bigger than themselves. Based on your previous post, it would seem you believe each religion has independently concocted this idea. To me, history clearly shows us that this "religious" tendency, that the entire human race shares, only involves such disparate elements because of the different geography each early civilization faced.
It's no mistake that the ancient Egyptians believed in benevolent Gods who cared about their people. The Nile behaved very well and was the obvious source of human life in the area. But a few hundred miles a way, in Mesopotamia, they believed in Gods that were capricious and vengeful. Gods that had no real interest in human welfare. The Tigris and Euphrates were also capricious. With no predictable flooding like the Nile. The rivers would often kill and the flat land offered no natural impediments to invasion. Because of Geography Mesopotamia was more warlike. Egypt developed with many natural defenses, and less war.
Belief in a higher power is the constant; while attitudes about the nature of the higher power are the variable. Those easily correspond to geography.
My point, religion is universal, dogma is the variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Your premise is built upon an assumption about ISIS....
Aug 4, 2015, 6:45 PM
[ in reply to Also, the KKK was not Christian in the same way... ] |
|
which I believe is inaccurate.
ISIS people care more about politics than they do religion whether they realize it or not. They want a STATE that is free of Western influence and that has the power to force people to live the way they want them too. If they had bigger conventional armies that stood a chance they would use those instead of terrorism. If they only cared about religion, they would just argue religion. But they are more interested in fighting wars and setting up governments. What they hate is not Christians, they hate being marginalized by a global world order that favors the remnants of the Christian World.
Warhawks are all the same. They are willing to use whatever ideology they are closest to, and use it to justify the ultimate game; hunting other people and risking their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. ISIS is the most brutal because they are in the most strategically desperate situation. Similar to Mexican drug cartels. Those guys pray to Christian saints, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. They are just bending religion to suit their real priorities. There are thousands of war tourists all over the world. The self-aware ones admit it has less to do with a cause than it does to do with their own personalities. The Blackwater dudes like war. Patton liked war. You better be on the winning side if you want to be called a hero and not a criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
ISIS has almost nothing to do with Mexican drug cartels
Aug 5, 2015, 11:22 AM
|
|
I've never heard of a Mexican cartel that said they thought producing and selling drugs was a Christian mission.
That ISIS wants a state and is intimately involved with politics is a result of Islamic ideology. Your assertion that religious and political authority are separate realms is largely a creation of Christian Protestantism. It does not follow, unless you have certain unstated premises about the separation of church and state, that "if [ISIS] only cared about religion, they would just argue religion."
But this is the problem with these sorts of blank theories of religious motivation, or motivation by power or economics, or "risking their lives for a cause bigger than themselves." It actually matters what that cause is, and it matters how the authorities of that cause (scripture, leaders, tradition) say the cause will be accomplished. You aren't going to understand Islamic terrorism or Islamism by simply boiling it down to some sociological principle devoid of the meaning given by the ideas they at least claim to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Re: ISIS has almost nothing to do with Mexican drug cartels
Aug 5, 2015, 2:04 PM
|
|
ISIS is doing something that the vast majority of Muslims condemn, so if we are claiming ISIS are the only true Muslims, then why hasn't that behavior been common throughout Muslim history? It hasn't. At some point, what the vast majority of Muslims do every day should be incorporated into what we decide to define as "real Islam."
Also, people are forgetting to look at Islam for what it really was, a practical religion initiated in a relatively "backwards" place in order to promote social justice and some form or moral binding where raw capitalism reigned supreme. Bedouin culture was such a raw deal for women that Islam was actually a Feminist movement. Women were given more heredity rights, and even Muhammad's own wife was a friggin military commander. Islam would have judged to be an improvement by many modern Westerners were they familiar with the Pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula.
That ISIS wants a state and is intimately involved with politics is a result of Islamic ideology.
That is completely true. You are right. But that is sort of the point that I'm trying to make. When many Westerners think about Islam, they necessarily see it through the Judeo-Christian window of orthodoxy being more important than orthopraxy. Since Islam emphasizes behavior and practicality (Which Sufis interestingly reject to an extent) it's not as if Muslims believe that "God actually wants us to slay people who are not Muslims regardless of the geopolitics of the time we are living." Islam was initiated in an environment of War for survival. And as it was being formed, conquering others that were viewed to be corrupt, was a central problem for the movement. This is why you have some Machiavellian elements in the Quran. And this is why the establishment of certain laws was so important. In politics, if a conqueror wants to survive, they have to have a system that actually works for the people the conquer. They have to be sustainable. Islam is all about sustainability during times of all-out war.
