Islamic Fascism 101

[Sigi]

Stalin spoke about Mother Russia and defending Mother Russia an awful lot during WWII. Class warfare? The reality was that the ruling classes in the Soviet Union lived in Dachas and had cars and drivers, caviar, etc... while the peasents continued to man the Army and fight for their homeland, not for worldwide Communism.
Yes Sir. I was just speaking about the platform they used.

[Greenhat]

.

1993? Good stretch. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Doesn't support your points in the least. Maybe I'll use the Balkans to show how we waged war to support the Muslims. See how easy that works when you decide to change the parameters of the discussion?

You asked for an example of Pakistanis risking their lives for Americans. I gave you one. The fact that you denigrate it isn't helping your argument.



Moracco isn't doing a thing to assist us.

http://www.nopundit.com/archives/2005_07/09/000242.html
http://rwor.org/a/1232/torture.htm
http://www.cwis.org/fwj/71/The%20GWOT%20and%20the%20Joker.htm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040710/2004071019.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3920489.stm

Note that I have intentionally chosen sources from across the political spectrum. They all seem to agree that Morocco (no a) is an ally and assisting the US, although whether they think that is a good or bad thing is a seperate issue.



Reading comprehension 101- Never said we were at war with Islam. Stated we were fighting Islam and spelled out exactly what I meant. Another attempt to twist my words by putting words in my month. Niether works.

So, exactly what is the difference between fighting someone and being at war with them from a nation's point of view?

I recognize those who posted on this thread who have first hand experience with the subj. I'm sure they recognize the same thing when they read it as well.

I'm going to bed, have fun with this thread.

I believe what you recognize is those who have the same experiences as you within a very small part of the overall GWOT.

[Greenhat]

To my mind as I have tried to explain a dozen times the proposed modern Caliphate is MOST like the idea of fascism than anything else...instead of subugation to a state, the individual is sbugated to Sharia so Islam is pertinent...there is NO recognition if individual rights only those rights that advance the cause...a completely fascist idea...the demonozation of those not of the "chosen"...the similarities are too striking to ignore...all of you who declare it a mere buzzword are giving this argument serious short shrift.


Or a very Buddhist idea... or Communist idea... or Confucianism... or the calls that united the German peoples against Napoleon III... or... I'm sure you get the idea....

The subjugation of individual to a larger whole is not unique to fascism, nor is it especially unusual historically. Actually, the reverse is true, and the strength of individualism in American culture is what is unusual.

[Kretin II.]

Stalin spoke about Mother Russia and defending Mother Russia an awful lot during WWII. Class warfare? The reality was that the ruling classes in the Soviet Union lived in Dachas and had cars and drivers, caviar, etc... while the peasents continued to man the Army and fight for their homeland, not for worldwide Communism.

Well of course the Soviet nomenclature did not really practise what it preached. However, Leninism always stressed the preeminence of the party as the revolutionary avantgarde and that included granting several material priviledges. It nevertheless instrumentalised the motive of class struggle as part of their ideological efforts to mobilise the populations support, while also appealing to their western clientele. "Mother Russia" as a propagandistic tool was not introduced until Operation Barbarossa- it was deliberately avoided beforehand in order to emphasize the supposedly universal appeal of Marxism.

[fish78]

Or a very Buddhist idea... or Communist idea... or Confucianism... or the calls that united the German peoples against Napoleon III... or... I'm sure you get the idea....

The subjugation of individual to a larger whole is not unique to fascism, nor is it especially unusual historically. Actually, the reverse is true, and the strength of individualism in American culture is what is unusual.I will have to tie this together tomorrow as I am sleepy, but here are some quotes from Mussolini:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)
It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism. (p. 24)
Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism. (p. 30)
After Socialism, Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage. (p. 31)
Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

[Greenhat]

Well of course the Soviet nomenclature did not really practise what it preached. However, Leninism always stressed the preeminence of the party as the revolutionary avantgarde and that included granting several material priviledges. It nevertheless instrumentalised the motive of class struggle as part of their ideological efforts to mobilise the populations support, while also appealing to their western clientele. "Mother Russia" as a propagandistic tool was not introduced until Operation Barbarossa- it was deliberately avoided beforehand in order to emphasize the supposedly universal appeal of Marxism.

No argument. Especially with the first line.

Yet, despite our experience with Communism not practicing what it preached (Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.), with Naziism and Facism not practicing what they preached (whether German, Italian or Spanish versions), with organizations like the PLO and the IRA not practicing what they preached.... there are still people who take the words of a bunch of people who send others to do things that most of the world considers barbaric (suicide bombings, etc.) as truly representing what they will do or what they want.

I just find it bizarre.

[Greenhat]

Fish, in other words... on a practical level, they were the same. It is only on the level of ideology that any difference existed...At least that is how I read Mussolini's comments.

[fish78]

Only that they were totalitarian...when I get some time I will attempt to tie this all together. Im the meantime compare what Mussolini is saying whith what is being said by the radical Muslim Clerics, especially the part about about the individual subugating to Sharia.

[Silverbullet]

You asked for an example of Pakistanis risking their lives for Americans. I gave you one. The fact that you denigrate it isn't helping your argument.

Interesting, all your orignal points were about them assisting in the current conflicts and ongoing efforts. You couldn't find anything to support your points so you pulled something you read about. No big deal. I'll leave it up to those like me, who served there, to determine if the Pakistan soldiers actually "fought on our side" or were forced into supporting something, on one day, during their entre deployment there.. Still has nothing to do with the GWOT and the support you claim they are providing us.



Note that I have intentionally chosen sources from across the political spectrum. They all seem to agree that Morocco (no a) is an ally and assisting the US, although whether they think that is a good or bad thing is a seperate issue.

Again something you've only read about. You also are backing off your stronger claims. I see the subj was so important you had to point out a typo.

But what do I know about them or the GWOT? For that see my last response.


So, exactly what is the difference between fighting someone and being at war with them from a nation's point of view?

You know the answer to that but have a case of havetoberight and want to string this out.


I believe what you recognize is those who have the same experiences as you within a very small part of the overall GWOT.

Very small? You obviously have no idea. I know what your experience is. I can count 9 countries including one in your neck of the woods with tasks ranging from fund tracking to assesments/other tasks. Compared to zero, I'd suggest that can't be considered very small.

Last time I checked experience counts for something on this site, lounge or not.

I'm not trying to change your mind. So why not just let it drop?

My target audience are those that come to this site to learn something they couldn't read about by searching the internet or reading a newspaper.

[fish78]

Granted, this group is not a major player in the isamic community, but they do have an expressed plan for a Caliphate and if you compare it to the words of Mussolini I think the similarities will be obvious.

The aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to unite all Muslims in a single pan-Islamic state or caliphate, which will be ruled by a caliph. The group "professes non-violence and calls for the return in Muslim majority countries to the caliphate which oversaw the so-called golden age of Islam before European imperialism colonised the Middle East. This state would have laws based on the paradigms of Islam, making it a theocratic regime, while concurrently rejecting the concept of clergy in Islam in their draft constitution. The group's proposed economic system has elements similar to socialism, but they claim that an Islamic system is superior to either capitalism and communism. This state would not be a post-renaissance style democracy, which the party says is incompatible with the goal of establishing an Islamic state, though it would have its male-only Caliph. The Western definition of freedom simply does not exist in Islam, and that Sharia law, (defined by the European Court of Human Rights as anti-democractic, anti-pluralist, infringing "the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms", as well as doing "away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms"), will be enforced. Furthermore, it aims for the caliphate to "wrest the reins of initiative away from other states and nations" and become the dominant hegemony, before Islam, ultimately, takes over the world: ergo, their caliphate will be totalitarian and aggressively expansionist in nature.

[fish78]

Granted, this group is not a major player in the Islamic community, but they do have an expressed plan for a Caliphate and if you compare it to the words of Mussolini I think the similarities will be obvious.

The aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to unite all Muslims in a single pan-Islamic state or caliphate, which will be ruled by a caliph. The group "professes non-violence and calls for the return in Muslim majority countries to the caliphate which oversaw the so-called golden age of Islam before European imperialism colonised the Middle East. This state would have laws based on the paradigms of Islam, making it a theocratic regime, while concurrently rejecting the concept of clergy in Islam in their draft constitution. The group's proposed economic system has elements similar to socialism, but they claim that an Islamic system is superior to either capitalism and communism. This state would not be a post-renaissance style democracy, which the party says is incompatible with the goal of establishing an Islamic state, though it would have its male-only Caliph. The Western definition of freedom simply does not exist in Islam, and that Sharia law, (defined by the European Court of Human Rights as anti-democractic, anti-pluralist, infringing "the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms", as well as doing "away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms"), will be enforced. Furthermore, it aims for the caliphate to "wrest the reins of initiative away from other states and nations" and become the dominant hegemony, before Islam, ultimately, takes over the world: ergo, their caliphate will be totalitarian and aggressively expansionist in nature.

[4-8-8-4]

Calling Islamic Extremism "Islamofascism" is just an example of Goodwin's Law on a much greater scale. These days, calling groups that one doesn't agree with "Fascist" is a bit of a fad, whether it's the Republicans, or Hezzbolah, and does a great disservice to the victims of Fascism and those who sacrificed to destroy it.

Also, by your definition any sort of beliefs in sacrifice of the individual for the greater good are "Fascist". That makes plenty of people serving in the military, in America and elsewhere, "Fascist". Hell, that makes the Boyscouts "Fascist". You may wish to revise your definition.

[Greenhat]

I know what your experience is.

I don't think you do. It isn't limited to business transactions as you seem to think it is. I consider the war on terrorism to have started in the 70's, not the last few years. Now, add that little longer viewpoint to your consideration and you might start to see where I am coming from.

And I will continue to take the opinion of General Schoomaker (who I think trumps anyone on this site when it comes to experience in this field).

As for what you claim I know, sorry, no, I don't. Nations using force are waging war. So, once again, what is the difference between fighting Islam and being at war with Islam?

[Greenhat]

Fish,

Still begs the question....

What makes any of that rhetoric believable? Why should we believe it represents actual goals?

[fish78]

Fish,

Still begs the question....

What makes any of that rhetoric believable? Why should we believe it represents actual goals?Well, if they say that is what they want why in the world would you think they really want something else?

[KidA]

Well, if they say that is what they want why in the world would you think they really want something else?

Same reason I don't believe Congress critters when they say they want to be humble and represent the people....

[Silverbullet]

I don't think you do. It isn't limited to business transactions as you seem to think it is. I consider the war on terrorism to have started in the 70's, not the last few years. Now, add that little longer viewpoint to your consideration and you might start to see where I am coming from.


Actually I do.

My viewpoint is long. I was serving in the 70's. Not a novel concept about when terrorsism started but does support one of my main points that there has been no outrage from the Islam followers like the outrage that followed western T groups and their actions.

Due to guidance I'm done on this thread.

For those that want info beyond what you can find via internet search, sorry.

[Greenhat]

Well, if they say that is what they want why in the world would you think they really want something else?


Maybe because their actions don't match their rhetoric?

Remember, the Communists told us they wanted what was just what was good for the people... Hitler promised that he would leave Europe alone if he was only allowed to have the Sudentenland. Arafat told us that all he wanted was a Palestinian homeland... OBL said that he just wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia...

[fish78]

If a thugish looking man approahes you on the street and says he is going to take your money and then kill you, do you believe he really means he intends to buy you lunch?

[Greenhat]

If a thugish looking man approahes you on the street and says he is going to take your money and then kill you, do you believe he really means he intends to buy you lunch?


Let's try a different view, shall we?

If a thugish looking man approaches you and tells you he is going to help you to have the future you have dreamed of, and that he just needs your help in persuading your neighbors to support that dream, which he will control... do you believe him? Or are you skeptical?

I'm from NYC... to me, that's a con. So is the Caliphate bullshit. It's a con. You aren't the target, but it still affects you.

[fish78]

Either way, that man is dangerous.

[Greenhat]

Definitely. Now, having ascertained that, why would you take what he says at face value?

And just because that man is dangerous, doesn't mean the neighbor he is trying to sell the bill of goods to is.

[fish78]

Look, I thought we were talking about ideology, whether, fascism applied to the ideology of the Islamimic radicals, their sincerity is moot, the rhetoric is out of the fascist doctrine and that was Hanson's point and mine...that their followers are conned by the leaders is also moot.

[Greenhat]

Facism is a specific political and economic system. A totalitarian government with privately owned industry whose production is controlled by the state's requirements. Nationalistic communism with private ownership. That's what facism is.

Now, how in the world does that apply to anyplace in the world today (except maybe China or Vietnam)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

[fish78]

Read how Mussolini describe Fascism and compare it to the rhetoric coming from the radical Muslims...Substitute the idea of NATION for SHARIA it is the total subugation to that greater calling that is important. Mussolini used nationalism as a vehicle, the radical Muslims are using Sharia as a vehicle...the economics will likely be very similar.

[Greenhat]

Read how Mussolini describe Fascism and compare it to the rhetoric coming from the radical Muslims...Substitute the idea of NATION for SHARIA it is the total subugation to that greater calling that is important. Mussolini used nationalism as a vehicle, the radical Muslims are using Sharia as a vehicle...the economics will likely be very similar.

Let's see... in Saudi Arabia, the key economic items (the oil fields) are owned by the state. Same in Kuwait. I believe that is also true in Iraq.

Might be more similar to Communism....

Shall we start using "Islamocommunist"?

[fish78]

No.

[Baildog]

Look, I thought we were talking about ideology, whether, fascism applied to the ideology of the Islamic radicals, their sincerity is moot, the rhetoric is out of the fascist doctrine and that was Hanson's point and mine...that their followers are conned by the leaders is also moot.

And that is where I'm afraid you and Hanson have gone astray. A Caliphate resembles a Fascist regime in that both are totalitarian in their effect. However, that passing resemblance is neither intentional nor particularly instructional as a means of comparison for understanding the current threat.