Modern Day Muslims understand this context. And the use of interpretation isn't reserved for Christians only. It's extremely important to Islam too. Many Muslim's believe that only highly-trained scholars should be trusted to interpret God's word. Groups like ISIS, who go nuts with cherry-picking literal interpretations, were the very concern of those Mujtahids all those centuries ago. They argued that the Quran, like any religious work, could easily be used to do evil if idiots were allowed to run wild with it.
So, I'm not asserting that there is a difference to Muslims regarding politics and religion, as they are very much intertwined. I'm communicating with other Westerners to explain how it's the political situation of the world that motivates ISIS to do what they are doing. They can use quotes to back it up. And Christians or Atheists are eager to take them for their word. But the vast majority of Muslims don't see it that way. Context is extremely important to Islam, moreso than Judiasm and Christianity.
The reason I brought up the drug cartels was to show how people have priorities over religion. Religion is useful to justify things. ISIS is angry that "their people" have been dominated for a long time. And because they have very little scruples, like the drug cartels, they justify ANYTHING to fight against what perceive to be evil.... namely our way of life being forced upon them through imperialism.
History shows us that ISIS-type behavior happens all over the world with all sorts of disparate justifications. You are not going to understand reality if you take the word of blood-thirsty murderers, especially if you elevate their word over that of the vast majority of those who deplore their behavior. History would be a valuable clue in this subject. Knowing more of it allows you to readily see patterns. Such patters help wipe away erroneous causation. It's not Islam driving ISIS. It's human nature and politics. Christians want to believe the opposite because it helps undercut a competing belief-system. Atheists do the same because it helps discredit religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
All this amounts to is raising sociology over ideas***
Aug 6, 2015, 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Your response goes beyond oversimplification. It's a dodge.
Aug 6, 2015, 8:55 PM
|
|
I am not a sociologist... and using that word as some sort of smoke screen to avoid engaging the points I made is lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Everyone should be labeled.
Aug 4, 2015, 3:12 PM
|
|
Everyone!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Shut it! You .. uh... labeler!
Aug 4, 2015, 3:14 PM
|
|
take that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammad instructed them to do.***
Aug 4, 2015, 3:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammad instructed them to do.***
Aug 4, 2015, 3:47 PM
|
|
You mean like stoning the gays?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
The Hadith specifies stoning. The Kuran, just death.***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The Hadith specifies stoning. The Kuran, just death.***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:09 PM
|
|
I wonder if there are other major religious books that condone stoning and death... hmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
The relevant comparisons are the words of Jesus vs Muhammad
Aug 4, 2015, 4:25 PM
|
|
From the Old Testament, all you need are the 10 Commandments.
You do not need to get into ancient Jewish law.
From the New Testament, Jesus' words and examples are all you need.
Muhammad came after Jesus, and Muhammad's words are crystal clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The relevant comparisons are the words of Jesus vs Muhammad
Aug 4, 2015, 4:27 PM
|
|
So the bible used to condone stoning and death but not anymore so it's totally cool. Got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
What happened when Jesus came upon the people about to
Aug 4, 2015, 4:29 PM
|
|
stone the prostitute? Got it now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: What happened when Jesus came upon the people about to
Aug 4, 2015, 4:31 PM
|
|
So he changed his mind about stoning. Yes I totally get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
See how you just bent the truth to support your argument?
Aug 4, 2015, 6:27 PM
[ in reply to The relevant comparisons are the words of Jesus vs Muhammad ] |
|
A Muslim could easily say the same crap you just did.
"Forget the obviously screwed up bits... only focus on this sliver that supports modern humanism."
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd be making the exact same argument for Islam against Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
You are not paying attention.
Aug 5, 2015, 9:12 AM
|
|
Take every word and action Jesus said and did.
Take every word and action of Muhammad.
Compare the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
You are dishonestly inflating your familiarity of Muhammad.
Aug 5, 2015, 2:50 PM
|
|
You reached your conclusion long before any mild attempt to actually compare the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'm sorry, where does it say that?
Aug 5, 2015, 11:45 AM
[ in reply to Yep, if you take the Koran literally. If you take the Bible ] |
|
The thing is, people who try to claim some sort of equivalency between all religions to get the ideology of Islam off the hook aren't even being logical. Unless two books are exactly the same, we don't even need to know anything about them to know that they will say something different. In the case of Islam, we do know that religious commandment and political commandment are much harder to separate from each other than they are in, say, Christianity. Does that mean that it's impossible to think up a theocracy that looks compatible with Christianity? No. Does it mean that we're much more likely to see political violence associated with Islam? Reasonably, yes.