What the term "Islamofascism" is useful for is as a shorthand way to demonize the enemy by association with another, established evil. Whether the intention is to paint all of Islam with that broad brush or not is, as it happens, moot.

[Greenhat]

And that is where I'm afraid you and Hanson have gone astray. A Caliphate resembles a Fascist regime in that both are totalitarian in their effect. However, that passing resemblance is neither intentional nor particularly instructional as a means of comparison for understanding the current threat.

What the term "Islamofascism" is useful for is as a shorthand way to demonize the enemy by association with another, established evil. Whether the intention is to paint all of Islam with that broad brush or not is, as it happens, moot.


Bingo.

[fish78]

And that is where I'm afraid you and Hanson have gone astray. A Caliphate resembles a Fascist regime in that both are totalitarian in their effect. However, that passing resemblance is neither intentional nor particularly instructional as a means of comparison for understanding the current threat.

What the term "Islamofascism" is useful for is as a shorthand way to demonize the enemy by association with another, established evil. Whether the intention is to paint all of Islam with that broad brush or not is, as it happens, moot.
baildog, compare the words of Mussolin with the stated goals of the Radical Muslims you will see much more commonality than mere totalitarianism...or at least you should.

[Baildog]

...and I don't disagree with SB's fundamental premise at all.

Not all of this fighting is via bullets or missiles. Some of it is hearts and minds, some of it is ideals, some of it is just making other followers of Islam see that they need to speak up and denounce those committing barbaric acts in Islams name. That's the fight we're in. It's multi pronged fight not the simplistic fight that some here seem to think we need to conduct, ie.."destroy them all" or those that feel the opposite. They're both wrong.

Islam (as it functions in effect as a political ideology) is deeply woven into the fabric of this war. Which is most definitely not to say that Islam, per se, or Muslims, as a group, are the enemy. Shorthand terms that lump a billion people (or whatever, I don't care what the actual number is) into one group are effectively useless for the purpose of critical thought.

As is always the case, regardless of the ideology in question, some people will be fervent true believers; some people will bend it to serve their own lust for power/wealth; some who are disadvantaged relative to those they see around them will latch onto it as a way to get their fair share; and most people will just wish the people in the other groups would leave them the fuck alone to get on with their lives.

[fish78]

Although, I believe the radical Muslim rhetoric resembles Fascism...if we chose a different term...or simply called it Islamic Totalitarianism(since we seem to agree that it is totalitarian) would it be any less inflamatory? It cannot be separated from Islam because the basis for the jihad is Sharia...

[Baildog]

baildog, compare the words of Mussolin with the stated goals of the Radical Muslims you will see much more commonality than mere totalitarianism...or at least you should.

Any resemblance to ideologies living or dead is purely coincidental.:D

Yes, many of their goals are the same. Across the world and throughout history, many people have pursued those same goals, in one form or another. But they are still separate and distinct ideologies, with differences as critical as their commonalities.

Why are you so wedded to this? Why insist on equating Muslims and fascists? As someone pointed out previously, it simply muddies the water.

[VelociMorte]

Hey, it's "Cultural Awareness Week', so everybody should be aware that some cultures simply suck ass.

Seriously, IMHO this is more of a "war between cultures" more than it's a war between religions, or against a certain religion. It just so happens that the predomanent religion of the culture we are at war with is Islam. Islam has a major effect on the culture, but it's only part of it.

Example: I'm sitting down with a couple ODA dudes and their Afghani terp out at some FOB, eating some chow. The terp is a well-dressed (western), well-spoken guy who speaks perfect American English, and was educated in the West. He invites us to his home for dinner. One of the guys asks if we'll get to meet the terps family. He (the terp) states that yes, we will meet his brothers and uncles. One of the guys, playing "devil's advocate", asks if we'll meet his wife or other members of his family. The terp replies in the negative...says the wife will be busy cooking, and that if she so much as looks through the doorway at the male visitors, he'll (the terp) have to kill her. The ODA guy asks the terp how he could kill his own wife and mother of his children for something as simple as peeking through a doorway. The terp says he'd have to because if he didn't, his brothers and uncles would kill her, and then might kill him for not enforcing the "law". He then states (and I'll never forget this)... "besides, I can go to Kandahar and buy another one tomorrow".

To our culture, beating your wife to death and burying her in the back yard is a serious crime and is considered to be immoral. To their culture, "it happens", so what. To our culture, if the President were to promulgate a new Directive explaining the do's and don'ts of goat and sheep fucking, the World would be aghast. If the leader of a Middle Eastern State does the same thing, it doesn't even hit the news. To our culture, burying a teenaged girl up to her waist, and then caving her head in with rocks because she got raped is just plain fuckng crazy. To them, it's a sporting event for the whole family! In our culture, the thought of marrying a nine year old child is repulsive. To them, it's a matter of making sure that no one else "gets some of it" before they do.

IMO, many Middle Easterners suffer from an overwhelming sense of failure and inadequacy. They KNOW that their culture, once one of the most productive and advanced cultures on Earth, hasn't advanced in hundreds of years, in good part because of Islam. It's no coincedence that about the time Islam became the predomanent religion of the region, cultural and technical advancement ceased. Fully one-half of their human resources (women), were gradually locked up and treated as incubators. Nonconformist opinions and independent thought were punished and repressed. This at about the same time Western Cultures were turning away from religious control of the sciences. Western Cultures were able to quickly advance, while for Middle Eastern cultures, time stood still, and continues to. To the Middle eastern man, there are two solutions to this problem of cultural and technical inferiority and the frustration that comes with it. The first is to reject fundamentalist Islam and assimilate into the World Body. The second is to drag the rest of the World back into the 16th century.

Fundamentalist Islamic Middle Eastern man knows his dick is limp (metaphorically speaking), so he locks up his women, cuts off their clits, and then tries to break everyone else's toys. If he can't have them, no one will.

[Baildog]

...there are two solutions to this problem of cultural and technical inferiority and the frustration that comes with it. The first is to reject fundamentalist Islam and assimilate into the World Body. The second is to drag the rest of the World back into the 16th century.


Well put.

[fish78]

Any resemblance to ideologies living or dead is purely coincidental.:D

Yes, many of their goals are the same. Across the world and throughout history, many people have pursued those same goals, in one form or another. But they are still separate and distinct ideologies, with differences as critical as their commonalities.

Why are you so wedded to this? Why insist on equating Muslims and fascists? As someone pointed out previously, it simply muddies the water.Suggest a term that fits this enemy better.

[VelociMorte]

Suggest a term that fits this enemy better.


Culturally Under-achieving Narcissistic Terrorists …CUNTS for short.

[KidA]

Culturally Under-achieving Narcissistic Terrorists …CUNTS for short.

Now that I like.

[smp52]

Now that I like.

Feminazis will protest. Wait, are feminists nazis? :)

[KidA]

Feminazis will protest. Wait, are feminists nazis? :)

No, they're fascists.

[Greenhat]

Culturally Under-achieving Narcissistic Terrorists …CUNTS for short.

Outstanding. I like it.

[HoosGhost]

It's no coincedence that about the time Islam became the predomanent religion of the region, cultural and technical advancement ceased.
Funny, **Muslims** did some pretty nifty stuff when most of 'the West' was busy butchering each other. Like invent the concept of 'zero', without which, modern mathematics would simply not work and Neil Armstrong would have never reached the moon. And they invented 'alegebra' with out which, we'd all still be walking/riding a horse because we'd have no airplanes or automobiles. And modern medicine, like surgery, were *surprise* first explored by Muslim physicians using Greek, Egyptian and Roman texts.

Fundamentalist Islamic Middle Eastern man knows his dick is limp (metaphorically speaking), so he locks up his women, cuts off their clits, and then tries to break everyone else's toys. If he can't have them, no one will. While I agree with this statement, Islam is only one of the problems, not the only problem.

Now this I reallylike:
Culturally Under-achieving Narcissistic Terrorists …CUNTS for short.

[SOTB]

I thought about where to put THIS (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/12/minneapolis.somalis/index.html), and at first thought it should be with the thread where we debated the Somali taxi drivers, but apparently that thread died a quiet death.:redface: So I thought it might be better to resurrect this thread.

Anyway, I remember the first time I flew to the ME (with RAT, which was an experience in and of itself), and seeing all of the newborn infants on the way back to the ME. I thought then that this was a great way to get guaranteed admission to the US for terrorists two decades away -- via that blue passport obtained for being born on our soil.

I also remember thinking that our offering asylum to Somalis -- well, that was/IS some fantastic demonstration of cultural dumbassedness as well. SOME cultures are NOT going to integrate well with ours. Of course, it is considered non-PC to dare state that. Whatever. Our hero of the article I posted is one of several who will probably eventually come back to the US. We'll hear about these guys when they decide to "speak out" against the horrible intrusion of our culture into/upon theirs, such as when some taxi driver shoots and kills a couple carrying a bottle of wine to their parent's house on Xmas eve....

[Jimbo]

Or they will wind up like these guys:
www.myspace.com/knaanmusic
www.myspace.com/kos

[SOTB]

Or they will wind up like these guys....Well, the upside of reading those two pages is that I learned a new phrase; "dope smooth."

I'll, of course, have to practice at how to integrate it into my daily manner of speaking -- but with time....

[Jimbo]

You'll be dope smooth in no time.

[T-Rock]

I thought about where to put THIS, and at first thought it should be with the thread where we debated the Somali taxi drivers, but apparently that thread died a quiet death.

Our tax dollars flew this guy back for burial:
Shirwa Ahmed was one of five suicide bombers who killed himself and 29 others last October in northern Somalia.
He is also a Minnesotan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The FBI helped return Ahmed's remains to his family.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7997132&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Call it whatever you will, Islamic fascism, Islamic Fundamentalism, extremism,….who cares….anything….. my assertion will always be that the foundational texts of Islam, the Qur’an, Hadith & Sirah, when studied scientifically in it’s order of revelation, incites the subjugation of non-Muslims, incites hate towards non-Muslims, incites bigotry towards other religions, and it incites religiously inclined people to do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do and the text of Islam does so open-endedly, no questions asked.

While Islam moves from being slightly tolerant in its beginnings (Mecca text), it moves in the direction of ultimate intolerance (Medina text) towards its end (Mecca to Medina) which were, the last and most important commands for its practitioners. This…. is my assertion.



IMHO, Islam is not capable of reforming itself.

[Jimbo]

IMHO, Islam is not capable of reforming itself.

Fuck it. I'll let an Admin handle it.

[T-Rock]

IMHO, you are an enormous douchebag.
Thanks.

[grog18b]

[QUOTE]Community activist Omar Jamal is one of the few who will.

“Honestly I look at him seriously as a victim and not as a criminal, I think of him as a young victim," says Jamal.
[QUOTE]

Yeah... Are these people fucking stupid? :mad: The FBI should have told the family to go fuck a pig. WTF are we HELPING these people for? (I know... so we have a clear conscious when they start blowing up OUR malls...)

Like I said long ago... Keep diddlefucking with these people, and we will pay. The Government knows it, or at least the Government folks at EMRTC know it. The major point they drove home during that course was "it IS going to start here." It is only a matter of time, and like SOTB said, with all those kids with US passports... We are screwed and few of us know it. Save this thread until it starts here, and we can all re-read these posts...

You can't be "PC" with these people. They see our courts as bullshit, and our laws as worse. They don't respect our right to exist, and people want to treat them with kindness and compassion. Oh well, we WILL reap what we sow. It's only a matter of time.

[SOTB]

....IMHO, Islam is not capable of reforming itself.ANY religion can be as stupid or intelligent as it wishes to be. It can be as violent or as peaceful as it wishes to be. It can be as corrupt or truthful as it wishes to be.

I've not seen, in my limited research, any religion that was safely able to call the kettle black. Surely the Christian religion doesn't have the ability to do so.

Islam needs their own motivating kick in the nuts. Personally, I believe that is best obtained through the killing of any and all of those that simply don't want to play nicely with us (I define "us" as the West, but really, it's probably just a few Western nations -- since others whine, but don't really offer much in the form of doing anything) -- but with a no-holds approach. I think that if we conduct a WWII campaign style of war on their asses, we could see measured success in this same decade. Sadly, I think that our kid-gloved approach is only going to mean many more Muslims are eventually going to die when the West finally knee-jerk reacts to the violence/threat, and goes overboard. Oh well.

In the meantime, I don't see it very smart on our part to not isolate those threats from our shores, until such time that they have decided to get onboard with the rest of 21st Century civilization....

[TPD1280]

I just finished reading a couple of books on the Islamicization of Europe.

America Alone, and While Europe Slept. See the Books forum for reviews that will be posted later today.

The basic premis of both of these books is pretty much what Grog and SOTB stated.

Certain very large and very powerful factions within the Islamic world are seeking to re-establish the Caliphate as the ONLY authority on Earth. If they cannot do it by force, they will do it by simply over-running the territory of the enemy and outbreeding them.

Europe is already lost. It is terminal, inoperable, and irreversible. Eurabia will be a reality before my generation is dead.

If the most liberal inclusionist-multicultural-diversity is good fags get their way, America too will be under Sharia before this century is over.

[Silverbullet]

[QUOTE]
You can't be "PC" with these people. They see our courts as bullshit, and our laws as worse. They don't respect our right to exist, and people want to treat them with kindness and compassion. Oh well, we WILL reap what we sow. It's only a matter of time.

Concur 100%

[mdb23]

ANY religion can be as stupid or intelligent as it wishes to be. It can be as violent or as peaceful as it wishes to be. It can be as corrupt or truthful as it wishes to be.


I would argue that religions themselves do not have the capability of "being" anything....they are all benign tools. The practitioners of said religions are what give religions their individual identities, and determine the manner in which the religions shall be used and implemented......

Much like a handgun, religion can be a tool for personal enjoyment and security, or an instrument of death.......it all depends on who is holding it.

[Greenhat]

I've just come back from a few days in KL, Malaysia... a city that is predominatly Muslim... and it isn't much different from Bangkok (a city that is predominantly Buddhist) or Rome (a city that is predominantly Catholic) or NYC (well, actually, the people of KL were a lot friendlier than your average NYer).

As MDB put it, it isn't the religion... it's the people.

[grog18b]

But... They are using religion to further their cause. I am not posting here to disparage a religious viewpoint. I am pointing out the danger of these fanatics, using their religious leaders to spread hatred of the west (us) and our way of life. As much as we want to deny it... a part of it is about religion. You can choose to look at each suicide bomber, each fanatic as an individual, or as part of the big picture. The imams that are preaching this way of life are just as responsible as the parishioner that detonates himself. People take their religions as serious, or not as serious as they choose. Just like there are hardcore Christians, Buddhists, and so on. There are some that take their religion to extreme (like the people that beat the hell out of themselves in the name of Christ...). We ARE talking about Islamic extremists. Mainstream Islam is not this way, but there is a section of it that simply, is.

[HoosGhost]

IMHO, Islam is not capable of reforming itself. The same was said of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther, among others. It took about 1000 years to give up oppressing intellectuals, forcible conversions, burning witches/heretics and inspiring armies to take land in the name of God. But eventually, we got to John XXIII, Vatican II and John Paul II.

Admin clean up seconded.

[Greenhat]

But... They are using religion to further their cause.

So did the IRA. So, did we blame Catholicism for the IRA? Claim that the Catholic Church was part of the problem?

[Greenhat]

The same was said of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther, among others. It took about 1000 years to give up oppressing intellectuals, forcible conversions, burning witches/heretics and inspiring armies to take land in the name of God. But eventually, we got to John XXIII, Vatican II and John Paul II.

Yep. And during that period (not quite 1000 years, more like 300-400) we had a whole lot of "religious" wars... although quite a few of them were religion being used as an excuse to grab power.

[Joe33]

I want to send out a thanks for this discussion. No I am not sucking up- I am serious. This is PRECISELY why I love SOCNET because it (you) challenges me to view things in a different light and ask what are my "truths"? I have, at times, used the term "Islamofascist" and I see now that the term is not only inaccurate, but counterproductive. I would consider myself well-read, particularly in terms of history. But the many nuanced ideas discussed here have had me scratching my head quite a bit. (in a good way) Now let's all have a hug.

Seriously though - fascinating discussion.

[grog18b]

So did the IRA. So, did we blame Catholicism for the IRA? Claim that the Catholic Church was part of the problem?

I don't think we are "blaming" the religion. To deny religion, or churches are not a part of the world's problems today is foolish. Crusades have been going on for as long as one group thought it's "gods" were somehow better, or their way of life is somehow better than another's and one group tried to (or did) force it's beliefs on another.

[Greenhat]

I don't think we are "blaming" the religion. To deny religion, or churches are not a part of the world's problems today is foolish. Crusades have been going on for as long as one group thought it's "gods" were somehow better, or their way of life is somehow better than another's.

Are religious people manipulated via their religion in order for someone else to exercise power? Absolutely. And not just by terrorists.

But from that perspective, is it significantly different from other motivators?

Could it be that some of these people are motivated by power?

Some by recognition?

Some by material things that they gain from supporting terrorists?

Some by faith?

Some by a lack of hope?

The Crusades, the wars of the Reformation, etc. were not simply wars of religion... and I doubt that this one is either.

[Greenhat]

Btw, categories that are used by some psychologists/psychiatrists for motivation are:

Recognition
Power
Hedonism
Altruism
Affiliation
Tradition
Security
Commerce
Aesthetics
Science

[tm3e]

Brigadier Malik said it straight in his book the Quranic Concept Of War;
“The Holy Prophet’s operations …are an integral and inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran. … The war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and psychological, economic and military.”


'The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy, known or hidden...'

'Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved... Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.' (Original emphasis.)

[Overland]

We rightfully aren't defining our enemy as Islamofascists. We rightfully aren't defining them as Muslims. So how do we define who we're fighting? Only those who have taken up arms against us or have supported those who have taken up arms? Great. Let's wade into a crowd and try to figure that out. Further, that takes care of active resistance, not the slow, seeping danger of ideological hatred and resistance. You can cut off a wart but unless you get the root the sucker is just going to grow back.

This is cognitive dissonance on a mass scale. We know we're supposed to be "fighting" someone, we just really don't know who (outside of the bastards actively shooting at us). Every time we attempt to find out we're met with inconsistency, ambiguity and nuance. From one vantage point I can understand the isolationist's frustration and desire to kick everything in and say, "F*** this. Let's go home and play ball there." I don't agree with the sentiment, but I can understand it.

With that in context, although I disagree I sympathize with people who believe that Islam is the problem. It is the most readily available standard by which we can measure our enemy. Not necessarily, "Are you a Muslim," but, "What kind of Muslim are you?" We, as a people, need to obtain a better understanding of what we are facing. Attempting to blame Muslims is just as wrong as automatically deriding those who blame Muslims without offering an alternative solution as to how we can win this "long war".

With that said, I've met many "good" Muslims and some "bad" Muslims. The most glaringly obvious difference between them was stupidity. If we could somehow figure out how to kill stupid we'd all be better off.

[Greenhat]

What? You thought Counter-Insurgency (which is what this really has become) was easy? :D

You made good points... and made me think of something...

We talk about fighting against ideologies... Nazis, Fascism, slavery, Communism...

But generally, when we go to war, that isn't what we fight.

In WWII, I doubt that a really large percentage of the Italian troops were Fascists... or that the majority of Germans were Nazis... of the majority of Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cubans, etc. were Communists...

The people that we (the Allies, the UN, etc.) killed were mostly people who got involved because of how they saw their duty, their pride in their nation, etc. (or they were enslaved)

But the people that were the real enemy were a relative few... those who manipulated those nations, who lead them.

Ideologies have only a few voices...

[SOTB]

Europe is already lost. It is terminal, inoperable, and irreversible. Eurabia will be a reality before my generation is dead....While I agree that the times ahead look bleak for Europe, and I do think that at least some form of "Eurabia" might come to pass, I also believe that non-Muslims in Europe (perhaps incited and supported by non-Muslims in the US) will rise to not only combat Islam's encroachment upon societal freedoms in Europe, but they will likely go too far and it may resemble either genocide or at the minimum, forced deportation and revoking of citizenship. The key to the win of non-Muslims lies within the very strength of Islam's success -- total obedience to religious leadership/religious beliefs. They are too "inside the box" and are going to suffer some serious headbashing because of that. None of that bothers me, although I do reiterate that much of the future bloodletting could be minimized if we waged this war correctly now.I would argue that religions themselves do not have the capability of "being" anything....they are all benign tools.As MDB put it, it isn't the religion... it's the people.I disagree. Religion is not some inanimate object lying on a table. It is a constantly evolving concept, which very much motivates practitioners (and non-practitioners) to action. It IS fair to point the blame at religion (or A religion) for X activities. Just as we do the same for political parties or thinking motivating people to action, so does religion. Somewhere in here, that whole philosophical base to morals and ethics must come to play.As much as we want to deny it... a part of it is about religion. You can choose to look at each suicide bomber, each fanatic as an individual, or as part of the big picture. The imams that are preaching this way of life are just as responsible as the parishioner that detonates himself. People take their religions as serious, or not as serious as they choose. Just like there are hardcore Christians, Buddhists, and so on. There are some that take their religion to extreme (like the people that beat the hell out of themselves in the name of Christ...). We ARE talking about Islamic extremists. Mainstream Islam is not this way, but there is a section of it that simply, is.Yes and no.

Yes, religion IS the force which is driving many to actions they would not take part in on their own. It is that common thread of thinking, motivated by whatever reasons you wish to believe that people join and practice a particular religion, that swells to passion and subsequent action -- inanimate objects such as a firearm or an axe lying on a table do not generate this situation.

No, Islam doesn't have the ability to hide behind "hey, its THOSE guys who are the badguys". Fuck no. It is the religion's responsibility to clean itself. FWIW, I also believe that mainstream Islam very much preaches that violence is an acceptable form of growing the worshiping base, and the fanatics are actually those who are the minority and are cool with not pushing their views on others, nor restricting individuals' rights, etc. These fanatics are the minority amongst a huge population that would have no serious issues if all of the rest of us were to disappear tomorrow morning and only Muslims inhabit the planet. Once we treat this situation as such, then we understand the problem AND the solution. We simply must cause the minority to become the majority -- and that is through a lot of different tactics -- I simply happen to believe that the quick way to generate the necessary discussion internal to Islam is to kill so many of those willing to fight (or those not willing to be nice) until the lightbulb comes on that they must be doing something wrong. That "god" is obviously not rewarding the assclown POV, and maybe it is time to change it.So did the IRA. So, did we blame Catholicism for the IRA? Claim that the Catholic Church was part of the problem?If the Catholic Church was indeed part of the problem, it was as a stupid spectator at best. Sorta like someone yelling at the person on the roof to jump. No more.

The N. Ireland problem was political one, with class divisions thrown in for good measure. Whose god was better had little to nothing to do with the equation.

So I disagree with the example....

[Overland]

What? You thought Counter-Insurgency (which is what this really has become) was easy? :D

Damn, Sir, people with brains twice the size of mine are having a tough time with it-- I'm barely capable of keeping up with the back of the pack!

Back to the exciting world of audit!

[MakoZeroSix]

While I agree that the times ahead look bleak for Europe, and I do think that at least some form of "Eurabia" might come to pass, I also believe that non-Muslims in Europe (perhaps incited and supported by non-Muslims in the US) will rise to not only combat Islam's encroachment upon societal freedoms in Europe, but they will likely go too far and it may resemble either genocide or at the minimum, forced deportation and revoking of citizenship. The key to the win of non-Muslims lies within the very strength of Islam's success -- total obedience to religious leadership/religious beliefs. They are too "inside the box" and are going to suffer some serious headbashing because of that. None of that bothers me, although I do reiterate that much of the future bloodletting could be minimized if we waged this war correctly now.

I agree. I think even the weak-willed Europeans are tired of the mongrelization of their society- you can see this by the 30% control of the Austrian parliment by their Neo-Nazi party. Of course, there is some resistance to this, as in the "car accident" death of Joerg Haider, but in the long run, people can't be humiliated continually by watching throngs of foreigners riot and burn their cities without taking some measure of retribution...

[Greenhat]

If the Catholic Church was indeed part of the problem, it was as a stupid spectator at best. Sorta like someone yelling at the person on the roof to jump. No more.

The N. Ireland problem was political one, with class divisions thrown in for good measure. Whose god was better had little to nothing to do with the equation.

So I disagree with the example....

An awful lot of Irish (both Orange & Green) thought that religion was a pretty significant part of the problem.

But you've made my point. There were a lot of other things going on besides what the IRA said - religion was just another tool to manipulate the masses. It wasn't the Church's fault, and they weren't really a part of the problem (at least not in most of the 20th Century). It surely would have been ridiculous for the Brits to have said "we're fighting the Catholics". But for some of the "soldiers" who did the deeds for the IRA or the UDF... it was all about religion.

That's what religion (from the perspective of warfare and power) is best at - manipulating the masses.

What I'm suggesting is that there is more than religion behind the war we're currently fighting.

[Greenhat]

While I agree that the times ahead look bleak for Europe, and I do think that at least some form of "Eurabia" might come to pass, I also believe that non-Muslims in Europe (perhaps incited and supported by non-Muslims in the US) will rise to not only combat Islam's encroachment upon societal freedoms in Europe, but they will likely go too far and it may resemble either genocide or at the minimum, forced deportation and revoking of citizenship.

I think the genocide category is the most likely with Europe. Their riots usually happen before the politicians get it... and their riots can be very, very bloody.

[SOTB]

....in the long run, people can't be humiliated continually by watching throngs of foreigners riot and burn their cities without taking some measure of retribution...+1

YES, it is possible that the ignorant barbarians can overrun the castle walls and cause a reversion of society. Sure, I agree with that. The difference is that Europe is not Herat, and while it has taken awhile for them to get motivated, I believe MZ6's comment is spot on. Europeans are seeing the ignorant, assbackwards stupidity of the Muslim hordes rioting, arguing, and using simplistic intimidation and coming to the realization that while "getting along" is a great concept, some peoples should simply not be allowed to participate.

Will all Muslims wind up getting the boot? I think it might go that far, simply because of the pendulum of support for putting an end to Sharia intrusion upon Western civilization's manner of thinking. To an extent, V for Vendetta comes to mind....

[SOTB]

That's what religion (from the perspective of warfare and power) is best at - manipulating the masses.

What I'm suggesting is that there is more than religion behind the war we're currently fighting.For both statements, I really don't disagree.

But for the second statement, I believe that it is simply too complex and difficult a situation to deal with the intricacies that make up a religion -- in this case, the imams and their quest for both economic and political power; the huge population of ignorant/un or under-educated that make up it's followers, the inherent desire to grow and be the dominant religious belief, etc. -- and it makes more sense to simply shift the responsibility of dealing with those issues upon the religion itself. IE, "if you can't be nice, we will stomp your ass and you can ask your god why you keep getting your ass kicked."

I really believe that I don't have to convert anyone with my arguments. Islam will do it for me. Sooner or later, another serious -- SERIOUS -- attack will be launched by Islamic followers (note that I did not state "fanatics") and the West will find it's citizenry angry and demanding a serious answer. Individual rights will be trampled and unfriendly comments by an Islamic nation's leader may mean warships off the coast 48 hours later. The downside to all of this, and this might appear ironic to some of you reading, is that I fear a resurgence of Christianity -- of the fundamentalist type -- to be as great a danger, or more of a danger, to our society than Islam....