We also aren't talking about literal interpretation here. Literally nobody interprets the Bible in a simple "literal" way, because much of it was clearly not written "literally." Probably nobody interprets the Koran "literally," either. Instead, there is a 2000 year long history of Christians writing theology based on interpreting scripture. There's a 1300 year long history of Muslims interpreting the Koran and passing down tradition. We might ask why it is that mainstream Christian theology is so different from mainstream Islamic theology, or why it is that so many Muslims believe in a political ideology of Islam that support violence in order to create a caliphate while so few Christians believe anything similar.
In some ways, this whole desire to boil particular religions down into a general "religion" where all are basically the same is admirable. We believe that religious differences, especially religious differences that can be evaluated positively or negatively, lead to religious strife. So we want to minimize these- or minimize the awareness off them- as much as possible. But what this actually is, is a civil religion very similar to the one Rousseau recommended: "The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected." But there is no question of the truth of this religion, only of its salience for a peaceful republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
While these days there are many more high profile violent
Aug 4, 2015, 3:45 PM
|
|
acts committed by those who associate themselves with Islam than there are with those who associate themselves with Christianity... the difference is not based in religion as much as it is politics.
Christians, historically speaking, used to be a lot more violent.... but not because the Bible has changed (well, not completely changed)... but because the political reality of the Christian world has changed. Now, The Christian World isn't under threat from a technologically and culturally superior Muslim World... like it was before/during the Crusades. A siege mentality will lead a civilization to violence. While excess wealth will abate much of that behavior. The Christian/agnostic world is not subject to the imperialism of other cultures.
The Muslim World has been subject to Western domination ever since the Age of European Exploration. Before then, the Muslim World effectively cut the West off from economic advancement. So Europe found out a way to sail around Africa and gained direct access to trade goods. This scientific breakthrough, caused by a unique geographical demand for naval prowess, created a snowball effect and eventually Europe was able to use its advanced navies to subjugate the rest of the world. Since that time the relative power of the West has subsumed that of the East, especially the Muslim World.
What we are witnessing now is the aftermath of colonization and Imperialism. Islamic tradition hasn't always involved global extremism. It's a new scenario that comes from the desperation of not being able to win a conventional fight against the West.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
I agree***
Aug 4, 2015, 4:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Jesus came before the Crusades, brah.***
Aug 4, 2015, 6:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Duh. Your point is?***
Aug 5, 2015, 9:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
So if something changed since the Crusades it wasn't Jesus.
Aug 5, 2015, 2:08 PM
|
|
Plus, the assertion that God created himself, and his creation, that was also himself, changed his own behavior and his own rules..... is ridiculous if you believe God to be omniscient. Why would he do that?
It clearly points to human's creating the whole mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Maybe you need to say why the Crusades prove anything***
Aug 6, 2015, 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
It should be obvious... but ok.
Aug 6, 2015, 9:20 PM
|
|
My claim was that Christianity has been associated with extreme violence.... he responded that Jesus changed that... and I responded that the Crusades, which were extremely violent, happened after Jesus "upgraded" Christian morals. Therefore, if extreme cases of violence happened after the changes instituted by Jesus were made, then Jesus's changes could not have removed the violence I was originally talking about.
Seriously, why would one of the smarter people need the most explanation of something obvious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30393
Joined: 11/15/99
|
They should be labeled by a tag on their toe, should they
Aug 4, 2015, 3:49 PM
|
|
still have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Yes. And we should also distinguish between Sunni and Shia
Aug 4, 2015, 4:23 PM
|
|
terrorist groups, too.
Sunni = al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas
Shia = Hezbollah... is that it?
Pretty much every horrible terrorist group is Sunni. And they're typically backed by our very good friends, the Saudis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Absolutely, but it's an absurd comparison.
Aug 4, 2015, 5:01 PM
|
|
Sure, both religions have their wackos, and if they are driven to terrorism by their religions, then why dance around it? But do you really not see the staggering differences between Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists and why Islamic terrorists are a vastly greater threat to us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Of course they're a greater threat. My point was why label
Aug 4, 2015, 5:12 PM
|
|
them anything religious be it Islamic or Christian 50 years ago or Buddhist (the terrorists in Burma).