[grog18b]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
It's long, so get some popcorn, but it's pretty informative for us guys that faced the threat of the Soviet Union in the 80s, and don't know a whole lot about today's ME problems. It goes into an in-depth description of Islam, and you get information from former PLO people and such. Pretty informative video.

SOTB and Greenhat-- Religion of any kind can be a very dangerous thing. My dogtags said "Baptist" but I have not attended a "church" since I was married in one to my first wife, on our 5th anniversary. I do not believe man has the divine authority to dictate to another man how, when, or how much it costs, to worship. I choose to worship when I am alone, outdoors, at one with nature. (Usually hunting or fishing) I have had my fill of "religion" as a child, growing up, watching and learning that some of the supposedly "most religious" people were some of the worst examples of humans I have ever met. I learned not to trust anyone that preaches. I don't need to be preached to, in order to get religion. Personally, I think MY religion is the best. I worship MY God how I choose (and he appears happy with that), I don't try to shove MY religion down anyone else's throat, and I don't kill people in the name of MY God, or Religion. I don't think anyone said that religion is the only thing motivating these people, but it is a very BIG thing, especially if you have ever seen the tapes left behind by the 9/11 hijackers. No, these are not religious nuts doing the suicide bombings, or extremists. These are people, practicing Islam, who BELIEVE, word for word, what the Koran teaches. These are the people honor killing their teenage daughters:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329
These are the people raiding peaceful "Christian" churches and murdering people:
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=lead&lang=en&length=long&idelement=&backpage=&critere=&countryname=&rowcur=
These are the people that are burning churches and Christian schools because of perceived insults to Islam:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=17085&t=Muslims+burn+Christian+church+in+Indonesia
These are the people that keep NO secrets in what they are planning, or are going to do:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83407
Here's a quote from that article:

"The fact that the Americans, who are the biggest enemies of Islam, are so interested in the Hajj proves they want to know what is this thing threatening their culture. They want to understand what is this religion that is defeating them in the U.S., in Iraq, in Palestine, everywhere," said Muhammad Abdel Al, spokesman and a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization.

Abdel-Al's Committees' is responsible for scores of suicide bombing, shooting attacks and rocket launchings against Jewish civilian population centers. The group carried out a 2003 roadside bomb attack that killed three American contractors.

Here's a few more:
"Since CNN gives the Hajj so much coverage, it means there is no way that Islam is defeated. We bless CNN for this great gesture that can improve relations between the West and between Islam. They did it because they checked with audience and found they are so interested in knowing Islam," said Abu Islam.

"I am calling all Americans to see how Islam is a religion of modesty where the richest person in there world and poorest person in the world can meet in Mecca and they have no differences. As long as we believe in Allah, then Allah says Islam will be winning, so Americans understand they cannot defeat Islam."

It's hard for some not to look at it as an "us" against "them" kind of war. In WW2 there were "japs" and "Nazis". The target was easy for us round eyes to distinguish, and everyone (at least against the Japanese) jumped on the bigot bandwagon, up to and including our government, who went as far as arresting American citizens, and placing them in concentration camps for the simple fact they were Japanese. Men, women, and children.

...and no, SOTB, I don't think you have to convert too many of us here. We have been around, and most of us have our eyes open. We can see it ourselves. You would have to be blind not to see what is happening in Europe, Asia, and anywhere else on the globe. 9/11 was not the beginning, and it won't be the end. The goals of Islam, written in their Koran, relate we will convert, or we will be at war. There is no tolerance built into the Koran. The Koran is supposedly the direct word of Allah. It cannot be changed, or altered in any way. The goals of Islam are to be the only religion. All others are infidel and must convert or die. If you have time, watch the movie I linked to. There was quite a bit of good intel there.

[SOTB]

....I don't think anyone said that religion is the only thing motivating these people, but it is a very BIG thing....The goals of Islam, written in their Koran, relate we will convert, or we will be at war. There is no tolerance built into the Koran. The Koran is supposedly the direct word of Allah. It cannot be changed, or altered in any way. The goals of Islam are to be the only religion. All others are infidel and must convert or die....I do believe that religion, in this case Islam, is the major threat. It is so because it is guided by very mean-spirited people who have the ear of an incredibly large number of ignorant people. So I disagree that religion (Islam) is not the threat of today -- it is. And by our half-hearted, PC attempt at dealing with the threat, we are only energizing a much greater opposition.

To point at Islam and the Koran and make those above comments, one should really consider what many other religions believe about their own selves. Christianity canNOT hide behind these types of comments about Islam, when it has been/is guilty of the same. But Christianity has come a long way from the Inquisition and the Dark Ages.

Islam can change, too. Muslims can learn to worship and get along with others. They just need to decide that the current concept of their religion is the wrong direction. That isn't going to happen simply because one day they "evolve." It will happen ONLY because of some tremendously powerful and dynamic event in their religion. The way to make this happen is to make them doubt their god -- or at least the manner in which they have been trying to appease him. Waging this war seriously could do that....

[Greenhat]

Millions of people in Malaysia, Indonesia and India believe in the teachings of the Koran and in Allah as their God. Yet the great majority of them don't attempt to kill anyone, don't attempt to force their beliefs on others, and live and work with people who believe differently than they do.

Those millions make up the majority of Islam. I'd say that Islam is already on the road to change. Has been for a long time. The problem is coming from those who want to keep it in the 12th century (Taliban, etc.) and those who manipulate believers of Islam for their own ends.

Earlier in this thread, in the discussion about the chance of a Caliphate actually coming into existence, someone pointed out the numerous divisions within Islam.

To make broad statements about Islam based on the actions of a relatively few number of people who claim to follow that religion is like making broad sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's inaccurate, to say the least.

[grog18b]

I guess the major point of all my whatnot above is not that Christianity is somehow better or less guilty of the same sort of mass murder every other religion is capable of. The major point I was trying to make is that ALL religions are equally capable of such. When one group thinks it has the right to impose it's will on another, whether in the name of "religion" or whatever, it is wrong. I agree, the hardcore practitioners of Islam, are the major threat of our time. These are the people that take the part of the Koran that says we will all convert or there is war... very seriously. That is what they are preaching, and that is what they are doing. I guess it would be the same if the Jehovah's Witnesses started strapping C-4 to themselves and started detonating in Catholic churches. These people are doing this in the name of Allah, and the religion they practice is Islam.

[grog18b]

To make broad statements about Islam based on the actions of a relatively few number of people who claim to follow that religion is like making broad sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's inaccurate, to say the least.

We are not making broad statements. You are interpreting it that way. I also don't think for a second that it is a "relatively few number". That number grows every single day. It was a relatively few number of Japanese that actually attacked Pearl Harbor. It was a relatively few number of US pilots that dropped A bombs... It IS a relatively few number of people blowing themselves up, but there is a relatively LARGE number that support them, both with places to train, and money to function, and explosives to use.

Let me ask you this... (Honest question)Why is Islam the choice of thousands of murders, rapists, and other hard core criminals in the US prison system? The religion of peace seems to attract a rather large number of hard core criminals. (I am NOT saying Christianity is any different, better, or whatever...) (but I also don't see many hardcore criminals choosing to be Jehovah's Witnesses...) Just an observation from LEO experience and working with people that work in the prison system for their whole lives. It seems that something is attractive in this particular religion to these people, and I don't think it's "get along with your fellow man"...

There is no one among us that would admit to loving Nazis, fascists, or communists. I hate them all. I have no political correct need to say I love these people, nor do I ever want to "get along" with them. I was indoctrinated by very good DIs that instilled a hatred of commies from the beginning of boot camp. My Grandfather hated Nazis and "Japs" (and Russians). Anything wrong with that? Was he a bigot? No. He lived during a time in our history when these people (minus the Russians) attacked us, and we were at war with. I think his hatred of the Russians developed during the Cold War. Mine too. I still don't trust the bastards. (Gen Patton) There were "Japs" and Germans, in the US during WW2. Did these groups stand up and demand respect regardless of us being at war with them? No. Germans didn't tell anyone they were German, or denied being Nazis. Japanese were locked up. Was it wrong? Yup. That's the way it was, and our Nation was not as large a melting pot as it is now. Carlos Mencia said it best when he described how he felt after 9/11. Sure it was funny when he said it, but we ALL felt it, at least a little.

So, all that said, we are presently at war with Al Qaeda and the Tali ban, and whatever other Islamic faction that wants to destroy us. The fact that there are peaceful Muslims in the world means nothing. There were peaceful Germans, and peaceful Japanese in WW2 all over the world. Were we at war with all of them? Nope. We have an enemy, and quibbling over who they are is fruitless. We know who they are, we know who is strapping explosives to themselves, and we know who is flying jets into our buildings. We know these people because they ARE Islamic, Muslims, and Middle Eastern. Does that mean every person that is Middle Eastern is our enemy. Hell no. Does that mean every person that practices Islam is our enemy? Hell no. Does that mean every person that is Muslim is our enemy? Nope. Does that mean that our enemy cannot be described as Middle Eastern? Muslim? Islamic? Nope.

[Greenhat]

Constantly talking about the enemy as Islam is likely to push some of those Muslims who otherwise would not side with the enemy into doing so, don't you think?

And if someone made comments about "Christians" or "Christianity", don't you think that most believers in that batch of faiths would think they were being included?

And what about organizations like ELN, FARC, 17 Nov, ELA, FPM, Aum, JRA, Shining Path, ABB, ALIR, RUF, DHKP/C (note that I chose groups that have committed acts against the US within the past two decades [except for RUF which committed acts against UN peacekeepers 8 years ago])?

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Let me ask you this... (Honest question)Why is Islam the choice of thousands of murders, rapists, and other hard core criminals in the US prison system? The religion of peace seems to attract a rather large number of hard core criminals. (I am NOT saying Christianity is any different, better, or whatever...) (but I also don't see many hardcore criminals choosing to be Jehovah's Witnesses...) Just an observation from LEO experience and working with people that work in the prison system for their whole lives.I was under the impression that conversion to Islam in the prison system was more about reforming criminal ways and/or a form of black identity.
I would venture to guess that not only are the majority of hardcore criminals Christian, but that many of the prison converts to Islam commited their crimes when they were Christian, not Muslim

[SOTB]

Millions of people in Malaysia, Indonesia and India believe in the teachings of the Koran and in Allah as their God....Those millions make up the majority of Islam. I'd say that Islam is already on the road to change....The problem is coming from those who want to keep it in the 12th century (Taliban, etc.) and those who manipulate believers of Islam for their own ends.The countries you mention are well-known for not only being some of the largest (if not the largest) populations of Muslims, but also for obeying a "watered-down" version of Islam. I readily agree with that.

At the same time, the abilities of religious leaders to motivate and incite violence - for no other reason than "hey, it's what god wants" is well-documented, and a continuous reality in these countries where religious leaders battle political leaders/rich aristocrats for the minds of the ignorant masses. As many experts as one can find to show Islam has been peaceful in it's spread through SE Asia, I can find a rebuttal for each one; IE, forced Indian converts to Islam at sword point in it's inception and the subsequent ease to which ignorant people are still committing acts off Islamic violence even today (kept in check only by an equally ignorant mass of followers of a competing religion); the supposed "slow creep" of Islam in Indonesia, where ironically -- in this supposed haven of moderate thinking -- is one of the first recorded incidents where Westerners were specifically targeted for violence after the rise of fundamentalist Islam (in no small part due to the explosion of Krakatau -- since of course that was because "god" had a case of the ass with the shitty type of religion practiced by Indonesians at the time); and of course Malaysia where many point to Islam's arrival as a peaceful event amongst visiting/trading fishermen -- we have the irony of a Prime Minister reminding Muslims the world over that rather than disdain science, Muslims should master science so the world of Islam can stand up to the West.

"We need modern weapons. We need tanks, battleships, fighter planes, knowledge of rockets," he told the delegates. "These are the weapons that can strike fear into the hearts of our enemies and defend us./Dr Mahathir Mohamad"....To make broad statements about Islam based on the actions of a relatively few number of people who claim to follow that religion is like making broad sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's inaccurate, to say the least.No, I refuse to accept -- or remain quiet -- to the idea that Islam is being hijacked by a small few. Bullshit. Islam has ALWAYS been hellbent on a course of overpowering the competition. Just like other religions are (or were).

The idle watching from the sidelines, of the vast majority of Muslims, is considered by many to be evidence of how most Muslims are peaceful peoples just trying to get by.

Right.

I think that some people honestly forget that the majority of ANY terror organization is not made up of actual trigger pullers, but of supporters. Some give money. Some give food. Some give places to hide/live. Some simply sit on the fringes and wait to claim the rewards.

Whatever.

I'm not of the opinion that any of us, who are not Muslims, can change Islam. Muslims will have to do that. Just like Christians changed their religion. I do think we can give them a push to want to make those changes, though....

[Greenhat]

I refuse to accept -- or remain quiet -- to the idea that Islam is being hijacked by a small few. Bullshit. Islam has ALWAYS been hellbent on a course of overpowering the competition. Just like other religions are (or were).

So, you believe that the majority of Christians were hellbent on the Crusades?

The idle watching from the sidelines, of the vast majority of Muslims, is considered by many to be evidence of how most Muslims are peaceful peoples just trying to get by.

Right.

I think that some people honestly forget that the majority of ANY terror organization is not made up of actual trigger pullers, but of supporters. Some give money. Some give food. Some give places to hide/live. Some simply sit on the fringes and wait to claim the rewards.

Whatever.

I'm not of the opinion that any of us, who are not Muslims, can change Islam. Muslims will have to do that. Just like Christians changed their religion. I do think we can give them a push to want to make those changes, though....

Christians changed their religion through 300 years of war... and still have some that believe in conversion by force... and still have people who kill each other over doctrine (back to the IRA/UDF soldier thing).

Can we afford to allow 1.4 billion people follow that path?

I'm not suggesting we can change them... but we can encourage those already on the path we prefer, and kill the leaders of the paths that aren't the ones we can coexist with. While we are doing that, I'm simply suggesting that we not use terms and language that will drive more into the group we need to kill - into groups that support terrorists. If we can keep our shit together, the terrorists will drive most Muslims to our side.

[SOTB]

So, you believe that the majority of Christians were hellbent on the Crusades?The first crusades enjoyed a huge amount of support. As with all things violent -- even if you are the winner -- it begins to dawn on people that perhaps there are better ways to reach the objectives. That the crusaders were not as victorious as they thought their god was going to allow them to be, didn't help that popularity. There is no doubt that later Crusades (maybe from the 3rd on?) did not enjoy the support of the MASSES that the original ones did.Christians changed their religion through 300 years of war... and still have some that believe in conversion by force... and still have people who kill each other over doctrine (back to the IRA/UDF soldier thing).

Can we afford to allow 1.4 billion people follow that path?Yes. Very much can we afford to let 1.4 billion people follow that path. Yes. Because if you don't the world is not like it was hundreds of years ago -- or even like decades ago. Whereas the large expanses of oceans and our formidable military might once guaranteed that someone like Iran had no chance at all of causing us any serious strife, that simply is not the case any longer.

I want peace in my lifetime for my little girl. It isn't going to come because Muslim leaders figure we're nice people after all. It will come because those leaders don't want to die, or their people don't -- and the people change the leaders. I believe that "calling a spade a spade" and accepting this war for what it is will allow us to cause what you state at the end of your post -- through the continued massive depletion of their ranks, terrorists will drive most Muslims to our side....

[Greenhat]

Yes. Very much can we afford to let 1.4 billion people follow that path. Yes. Because if you don't the world is not like it was hundreds of years ago -- or even like decades ago. Whereas the large expanses of oceans and our formidable military might once guaranteed that someone like Iran had no chance at all of causing us any serious strife, that simply is not the case any longer.

I want peace in my lifetime for my little girl. It isn't going to come because Muslim leaders figure we're nice people after all. It will come because those leaders don't want to die, or their people don't -- and the people change the leaders. I believe that "calling a spade a spade" and accepting this war for what it is will allow us to cause what you state at the end of your post -- through the continued massive depletion of their ranks, terrorists will drive most Muslims to our side....


I'm confused by your answer.

On one side, you say that you want peace in your lifetime for your little girl. On the other, you say that we can afford to give Islam 300 years of war to sort themselves out.

I don't think we can afford that approach. Not at all. Remember that the wars of the Reformation effectively destroyed Europe over and over (and spilled over into North America as well).

The terrorists will drive most Muslims to our side because of what they do, not because of depletion of their ranks per say, but because of desperate acts. Iraq and Indonesia, and now maybe India could all be pointed at as examples of that. However, we can make that a much more difficult process by failing to respect their religion - giving more power to the manipulators. It's not about being "nice guys", it's about being the better choice. And we won't get there by being disrespectful of their religion.

[SOTB]

I'm confused by your answer.

On one side, you say that you want peace in your lifetime for your little girl. On the other, you say that we can afford to give Islam 300 years of war to sort themselves out.

I don't think we can afford that approach.Neither do I (reference your last sentence).

I apologize if I were not more clear in these later posts. My thoughts are that the war we are currently in -- one between Islam and the West -- should be conducted more along the lines of WWII -- as I stated earlier. We should not seek to "surgically" cut out warrior elements from their populations, a la Ramadi or Fallujah -- but rather resort to efforts such as Tokyo or Dresden. The example of Libya is forgotten, I think, in their realization of how a serious ass-kicking really wasn't in the best interests of the ruling party. I personally feel that if Saddam had believed that we would have really invaded, he would never maintained his refusal to cooperate with us (or the UN, if you wish) -- and today, his country could have easily rivaled Kuwait in splendor and wealth. Iran ONLY cooperates with us when they think we're not fucking around and likely losing our sense of humor.

One thing that I might be failing to state is that I don't care -- not in the slightest -- about the peoples of Islamic nations. Live, die, rich, poor -- I could care less. If 1.4 billion people think it is cool to make women second-class citizens and that fucking little boys and goats should be the national sport -- whatever. I won't be living amongst them, so it bothers me not. My point here is that this is all about control. Power. And the leaders of both Islam AND Islamic countries have been eager to keep that control. With all of the failures we have had in Iraq, one thing that I have no doubt that Islamic leaders are attentive to is what can happen if you are forced from power. The reality that will be Iraq(s) strikes serious contemplation in the minds of Muslim leaders (as well as the everyday Muslim, too). THAT is what I believe will win the day for us. When Muslim leaders choose their Ferraris and trips to Paris over pissing off the West.The terrorists will drive most Muslims to our side because of what they do, not because of depletion of their ranks per say, but because of desperate acts....I suppose we disagree, then. Which is cool.

I still think my argument is moot -- the badguys are going to do more for my cause than anything I could....

[grog18b]

At the beginning of WW2, there were a lot of Americans that thought we should not get involved in the war in Europe. Nazis were not that bad, and the American Nazi party began. There were many people that felt we should have entered WW2 on the side of Hitler. Hitler began his world conquest by taking a little at a time, and we did nothing, each time except make excuses as to why Nazis weren't all bad. I believe GH once used this analogy. Hitler took a little here, and a little there. It was mostly happening in Europe, so a lot of Americans had the opinion that, as long as it happens there, oh well... In today's world, we can no longer live like that. One nuke in the hands of these people, and how would you like your city? Regular, or extra crispy?

Well, the same applies to the radical Islamists. We can choose to sit back, and watch the be headings on TV, we can choose to sit back while it is happening to other Nations, and say that "it isn't all Muslims that are doing this..." Fine, it isn't. But... Not all Nazis turned the gas on in the chambers. Not all Nazis shot women and children, piling their bodies into ditches. Not all Nazis were SS... But they managed to exterminate 6 million+ without nukes or WMD. That "small group" managed to murder quite a substantial number of people. The size of the group matters not either. How many hijackers pulled off 9/11? a hell of a lot less than the number of Japanese needed to pull off Pearl Harbor.

If Hitler would have came out in 1935 and gave his full views, for all to see, saying he was going to kill 6 million+ Jews, men, women, children, mentally unsound... How much support would he have had with the German masses? These Imams ARE coming out, saying those EXACT things, exterminate the jews and non-believers, and people are ignoring them... Tell any Israeli that it is not about religion... They'll laugh in your face. ALL it's about in that area of the world is religion. We ARE being drug into it, kicking and screaming... The war is coming here, and enjoy your Christmas, because it is coming. Personally... I think we are going to see something really big this year. I really do. Those Somali's that disappeared and went to Africa to be suicide bombers... That is a beginning. Pre 9/11 there were 17,000 Canadian student visas issued to students from ME countries for those young ME students to come to the US. Those 17,000 never returned. Where are they? No one knows... Some may have decided to stay here and be productive members of our society... Some may not. Some may have taken pilot lessons, learning to fly but not land aircraft. Some may be into crop dusting, or infrastructure destruction... Who knows. All I know is, people know it's coming, and it is.

B5R-- I would venture to guess that, most of the hardcore criminals didn't practice ANY religion prior to prison. I was not referring to any particular racial group.

[smoked]

During a debate, an atheist was asked by his Christian opponent that if the atheist were stranded at night, in a dimly lit area in the bad part of town and was being approached by a group of burly, intimidating and surly looking men, would he or would he not be comforted to know they had just walked out of Bible study.

The Crusades were not at all consistent with Jesus' message or teachings. I haven't read the Quran and don't pass judgment on Islam. I have Muslim friends who like bacon. I'm a Christian and cuss like a motherfucker. We all get shitfaced and gamble every once in awhile. Guess that makes us infidels to zealots.

I'm with Overland, wish we could kill stupid.

The atheist answered 'yes.'

[Bravo Five Romeo]

At the beginning of WW2, there were a lot of Americans that thought we should not get involved in the war in Europe. Nazis were not that bad, and the American Nazi party began. There were many people that felt we should have entered WW2 on the side of Hitler. Hitler began his world conquest by taking a little at a time, and we did nothing, each time except make excuses as to why Nazis weren't all bad. I believe GH once used this analogy. Hitler took a little here, and a little there. It was mostly happening in Europe, so a lot of Americans had the opinion that, as long as it happens there, oh well... In today's world, we can no longer live like that. One nuke in the hands of these people, and how would you like your city? Regular, or extra crispy?

Well, the same applies to the radical Islamists. I strongly disagree.
Your comparison compares the ruling party of a nation and its miltary to a religion.
If you wish to compare radical Islam's holy war to WW2, may I suggest that comparing all Muslims to Nazis is poor example.
If you wish to use Germany in WW2 as a comparison... Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be to compare all Muslims to the German people (not all of whom were Nazis and none of whom are now)... even that may be too much of a comparison.

The Muslim world (from the Saudi princes to the Indonesian paupers) does not have a central comand leadership and a combined standing military.

Not all Muslims are forced to take up arms under a central leadership.

---------------------

The bottom line for those who wish to condemn an entire religion for the actions of the extremists...

There are over a billion and a half Muslims in the world.
Less than a small fraction of one percent have declared Jihad.


These Imams ARE coming out, saying those EXACT things, exterminate the jews and non-believers, and people are ignoring them...Yep. But most Imans are not. That's not to say they don't have their followers. They sure as shit do.
But their followers are the minority of the world's muslims... a very very small minority.

Not every Christian goes to the Westboro Baptist Church... or the World Church of the Creator... or any of those extremist churches.
I'm not comparing the numbers, I'm just saying you shouldn't hold all the members of a religion responsible for the actions of the extremists.
In fact, going back to the Nazi comparison... would you have called Christianity a threat for what the Nazis did in its name?

[SOTB]

....The atheist answered 'yes.'Silly question. It is designed to imply people who attend bible study are kind, non-violent souls, and that the reader will obviously agree. But of course. Right.

Here's one: "A young woman is stranded at night, in a dimly lit area in the bad part of town, outside of an abortion clinic that she just spent the past 3 hours in and was being approached by a group of burly, intimidating and surly looking men, would she or would she not be comforted to know they had just walked out of Bible study?"

Those same supposedly docile people can show quite different behaviors if given the proper motivation.

It is interesting that you state the Crusades were not in line with Christ's message or teachings, and while I won't argue that point with you -- hey, it's YOUR religion and represents no bother to me one way or the other -- but many of those Christians who fought in the first Crusades (and maybe others) were very motivated by a pious philosophy -- even if their conduct during the campaign didn't show it. I would hazard a guess that many of the crusaders would have been quite insulted that you felt these wars were not doing "the Lord's work". However, pull those same crusaders out of that century and thrust them ahead 1000 years (educate them too), and they might have your same opinion. Things change. People change. Religions change....

[grog18b]

Politics and religion... Is there a difference? I trust neither politicians or preachers. They both consist of people with agendas.

The comparison was simply to show what a small group of people are capable of. Not that Muslims are Nazis (for Christ's sake...) Whether motivated by politics or religion, it doesn't matter.

[mdb23]

During a debate, an atheist was asked by his Christian opponent that if the atheist were stranded at night, in a dimly lit area in the bad part of town and was being approached by a group of burly, intimidating and surly looking men, would he or would he not be comforted to know they had just walked out of Bible study.

The atheist answered 'yes.'

When inmates are processed into prison, they are asked for their religious preferences. Nationwide, athiests comprise two tenths of one percent of the incoming prisoners. Those who identify themselves as some form of the Judeo Christian religion comprise about 78-80 percent of the prison population..... if you don't believe me, the Bureau of Prisons publishes the data.....

1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons Statistics

1997, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 0.21% of inmates were atheist[7]
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:[8]


Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

So the fact that a group goes to Bible study doesn't do jack for me....

Let me ask you this... (Honest question)Why is Islam the choice of thousands of murders, rapists, and other hard core criminals in the US prison system? The religion of peace seems to attract a rather large number of hard core criminals.

Seven (7) percent of the incoming US prison population is Muslim, versus eighty (80) percent for Judeo Christian religions......

So let me ask you this..... why are so many hard core criminals "Christians?":biggrin:

[smoked]

Silly question. It is designed to imply people who attend bible study are kind, non-violent souls, and that the reader will obviously agree. But of course. Right.

Here's one: "A young woman is stranded at night, in a dimly lit area in the bad part of town, outside of an abortion clinic that she just spent the past 3 hours in and was being approached by a group of burly, intimidating and surly looking men, would she or would she not be comforted to know they had just walked out of Bible study?"

Those same supposedly docile people can show quite different behaviors if given the proper motivation.

It is interesting that you state the Crusades were not in line with Christ's message or teachings, and while I won't argue that point with you -- hey, it's YOUR religion and represents no bother to me one way or the other -- but many of those Christians who fought in the first Crusades (and maybe others) were very motivated by a pious philosophy -- even if their conduct during the campaign didn't show it. I would hazard a guess that many of the crusaders would have been quite insulted that you felt these wars were not doing "the Lord's work". However, pull those same crusaders out of that century and thrust them ahead 1000 years (educate them too), and they might have your same opinion. Things change. People change. Religions change....

Oh, come on. You know what I meant. Those idiot clinic bombers and hecklers reflect Christianity no more than the crusaders. The message in both cases is skewed. Christ would condemn both (as I understand it).

Count me among the docile people who can motivated to different behavior. :smile:

The edit button!!! Merry Christmas SOTB! :biggrin:

[smoked]

So let me ask you this..... why are so many hard core criminals "Christians?":biggrin:

I don't doubt the data. Especially with you posting it.

As to your question....They're misguided. :biggrin:

Oh, if you didn't break all down like you did, I would've said they're probably all Catholics! :biggrin:

[grog18b]

When inmates are processed into prison, they are asked for their religious preferences.