Those are three of the world's great religions. Why let terrorist nuts co-opt a religion when they ain't really religious at all, but just nuts taking an old history book written by men as literal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
But they are religious. They are very faithfully, and with
Aug 4, 2015, 5:27 PM
|
|
great devotion, following what they believe to be God's will. The majority of Muslims may disagree with them, but they are still religious and driven to commit terrorist acts by their religious beliefs. Sure, every religion has radicals and nutjobs; it just so happen that right now, Islam has a whole lot more of them who want to destroy anybody who disagrees with them. Trying to downplay the link to their religion is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But they are religious. They are very faithfully, and with
Aug 4, 2015, 6:02 PM
|
|
I think we are all in agreement that radical islamists are a threat, not muslims in general. It's those wackos we are at war with, not the religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Well, there is a significant part of Islam that is at war
Aug 4, 2015, 7:10 PM
|
|
with us. It's important to recognize that and what it means and does not mean.
It does not mean that all Muslims are a threat.
It does not mean that we should attempt to wipe out Islam.
It does not mean we should demonize all Muslims, or Muslims in general.
It does mean that a lot of Muslims are a threat, and that if you are not a Muslim, particularly if you are an American, there are a shiteload of Muslims who, because of their religious beliefs, want you dead, many of whom are actively involved in trying to kill Americans and other westerners.
It does mean that Islam, in the here and now, is different from the other great religions in that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Well, there is a significant part of Islam that is at war
Aug 4, 2015, 7:36 PM
|
|
Agreed. I think we are on the same page here, I just hate seeing an entire demographic getting sh*t on because of a relatively small number of idiots. I'm not accusing you of that, just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I understand. It's a tough issue. I had some Muslim friends
Aug 4, 2015, 8:12 PM
|
|
years ago when I was in school, and we talked about it. They were pretty Americanized, and they spoke very strongly against terrorism and what we would now call radical Islam. I had a conversation with two Muslims yesterday while having some work done on my car. They were very friendly, and I had no reason to treat them any differently than anybody else I'd just met. Having said that, I know that rightly or wrongly, many others who call themselves Muslims want to kill me because they are Muslim and I am not. I'm not really sure what to do with that, but while I try to keep an open mind, I can't pretend that Islam today, in the here and now, is just another religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Re: I understand. It's a tough issue. I had some Muslim friends
Aug 6, 2015, 9:26 PM
|
|
I know that rightly or wrongly, many others who call themselves Muslims want to kill me because they are Muslim and I am not.
It's not that simple. What they are so hot and bothered about isn't simply the existence of those who believe differently than them, it's the political situation that those who they identify with find themselves in these days. Lashing out at all possible targets is the only recourse for those who are driven to fight, but have no option to do so conventionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
If you are suggesting that someone can't be both religious
Aug 4, 2015, 8:20 PM
|
|
and crazy, or religious and filled with hate, then I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
They can be religious I guess but can they be true
Aug 4, 2015, 8:30 PM
|
|
Christians or Muslims?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I know what you're saying, and it depends on who you ask,
Aug 4, 2015, 8:55 PM
|
|
and it could be debated for ever and ever. That's why we have so many denominations of Christianity. For the sake of this discussion however, I'm talking about everybody who identifies as one or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Maybe, but that depends on what Christianity or Islam is
Aug 5, 2015, 12:48 PM
[ in reply to They can be religious I guess but can they be true ] |
|
I don't think we should rule out that good Christian or Islamic theology might sanction the kind of violence and government that ISIS, Al Qaeda, or The Lord's Army wants. We need to actually look at what scriptures say, and then we should look at what mainstream scriptural theologies and traditions say. We might actually find that the extremists are the truer adherents, and we might also find that one kind of extremist is much different from the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34536]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41380
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80127
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Defend? You're funny.***
Aug 4, 2015, 9:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
No, they are not, but even if they were, they are not at all
Aug 4, 2015, 8:25 PM
|
|
the same now. The impact each has on the world today is very, very different and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
You act as if "now" is more important than before.
Aug 5, 2015, 2:20 PM
|
|
You are being presentist, like every other generation that has ever existed. You are speaking as if today was the only legitimate time in world history.
Things go in cycles. For a long while, the Islamic world was the less-bloody more "civilized" section of the West. The most advanced areas bounced around from Iraq to the Central Mediterranean, to the Eastern Mediterranean, back to Iraq and then, after the Age of Exploration, Western Europe. We are witnessing the beginning of the downfall of Europe though. We are in the "reset faze"
Also, why do I find it unlikely that you will actually present an argument as to why the two religions have not been equally associated with violence if judging by their entire histories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You and I are talking about entirely different things then,
Aug 5, 2015, 5:26 PM
|
|
because I am indeed more concerned with the nature and impact of these religions today, in the here and now. History is interesting and informative, and can give us insight, but it does not change current realities, which is what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Ok, but you can't judge a religion based on only the here and now.