What are they when they LEAVE prison?

[mdb23]

What are they when they LEAVE prison?

ABout 10 percent of the total population leave prison as Muslims....so you get a 3 percent increase.

Care to venture how many convert to Christianity while on the inside?

The numbers simply don't support your position.

[Greenhat]

What are they when they LEAVE prison?


Parolees... :biggrin:

[smoked]

What are they when they LEAVE prison?

Neighbors!!! :biggrin:

[smoked]

ABout 10 percent of the total population leave prison as Muslims....so you get a 3 percent increase.

Care to venture how many convert to Christianity while on the inside?

The numbers simply don't support your position.

I'm a friend of one who BECAME a Christian in prison... (Well, he's a relative by marriage, and as the saying goes: You can pick your friends but not your family.) :biggrin:

I'm interested in knowing the number though? What is it, mdb?

[grog18b]

I was gonna say... arrested again.

[Greenhat]

I strongly disagree.
Your comparison compares the ruling party of a nation and its miltary to a religion.
If you wish to compare radical Islam's holy war to WW2, may I suggest that comparing all Muslims to Nazis is poor example.
If you wish to use Germany in WW2 as a comparison... Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be to compare all Muslims to the German people (not all of whom were Nazis and none of whom are now)... even that may be too much of a comparison.

Better would be comparing Islam to all the people's worldwide who either believed in Facism, or lived in nations lead by Fascists or supported the Axis.

Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia - and maybe even Finland, Iraq and Vichy France.

[Joe33]

For both statements, I really don't disagree.

But for the second statement, I believe that it is simply too complex and difficult a situation to deal with the intricacies that make up a religion -- in this case, the imams and their quest for both economic and political power; the huge population of ignorant/un or under-educated that make up it's followers, the inherent desire to grow and be the dominant religious belief, etc. -- and it makes more sense to simply shift the responsibility of dealing with those issues upon the religion itself. IE, "if you can't be nice, we will stomp your ass and you can ask your god why you keep getting your ass kicked."

I really believe that I don't have to convert anyone with my arguments. Islam will do it for me. Sooner or later, another serious -- SERIOUS -- attack will be launched by Islamic followers (note that I did not state "fanatics") and the West will find it's citizenry angry and demanding a serious answer. Individual rights will be trampled and unfriendly comments by an Islamic nation's leader may mean warships off the coast 48 hours later. The downside to all of this, and this might appear ironic to some of you reading, is that I fear a resurgence of Christianity -- of the fundamentalist type -- to be as great a danger, or more of a danger, to our society than Islam....

When you say "fundamentalist Christian", what do you mean? I hear that term and no one has ever been able to define it for me. (kind of like "islamofascist" I suppose). Falwell? Phelps?

And when you say "resurgence", at what point in the past were there "fundamentalist Christians" oppressing the U.S.?

Understand, I am not being a smartass here at all SOTB - I am honestly interested in your opinion. I agree with alot of what you guys are saying about "religion", because religion is man - made and therefore, often times greatly flawed. Growing up Catholic, attending Catholic schools etc. - there were many great values and experiences that I received from that upbringing. And there were some disadvantages too. Never in my life have I tried to convert someone to Catholicism. In fact, my family attends a Christian church now, as my wife is not Catholic.

[SOTB]

When you say "fundamentalist Christian", what do you mean? I hear that term and no one has ever been able to define it for me. (kind of like "islamofascist" I suppose).THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism) works for me. If someone else doesn't like the definition, I don't care -- it works for ME.And when you say "resurgence", at what point in the past were there "fundamentalist Christians" oppressing the U.S.?Perhaps I was not clear enough in my statement, especially by tying my statement referring to Christianity and fundamentalism together as I did. Let me be more clear -- I fear Christianity more than I do Islam -- and I believe that any resurgence of Christianity in this country will have a strong fundamentalist base. Hopefully that explains my position better.

Oh yeah -- Christianity has oppressed peoples in the US before (as well as in other parts of the world)....

[Greenhat]

THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism) works for me.

I have no problem with the assertion that Christians have oppressed people in the past (or even that some who claim to be Christian oppress people today), but I'm curious if you have considered that the definition you chose to use for the definition that works for you is pretty much extinct?

[Joe33]

THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism) works for me. If someone else doesn't like the definition, I don't care -- it works for ME.Perhaps I was not clear enough in my statement, especially by tying my statement referring to Christianity and fundamentalism together as I did. Let me be more clear -- I fear Christianity more than I do Islam -- and I believe that any resurgence of Christianity in this country will have a strong fundamentalist base. Hopefully that explains my position better.

Oh yeah -- Christianity has oppressed peoples in the US before (as well as in other parts of the world)....

I suppose the wiki definition is probably as good as any. I'm not a fan of most of the individuals / organizations mentioned on that wiki page either. Mixing religion w/ politics is never good it seems. Islamism, "fundamentalist Christianity" by this definition, Zionism etc. all have negative, sometimes disastrous results. I don't mix my spirituality w/ my political opinions - or at least I sure as hell try not to.

What I think is interesting is this though: This thread started out discussing, in great detail, why the term "islamofascist" is incorrect, ignorant, not helpful when applied to the GWOT etc. Having seen the arguments presented, I can see that. BUT, I think alot of the people who might cringe at the term "islamofascist" have no problem using terms like "right wing Christian fundamentalists". Both terms are, in the end, just labels. They seek to alienate, divide and offend. (That's not directed at you or others at SOCNET, just sayin'...)

So, I believe in many of the "fundamentals of Christianity". Generally speaking, I would label myself as a conservative. So does that make me a "right wing Christian fundamentalist"?

Kind of like what was discussed before about the SHITLOAD of Muslims, including the ones in this country, who probably aren't too fond of the terms "islamofascist", "with us or against us", etc. The label(s) can easily alienate, anger etc. and perhaps create more enemies - those are theories posited here by several BTDTs.

Lastly, Christianity has DEFINETLY oppressed people historically. But when, and howso in the U.S.? Thoughts?

[NightLandNav]

...
...

Lastly, Christianity has DEFINETLY oppressed people historically. But when, and howso in the U.S.? Thoughts?

Since the first Europeans set foot on present day CONUS, or just since 1776? ;)

There should first be agreement on the definition of "oppressed", since in this context the meaning can be somewhat ambiguous. There is often a disagreement between the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" on such issues.

[Purple36]

Hey SOTB,

Fear not, I won't oppress you too much when I rule the world!;)

Reading the Wikipedia description, I fall into this category on the Theological level but not the social level. I did have a coworker who would fit most of the article. He was a very gentle and kind person...but he never would wear shorts to Waikiki! :biggrin:

[SOTB]

Since the first Europeans set foot on present day CONUS, or just since 1776?Ditto.

While present-day Christians are often the first to point at actions of their forefathers as "not at all consistent with Jesus' message or teachings", it doesn't erase the reality and simplicity that Christianity stomped on peoples' rights all over the world -- including the US -- in the name of their god.

What is also my point is that times change and so did their religion. The level to which Christianity sought to oppress others has shifted dramatically, although it still survives and exists (one very strong example is the continued Christian movement to prevent same-sex marriage). But the religion DID change, just as Islam can. Christianity can also still change again (and will -- although I don't profess to knowing in which direction it will change to), and I very much fear a shift to a more fundamentalist approach -- kinda like what many complain about with Islam, only this time it would be "right" because it follows Jesus' teachings vice that heathen Mohammed.Fear not, I won't oppress you too much when I rule the world!As a fundamentalist Christian, you CAN'T rule the world -- that religious thinking has defined a woman's place in the world, and sitting at the top isn't it.

FWIW I have a daughter who I will protect from ANY religion, be it Islam or Christianity -- and I'll protect her just as energetically as I would if the oppressors were camel-fucking cave dwellers or polyester-suited smiling WAPs....

[RetPara]

...but he never would wear shorts to Waikiki! :biggrin:

That could very well be something to be Thankful for.......

[Joe33]

Since the first Europeans set foot on present day CONUS, or just since 1776? ;)

There should first be agreement on the definition of "oppressed", since in this context the meaning can be somewhat ambiguous. There is often a disagreement between the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" on such issues.

Agreed. And I should have been somewhat more specific. It is important to define such terms as "oppress" and also to try and look for examples within the relatively recent past. Not saying that history (i.e. your examples of Europeans on CONUS etc.) isn't important because it is. But I don't think it's as relevant (necessarily) as the more recent past, present.

As SOTB pointed out, religions change over time, as the cauldron of social, political, cultural factors do. As religion is a man-made phenomenon, it is always subject to the worst man has to offer.

[okami1]

There should first be agreement on the definition of "oppressed", since in this context the meaning can be somewhat ambiguous. There is often a disagreement between the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" on such issues.


5607

[Joe33]

5607

That is my absolute favorite scene from The Holy Grail. The dialogue is BRILLIANT:

ARTHUR:
Old woman!
DENNIS:
Man!
ARTHUR:
Man. Sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
DENNIS:
I'm thirty-seven.
ARTHUR:
I-- what?
DENNIS:
I'm thirty-seven. I'm not old.
ARTHUR:
Well, I can't just call you 'Man'.
DENNIS:
Well, you could say 'Dennis'.
ARTHUR:
Well, I didn't know you were called 'Dennis'.
DENNIS:
Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR:
I did say 'sorry' about the 'old woman', but from the behind you looked--
DENNIS:
What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR:
Well, I am King!
DENNIS:
Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress with the--

ETC. ETC.

[nvfone]

I wouldn't compare the Islamic world to Nazi Germany, I'd compare it to Weimar Germany. A HUGE self-image issue, major armed conflict in the streets, an astounding variety of ideological positions none of which could get along with the other, western military occupation of home territory. the only thing missing is the cabaret:) No, not Nazi Germany...yet.

[Matt_]

I would just like to point out that the godless or atheistic Soviets (communist) managed to kill and oppress hundreds of millions if not billions of people and continue to this day.

People like to throw stones at religion but what about societies that managed evil and mass murder with out religion? How many millions of people were murdered, enslaved, raped, displaced, and oppressed by the Hunnic Empire whose expansionist ideas had zilch to do with religion?

Atheistic societies and atheistic individuals can be just as evil if not more evil as their religious counterparts.

[smoked]

While present-day Christians are often the first to point at actions of their forefathers as "not at all consistent with Jesus' message or teachings", it doesn't erase the reality and simplicity that Christianity stomped on peoples' rights all over the world -- including the US -- in the name of their god.

The definition of rights changes between time zones, so rights being stomped is just a historical fact. I think I even recall a discussion here about what a "right" is. At any rate, it's hard to argue Christians did most of the stomping.

What is also my point is that times change and so did their religion. The level to which Christianity sought to oppress others has shifted dramatically, although it still survives and exists (one very strong example is the continued Christian movement to prevent same-sex marriage).

While I agree that the Christian movement is trying to prevent same-sex marriage, it's worth pointing out that homosexuality was NEVER specifically condemned by ANYONE in the Bible. Sure, certain passages are cited as examples of homosexual behavior being a "sin." However, there is enough room for opposing interpretations dealing with purity, equality or just plain "love." So, again, any "oppression" is still "not at all consistent with Jesus' message or teachings."


As a fundamentalist Christian, you CAN'T rule the world -- that religious thinking has defined a woman's place in the world, and sitting at the top isn't it.
This is a misunderstanding. Just as homosexuality is not EXPLICITLY addressed anywhere in the Bible, either is the legitimacy of women in leadership. Yes, there are "teachings" about women as leaders of the Church, but that has nothing to do with political leadership. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Gov. Palin? Besides, it's not like there's a threat of the Christian equivalent of Sharia.


FWIW I have a daughter who I will protect from ANY religion, be it Islam or Christianity -- and I'll protect her just as energetically as I would if the oppressors were camel-fucking cave dwellers or polyester-suited smiling WAPs....

I wasn't going to bother responding, but you never fail to provide interesting viewpoints. Besides, you quoted me, damnit. ;) I don't care to debate the worthiness of our opinions. No effort to change minds. I couldn't care less. I just find it curious one would want to protect their daughter from any religion. Being a degenerate Christian, my skeptical mind wants to know. :biggrin: Is it more of a free-thinking issue? I've seen where some consider a belief in a God (gasp) a disease. Something about a meme?

[Greenhat]

Atheistic societies and atheistic individuals can be just as evil if not more evil as their religious counterparts.


Absolutely. It isn't about religion. It's about people and their motives.

[T-Rock]

So let me ask you this..... why are so many hard core criminals "Christians?"

They're actions are not at all consistent with the New Testament text. ....they're simply not following the example of their teacher, the Prophet Christ.

Absolutely. It isn't about religion. It's about people and their motives.

What motivates someone to strap a bomb belt on, and blow themselves up?
What motivates families to hold wedding celebrations for those who've blown themselves up?
Are these folks consistent in following the text of their religion and the example of their Prophet?
http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hamas_suicide_Rajab.asx

[Greenhat]

They're actions are not at all consistent with the New Testament text. ....they're simply not following the example of their teacher, the Prophet Christ.



What motivates someone to strap a bomb belt on, and blow themselves up?
What motivates families to hold wedding celebrations for those who've blown themselves up?
Are these folks consistent in following the text of their religion and the example of their Prophet?
http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hamas_suicide_Rajab.asx

What motivates someone to get in an airplane and attempt to crash it into an aircraft carrier?

What motivates someone to charge a machine-gun nest?

What motivates someone to drink kool-aid in Jonestown?

Actions that aren't logical aren't unusual and aren't unique to any group of people.

What motivates someone to hate 1.4 billion people because of how he and a relatively few others choose to interpret their beliefs?

[TJ2JM1783]

When inmates are processed into prison, they are asked for their religious preferences. Nationwide, athiests comprise two tenths of one percent of the incoming prisoners. Those who identify themselves as some form of the Judeo Christian religion comprise about 78-80 percent of the prison population..... if you don't believe me, the Bureau of Prisons publishes the data.....