Aug 5, 2015, 6:23 PM
|
|
You can't judge anything based on only the here and now. The only way to actually understand anything about the here and now is understand the past. Otherwise whatever ideas you have about the here and now have no base.
If someone says that Islam is more violent at this moment and they ignore that it didn't used to be, then they can't understand why Islam is more violent at this moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You certainly can form an opinion based on the here and now,
Aug 5, 2015, 11:00 PM
|
|
and you'd be a fool not to. It's my opinion that Islamic terrorism is a real threat based on what I have observed. I do not observe that same threat from Christian terrorism. Therefore I have concluded that there is something different going on in Islam than in Christianity that may impact my life. That's a judgement based on the here and now, and it is entirely valid. Understanding why that is (including the history of Islam) is secondary to acknowledging it in the first place and comes only after making the initial observation/judgement. What happened in the past obviously led up to where we are now, but does not change the fact that we are here, and where we are seems to be what the debate is about, not how we got here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Does anyone not acknowledge that terrorism associated with
Aug 6, 2015, 12:31 PM
|
|
Islam isn't a threat to American interests? If that's your only argument, then nobody disagrees with you.
I think everyone else is talking about something deeper than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
If Islamic terrorism is a real threat to American interests
Aug 6, 2015, 7:39 PM
|
|
(as you and the OP agree), then the OP's claim that we should not label them as Islamic terrorists is silly, because they are driven primarily by their religious beliefs, and a significant part of the Islamic world supports them.
If Islamic terrorists are a real threat to American interests (as you and the OP agree), then the OP's comparison between Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism is a bad one, particularly when talking about the current state of affairs, because the threat Islamic terrorists pose to America and western culture is much greater than the threat Christian terrorists pose. No one may disagree that Islamic terrorism is a threat to America, but such a belief invalidates the comparison, and that was my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Ooooooh, ok. Got it. I agree.***
Aug 6, 2015, 9:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Here's one interesting perspective on the issue.
Aug 4, 2015, 6:04 PM
|
|
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/leaving-the-church
An interview with Megan Phelps-Roper, granddaughter of Fred Phelps of the Westboro ("God Hates ####") Baptist Church. She has an interesting perspective on the issue of Islamic extremists, based on her own experience as a former fundamentalist Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
If you're going to discount anything from National Review...
Aug 5, 2015, 1:48 PM
|
|
and then post something from Sam Harris on anything religious, I'm not sure you should expect many people to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: If you're going to discount anything from National Review...
Aug 5, 2015, 1:57 PM
|
|
Lazy response from you, camcgee. What I posted was an interview he did. It's the person being interviewed, not Harris, who provides the interesting perspective I recommended.
I'd be happy to hear whatever criticisms of Harris you think you have, but it's irrelevant to my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Well... that's true***
Aug 6, 2015, 12:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93611]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Agree.
Aug 4, 2015, 6:53 PM
|
|
I don't know what korea  says about killing infidels but I'm positive Levitical Law was directed at the Jews. Now if I were a Jew I'd follow LL and institute government sponsored executions for crimes such as showing of skin, any public displays of affection and having unruly children. Maybe that's why crump banned LBODS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [45664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23774
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Terrorists must be labeled as
Aug 4, 2015, 9:35 PM
|
|
COWARDS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
I think so, if you can be reaonably sure that their
Aug 5, 2015, 11:52 AM
|
|
religion or religious beliefs were part of their motivation.
It makes their motives easier to understand, and their actions (potentially) easier to combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10149]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/31/04
|
Absolutely. Especially, if they are denouncing other
Aug 5, 2015, 5:52 PM
|
|
religions and proclaiming another.
Try them with hate crime, plus war crimes charges and murder. These barbarians have declared war. Any American should also be tried for treason, along with the hate crimes and murder.
On a humorous side, we bring pigs into their jail cell. But seriously, we aren't going to beat those islamist just by being nice to them.
The next president has got to take the war to them and if it means expelling muslims to save the rest of us then so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10149]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/31/04
|
The threat and act of expulsion from the US may
Aug 5, 2015, 5:59 PM
|
|
aid in getting rid of extremism on the US soil by home grown islamic terrorist.
If a family gets booted out of the US because their son becomes radicalized and commits hate crime and treason, then they may
start rethinking what they teach and allow at home. The whole family goes! Time to stop being PC about this matter because it isn't working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18310]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 24634
Joined: 11/3/03
|
I leave this question in the hands of the
Aug 6, 2015, 9:42 AM
|
|
first two contributors. Thank you both for tenable comments.
Go all Tigers, be tenable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 102
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