Perhaps there are other factors that need to be considered when analyzing these statistics. For example, percentage of people that lie on surveys (11%), percentage of non-US citizens that are in prisons (a little less than 10%), percentage of inmates that go to church service, i.e. are religious (30-40%). I mean a woman saying she weighs 94 pounds and actually weighing 94 pounds is not highly probable.

1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons Statistics

1997, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 0.21% of inmates were atheist[7]
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:[8]


Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

It was my understanding that these statistics provided by Rod Swift, under the letterhead of Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, was proven false.


So let me ask you this..... why are so many hard core criminals "Christians?":biggrin:

[TJ2JM1783]

Since the first Europeans set foot on present day CONUS, or just since 1776? ;)

IMO the indigenous peoples of the United States were oppressed before the Europeans got here. Considering that Columbus "discovered" America in 1492, what happened in those two+ centuries since the introduction of Europeans?

There should first be agreement on the definition of "oppressed", since in this context the meaning can be somewhat ambiguous. There is often a disagreement between the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" on such issues.

As far as I can see, we are talking about 2 churches predominantly in these discussions, the Roman Catholic Church and the Muslim Church. Given that up until 1517 all christians were catholics, the 10th - 12th century crusades (or expeditions as the catholics call them) were organized by catholics. The Muslim world began to take shape in the early 600's. Up until that time or from 200 - 900 AD, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey were Christian. Then what happened?

IMO analyzing past history strictly by today's consciousness, is like allowing Sartre, Nietzsche and Camus to say that Plato and Socrates were a couple of quack philosophers.

The History of the Christian Church is voluminous, which writings fill libraries. Perhaps we could consider the possibility, supported by factual data of course, that said church relinquished civil power and was not forced to do so. Therein might lie the difference.

[T-Rock]

What motivates someone to hate 1.4 billion people because of how he and a relatively few others choose to interpret their beliefs?


That my friend is where those perpetuating "Moral Equivalence" misjudge and misrepresent my beliefs. I'm assuming the above statement was meant for me. Not once have I advocated anyone to HATE Muslims. If you read carefully through my posts, my loathing is directed towards the TEXT of Islam because of the behaviors it incites. If anything, I hold a deep sympathy for those, especially the children, who've been brainwashed to think that if they blow themselves up, they're going to enter some sort of Utopia.

Are the following texts motivational factors which may incite some religiously inclined folks to self destruct?

Let those fight (Jihad-struggle) in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world (martyrdom) for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain (martyred)or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward (4:74).

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme (9:111).

He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse (61:9). O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce (bargan-trade in this life for one to come) that will save you from a painful doom? (61:10). Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive (Jihad) for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know (6:11). He will forgive you your sins and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eden. That is the supreme triumph (6:12).

(If the disabled and elderly are exempt from "inner struggle" what does it mean? What does it incite?)

What verses of the Qur'an comforted Muhammad Atta and which verses did he quote in his letter that was later found ?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

[SOTB]

I just find it curious one would want to protect their daughter from any religion. Being a degenerate Christian, my skeptical mind wants to know. :biggrin: Is it more of a free-thinking issue? I've seen where some consider a belief in a God (gasp) a disease....My protection of her is from those that would seek to hurt her -- whether they be religious or not. People don't need a deity to be evil -- the Soviets showed that. But this thread isn't about the Soviets -- well, at least not yet. It is about the threat of violent Islamists -- which I maintain CAN be dealt with without resorting to the genocidal leanings that some might consider. Islam -- IMO -- is behind the powercurve with regards to the rights of others, but with prodding, they can change.

As to allowing my daughter to practice religion, she chooses for herself what she wishes to practice. She's asked why I don't practice a religion and I answer as honestly -- yet as non-biased as I can in those circumstances. If she ever decides to practice a religion, that is her decision, and I certainly won't hold it against her. But I won't force a child to go to church -- one that won't understand the topic, nor the motivations of those discussing it....

[Greenhat]

The History of the Christian Church is voluminous, which writings fill libraries. Perhaps we could consider the possibility, supported by factual data of course, that said church relinquished civil power and was not forced to do so. Therein might lie the difference.

We could say that if we ignore over 300 years of warfare.

[Greenhat]

my loathing is directed towards the TEXT of Islam because of the behaviors it incites.

The text doesn't incite behavior. How it is interpreted and taught may incite behavior. Even more likely is the behavior of those who are seen as role-models and leaders.

We have a few people who have experience with creating cultural change (basic training or boot camp both do that, plus I'm sure there are a few people on here who have experience with creating cultural change in corporate environments).

Does anyone who has actually undergone or helped induce such a change had it be the result of a text?

Anyone?

I'd be surprised if anyone did. Behavior results from a number of things (motivation factors, peer pressures, expectations, cultural norms, reward systems, etc.), and people learn in a number of ways, but reading has a very low rating in regards to actual transfer of knowledge or ideas for most people, and very, very few people actually adjust their behavior based on what they read. One of the reasons that books like "7 Habits" sell so well, but so few of the people who read them actually put information from them into practice.

Did Islam significantly change the behavior of Arabs?

Has it significantly changed the behavior of Indonesians, Malays or Indians?

Has it changed the behavior of Afghanis?

Based on what I know of the behavior of those groups pre-Mohammad and currently? I'd guess the answer on the first two is no. The third? Is definitely no.

[SOTB]

The text doesn't incite behavior. How it is interpreted and taught may incite behavior. Even more likely is the behavior of those who are seen as role-models and leaders....I mostly agree, although I do believe that some writings are specifically designed to elicit an angry response. Even here on this board, we have seen people write some very derogatory stuff -- and reactions of readers were predictable (and in one case that I remember, would have justified the use of lethal force).

But still, the text of the Koran, or the Bible, or whatever is not the issue.

Two cases in point, just to demonstrate this -- and in advance, they are general examples and if you want to attack them -- whatever, but I'm not going to get involved in a silly debate about them:

Buddhist writings are noteworthy for their peaceful preachings -- and I doubt if many people would think about massacres or terrorism and Buddhist followers being the culprits. Yet the Buddhist followers of he Tamil Tigers are certainly all of that and more.

Many Muslims, including many that I personally have met, cannot read. They are told what the Koran states and how to interpret it. The interpretation of the words, often by assholes bent on their own shitty agendas, are what frequently give rise to stupidity. I've seen it personally on more than a couple of occasions, with Afghanistan being the one that most comes to mind.

It ain't the text of X religion -- it's the asshole who is interpreting it and then pushing his interpretation on the small-minded....

[Greenhat]

It ain't the text of X religion -- it's the asshole who is interpreting it and then pushing his interpretation on the small-minded....



No argument at all, certainly not on the Tamil Tigers.

[T-Rock]

The text doesn't incite behavior. How it is interpreted and taught may incite behavior. Even more likely is the behavior of those who are seen as role-models and leaders.

Well, with role-models and leaders who spew this kind of vitriol based on what they‘ve learned from their religious text:
Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in [the] Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance faces this threat (Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khomeini, June 4, 2002 http://www.wilayah.ir/en/speeches/files/5.php ), I see your point.

[Greenhat]

How about these? Another Muslim leader (one representing a hell of a lot more Muslims than Khomeni ever did):

"You may read from time to time the voice of small radical groups. But this voice will not change the fact that mainstream Indonesia will continue to be moderate, tolerant and democratic.”

"We have to remain vigilant about the security environment ahead of us. We have won many battles, but not yet the war (against terrorism).”

“We will hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.” (referring to the Bali bombing)

You're quoting a leader who is isolated and limited in influence. I'm quoting the President of the most populous Islamic nation in the world, a man elected by democratic process in that nation.

[Oldpogue]

[QUOTE=TJ2JM1783;1080719]IMO the indigenous peoples of the United States were oppressed before the Europeans got here. Considering that Columbus "discovered" America in 1492, what happened in those two+ centuries since the introduction of Europeans?}


If the Europeans weren't here to oppress them, who did it? Bigfoot? The Spanish were some of the most ruthless oppressors of indigenous peoples throughout all of America. They wiped out entire cultures undre the veil of spreading Christianity to the heathens.

[SOTB]

I'm quoting the President of the most populous Islamic nation in the world, a man elected by democratic process in that nation.Dude, and HOW MANY presidents have they gone through since that democratic process took hold? Indonesia is far from the tranquil secular scene that some would have believe.

Personally, I think the only chance that Indonesia has to avoid falling into a Islamo-facist situation is to have another Suharto -- the problems with the world's economy, normal internal politics unique to Indonesia, and a shitload of petrodollars being pumped in from the Gulf States make it doubtful -- TO ME -- that the Indonesian masses susceptible to hard-line Islam will choose a path of peaceful coexistence with other religions. I could give a fuck if the country's leadership sees the hard-line Islamists as a threat to their control of the country and stomps that ass.

Whether through people coming to the conclusion that playing well with others is the right thing to do, or a country's leadership refusing to release power to the Imams -- whatever method works for changing a fucked-up POV of that religion is fine by me....

[T-Rock]

Did Islam significantly change the behavior of Arabs?

I think it very well may have. I often entertain the thought of why the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus, asked western Christendom for help against the Seljuk invasions.

How does one resolve the Islamic Crusades?

[nvfone]

The text doesn't incite behavior. How it is interpreted and taught may incite behavior. Even more likely is the behavior of those who are seen as role-models and leaders.

We have a few people who have experience with creating cultural change (basic training or boot camp both do that, plus I'm sure there are a few people on here who have experience with creating cultural change in corporate environments).

Does anyone who has actually undergone or helped induce such a change had it be the result of a text?





a very good case could be made for change from a text: the reformation that turned Europe on its head and fomented the ideas that helped found the US--that all came from the advent of the printing press and the widespread accessibility of the Bible, in vernacular languages no less, to people who had never had access before. what have you got, calvinists, dutch reformed, anabaptists, lutherans, scottish reformed and I forgot what all--all within say 150 years of the invention of the printing press. the Dutch Revolution, it might be argued, is a direct result of textual accessibility. did the text change people? I would argue it did. but if not, at the very least having the text to read changed people.

from what I can see literacy rates are pretty high in most Middle Eastern countries...50-70%. but that's still a lot of people out who can't read, and those would be in the rural areas...

besides that, I wonder how accessible the 7th century Arabic used to write the Qu'ran is.

[Oldpogue]

Interesting points nvfone. Can we see the same corallary today with the use of the computer worldwide? Is this shaping attitudes worldwide much the same as the printing press brought information to people during the Reformation

[nvfone]

Interesting points nvfone. Can we see the same corallary today with the use of the computer worldwide? Is this shaping attitudes worldwide much the same as the printing press brought information to people during the Reformation

this is exactly the argument that academics and other critics are engaged with. the term "electracy" has been suggested as a correlative to "literacy" for its effectiveness in describing exactly the level of transformation that is being wrought in human culture by the technological revolution. "electracy" is to "literacy" what "literacy" was to "orality." In Islam the problem is so deep that many of the practicioners in the middle east are not even in a "literate" stage, let alone an "electrate" stage.

[Oldpogue]

We'll know when they've reached the "electrate" stage when we start seeing goat porn on the internet.

[okami1]

If the Europeans weren't here to oppress them, who did it? Bigfoot? The Spanish were some of the most ruthless oppressors of indigenous peoples throughout all of America. They wiped out entire cultures undre the veil of spreading Christianity to the heathens.

It is inaccurate to say that oppression did not exist in the indigenous cultures of the Western hemisphere prior to the arrival of Europeans. The 5 nations of the Iroqouis confederacy, the Aztecs, the Maya, all oppressed minority groups within their empires. The drive for European expansion was veiled by the Christian missionary imperative yes, but the quest for empire and profit to sustain the centuries of internecine warfare between the European nation-states and their self-aggrandisment was IMO, the primary reason for the subsequent oppression and holocaust. How much Islam differs from Christianity in this regard has been discussed here before, but I believe it is not inaccurate to say that the eradication of Dar-al-Harb and the supremacy of Islam over all the world is not the mainstream opinion of most Muslims. That there are a relatively few fanatical, dangerous elements within Islam is undisputed, and they should be dealt with as free societies have dealt with similar threats and challenges.

As it relates to this discussion, and the recent turn therein towards the idea of literacy, or "electracy" as it is being used here, it is likely a combination of factors that will enable the Islamic world to reform itself. As Gutenburg's press emboldened the Protestant reformation and enabled the growth of powerful centralized governments, the internet, Google, and capitalism are hard at work "liberating" the minds of millions of people who are otherwise preyed upon by the fanatics that have been formerly able to bend people to their religious and political motives. Education, and hopefully the reformation of not only the religion of Islam it engenders, but the wider cultural context in which the problematic nature of many of Islam's less "cosmopolitan" proponents reside, will be reformed as well. Ultimately, education is only a tool, and can be used to spread malicious information as well as benevolent messages. It requires a freethinking society based in culture willing to confront dogma and long accepted beliefs as being suscpetible to periodic review for contemporary worth and acceptability in order to make it work as we hope in the ME.

That's the carrot.

The stick is as SOTB said. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting his comments) Make it painful to the point of annihilation for people who preach hate to exist. Strike hard and precisely to show that there are certain paths that lead you to participation in a just society, and others that lead you to the receiving end of whatever munition the MNF du jour is dropping on your hideout/cave/mental hole in the ground. It is ok to be intolerant of intolerance. In order to have a two sided reasonable discussion, both sides have to be reasonable. This should be one of the criteria for inclusion in the world of human beings. A heartbeat and a brain alone doesn't cut it. You must be able to obtain a critical distance in order to examine your philosophy and ideology for flaws and mistakes. Once again, this is a cultural precedent. If it does not exist in yours, we will teach you how. If you are unwilling to learn and instead you act upon your desire to kill us, you die.

To sum it up, we should: Make all efforts to enable the development of a freethinking and rational society in the ME through peaceful means. Diplomacy, aiding in technological and educational development, providing cultural liasons in order to allow the future leaders of those nations to experience what life can be like without fear, ignorance, and hatred, and beginning the process of educating, and in some instances, re-educating those populaces, are areas we can focus energy on. We should be doing this in our own country as well. Breeding healthy thoughts and ways of life is just that. Raising children, both literal children and figurative children, who become the future in an environment of tolerance and education that promotes participation in civic societies the world over.

We should not: play games with the appeasement of fundamentalists, zealots, assholes, women-haters, and ideologues. We have ample evidence from the 20th century alone to see how that works out. If you want to behave like sociopathic children, then your elders are here to provide you with guidance towards acceptable, civilized, and humanitarian norms.

How to do it? I don't rightly know.

Current thinking in the spectrum of political thought is reflected in the mutual antipathy between Left and Right. The hypocrisy of the Left is mirrored in one of it's anthems, "De-colonize your mind." which should mean, "Think for yourself." Instead, it means, "Colonize your mind with OUR ideology instead of the one you used to have." Both sides are guilty of an adherence to dogma in place of experiential, empirical knowledge, and an inability to let go of "cherished" beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence which invalidates a certain point of view. For the moderate Muslims of the ME who want to get on the Freedom train and enjoy liberty, education, self sufficiency, fearlessness, Oktoberfest, hot girl-on-girl action, and other products we have to offer, hop on board. The train has left the station, but we're making stops at locales near you. If you're not down, that's cool, you can do your own thing and get down in your own way. A word of warning though: This party train is going to keep rolling and we don't stop if you're on the tracks with a bomb. It's an up-armored train.

Did I mention it has a whiskey bar?

[nofear]

It's been shown that oppression of a culture / race by another culture / race is the norm in human history. There has never been "equality", although attempts to create that utopia has resulted in the oppressed rising up and opressing their old opressors, sometimes worse that the original opression.

Ok, I'm sick of writing "opression" now.....

I subscribe to the "conflict theory" which is the theory that all human relations involve conflict at some level.

And they always will...

[Greenhat]

a very good case could be made for change from a text: the reformation that turned Europe on its head and fomented the ideas that helped found the US--that all came from the advent of the printing press and the widespread accessibility of the Bible, in vernacular languages no less, to people who had never had access before. what have you got, calvinists, dutch reformed, anabaptists, lutherans, scottish reformed and I forgot what all--all within say 150 years of the invention of the printing press. the Dutch Revolution, it might be argued, is a direct result of textual accessibility. did the text change people? I would argue it did. but if not, at the very least having the text to read changed people.

from what I can see literacy rates are pretty high in most Middle Eastern countries...50-70%. but that's still a lot of people out who can't read, and those would be in the rural areas...

besides that, I wonder how accessible the 7th century Arabic used to write the Qu'ran is.

The printing press may have made the change viable and available, but the text didn't make the change. Use the American Revolution for example: despite the widespread reading of Thomas Paine's phamplets, those phamplets weren't what caused the Revolution, or motivated the Revolution. They were simply fuel to an already burning fire.

Why is it that Martin Luthor posting his letter on the door of the church is such an integral part of the story of the Protestant Reformation? It's because actions are significantly more important than text.

[Greenhat]

Dude, and HOW MANY presidents have they gone through since that democratic process took hold? Indonesia is far from the tranquil secular scene that some would have believe.

Personally, I think the only chance that Indonesia has to avoid falling into a Islamo-facist situation is to have another Suharto -- the problems with the world's economy, normal internal politics unique to Indonesia, and a shitload of petrodollars being pumped in from the Gulf States make it doubtful -- TO ME -- that the Indonesian masses susceptible to hard-line Islam will choose a path of peaceful coexistence with other religions. I could give a fuck if the country's leadership sees the hard-line Islamists as a threat to their control of the country and stomps that ass.

Whether through people coming to the conclusion that playing well with others is the right thing to do, or a country's leadership refusing to release power to the Imams -- whatever method works for changing a fucked-up POV of that religion is fine by me....


I'm certainly not claiming that Indonesia is tranquil. However, it is NOT anything like Iran. It is a functional democracy, and the newest President was elected on a platform of moderation and anti-terrorism. And Indonesia is the most populous Islamic nation in the world. The top three nations for Islamic population are all fairly moderate (Indonesia, India & Malaysia).

After all, Italy hasn't exactly been a stable democracy since Mussolini was forced out... but we cope with them without calling for a new Mussolini (although I have seen a few people call for that).

As for Petrodollars: http://jakarta.usembassy.gov/econ/(PR_1_2008)_Executive_Summary.pdf

[nvfone]

Why is it that Martin Luthor posting his letter on the door of the church is such an integral part of the story of the Protestant Reformation? It's because actions are significantly more important than text.

i'm not sure I can agree that Luther's posting was more important than the accessibility issue. as a symbolic point to rally around, certainly Luther's posting was as important to the reformation as the Battle for the Alamo was for Texas history. Did either one make a real differnce other than give those who came after the event something to point to for encouragement? Would there have been a Calvin or a Zwingli without Luther's 95 Theses? I can't answer that. Just as questionable is the success of Sam Houston's army in Texas if the heroes of the Alamo hadn't have held up against the Mexican army for as long as they did.

what I do know of significance ís that Luther's 95 Theses were widely copied by printing presses and distributed throughout Europe, thus giving the controversy a wide birth of publicity, one of the first printed news controversies of its kind. The question is, would there have been a 95 Theses without the printing press?

IMHO (and I am woefully unqualified to talk about the Islamic situation other a few very cursory remarks) Islam is exactly in need of a "95 Theses" to drive it into the 21st century ideologically. the consideration in this context is how such a text could be disseminated.

[Greenhat]

i'm not sure I can agree that Luther's posting was more important than the accessibility issue. as a symbolic point to rally around, certainly Luther's posting was as important to the reformation as the Battle for the Alamo was for Texas history. Did either one make a real differnce other than give those who came after the event something to point to for encouragement? Would there have been a Calvin or a Zwingli without Luther's 95 Theses? I can't answer that. Just as questionable is the success of Sam Houston's army in Texas if the heroes of the Alamo hadn't have held up against the Mexican army for as long as they did.

what I do know of significance ís that Luther's 95 Theses were widely copied by printing presses and distributed throughout Europe, thus giving the controversy a wide birth of publicity, one of the first printed news controversies of its kind. The question is, would there have been a 95 Theses without the printing press?

IMHO (and I am woefully unqualified to talk about the Islamic situation other a few very cursory remarks) Islam is exactly in need of a "95 Theses" to drive it into the 21st century ideologically. the consideration in this context is how such a text could be disseminated.

I agree with all of your points... and it only underscores that technology (in the case we are discussing, the printing press) is a tool that may assist in the widespread distribution of a message, but it is not the message. And text alone is insufficient to create cultural change.

The "95 thesis" may be the key element to the Protestant Reformation, but without the dramatic action of Luthor posting it as he did, it probably would have been ignored.

Islam needs more than a "95 thesis". I'm pretty sure there have already been such thesis written by Islamic clerics. In some places (such as the nations I've noted) those thesis have been given weight. In other places (say Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia for example), probably less... maybe even none. But do we really want that same sort of dramatic event within Islam?

After all, for Christianity, it introduced over 300 years of warfare between Protestant and Catholic, destroyed Europe many times over, and there are still places where vestiges of the warfare linger on.

Do we really want a similar thing to happen across all of the Middle-East, South-West and South-East Asia and the lower parts of Eurasia?

[nvfone]

I agree with all of your points... and it only underscores that technology (in the case we are discussing, the printing press) is a tool that may assist in the widespread distribution of a message, but it is not the message. And text alone is insufficient to create cultural change.

The "95 thesis" may be the key element to the Protestant Reformation, but without the dramatic action of Luthor posting it as he did, it probably would have been ignored.

Islam needs more than a "95 thesis". I'm pretty sure there have already been such thesis written by Islamic clerics. In some places (such as the nations I've noted) those thesis have been given weight. In other places (say Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia for example), probably less... maybe even none. But do we really want that same sort of dramatic event within Islam?

After all, for Christianity, it introduced over 300 years of warfare between Protestant and Catholic, destroyed Europe many times over, and there are still places where vestiges of the warfare linger on.

Do we really want a similar thing to happen across all of the Middle-East, South-West and South-East Asia and the lower parts of Eurasia?



the difference between reformation europe and the middle east is that reformation europe had a common enemy: catholicism. The common enemy for the middle east is the west, which means pretty much the rest of the world, and anti-colonialism isn't unifying them anyway.

the only thing that would unify Islam is something incredibly ugly. I'm still thinking along the lines of a pan-arabic movement. There's an historical precedent: Islam at its inception was exclusively an Arabic religion. If you weren't arabic you weren't allowed to join.

this goes back to an earlier post, and sorry for the repeat, but it bears on this discussion. A racially-motivated ideology that casts one race as superior, rather than one religion as superior, brought Germany out of similar conditions Islam finds itself in today. a major inferiority complex. a forced democracy. rampant militarism in the streets and clashing ideological factions that all looked quite similar to each other on the outside (communism vs. fascism/sunni vs shiite). a foreign occupying power (the french in the Ruhr valley/us in Iraq). a crumbling infrastructure. historically divided kingdoms that had only recently been reorganized and unified--in some places unwillingly--under a common government. a displaced aristocracy with a chip on its shoulder. and a history that could be easily romanticized.

again, that's why I say what we see today is not fascist islam. and I sure wouldn't want to see it, either. the question german historians have raised would be pertinent here: was Hitler inevitable for Germany? could they have entered the modern world without the Nazi experience?

is it possible for Islam?


you're right, it took Luther's action to get the ball rolling, and he remained the figurehead of the movement, despite his best intentions. I don't see a Luther coming out of Islam. Maybe I'm wrong, but that would be better than Hitler.

[nvfone]

addendum:
I'm not saying that a racially driven ideology could arise in Islam. I'm not sure what something like that would look like. But if we're thinking about historical parallels something that would unify Islam and modernize them would have to be either really positive and really complex--like the reformation--and that would bring bloodshed but eventually a peace, or something truly evil and ugly. Hell, for all their bloodshed and tyranny the racial card was what won East Asia and the Western Pacific for Japan during the 30's. sure they were anti-western and had a huge superiority complex. but the major unifying factor was a pan-asian ideology that recognized a spirit in Asia that was "good" and everybody else needed to leave. that's what gets generals, aristocrats, businessmen, AND the common people on your side, and cuts deeper than religion. you'd hope they'd go the martin luther king or mahatma gandhi route, but I don't see that happening either.

we can always hope.

[Greenhat]

the difference between reformation europe and the middle east is that reformation europe had a common enemy: catholicism. The common enemy for the middle east is the west,

Untrue.

the only thing that would unify Islam is something incredibly ugly. I'm still thinking along the lines of a pan-arabic movement. There's an historical precedent: Islam at its inception was exclusively an Arabic religion. If you weren't arabic you weren't allowed to join.

That won't work. The majority of Islam is NOT arabic. The demographics of Islam make a racial solution impossible. Something dramatic would unify them all right.. attacks on Mecca or Medina, or other actions seen by most Muslims that are clearly anti-Islam.

No text.

[Matt_]

Isn't comparing modern Christianity an unfair comparison to modern Islam? I can't seem to remember the last time a Deacon video taped him self hacking someone’s head off with a dull knife or the when was the last time a group of American soldiers corn-holed a prisoner of war?

In regards to "Dieu et mon droit" -God and my right - I'm not certain everything that Christianity has been pegged with historically can be laid entirely at the feet of The Church. If it goes in your society God, the King, than your local government it is quit easy to see how anything can be justified by religion and the King being the earthly representation of God. Were the Conquistadors really trying to further the Glory of God or were they just being 15th-16th century men of action trying to gobble up as much land and gold?

Life has been very cheap for the entire existence of man up until the post WWII era. Our values cannot be compared to the values that American society held just a hundred years ago.

With this sprit in mind I would argue that much of what we perceive to be Islamo-Facisim is more the tribal cultural and societal norms that have guided ME societies for thousands of years.

It's easy to think solely of just the evil that has been done in the name of religion but much more good has been done in its pursuit. Our country, educational institutions, hospitals, and ironically science are all the products of men practicing Christianity.

[SOTB]

Isn't comparing modern Christianity an unfair comparison to modern Islam?Not if you are demonstrating what Islam can become, and showing what Islam is not, today.....I'm not certain everything that Christianity has been pegged with historically can be laid entirely at the feet of The Church.Your choice.Our values cannot be compared to the values that American society held just a hundred years ago.Yes they can. And yes they will be. It is exactly because of those differences -- where there are any -- that the comparisons are made.With this sprit in mind I would argue that much of what we perceive to be Islamo-Facisim is more the tribal cultural and societal norms that have guided ME societies for thousands of years.Mmmm, sorta. Once the mystical stuff is removed, religions are essentially a manner in which common ideas, ethics, and morals are grouped to define the manner in which society should behave. Don't eat pigs (we're not scientifically capable of knowing that parasites are the problem, not the animal), don't kill the cow (hey fucker, that cow can give a whole lot more value to the village alive than what it can bring in just one meal), don't covet your neighbor's wife (which leads to murder, which leads to not enough dudes to protect and serve the village, which leads to the village not surviving) , blah, blah, blah -- all reflect concepts that allow for those societies to survive. Once stripped of the supernatural attachments, Islam is a method to control people -- just like other religions. It is certainly no worse for it's BEGINNINGS, but rather it's inability to evolve.Our country, educational institutions, hospitals, and ironically science are all the products of men practicing Christianity.Really?

[nvfone]

Untrue.



That won't work. The majority of Islam is NOT arabic. The demographics of Islam make a racial solution impossible. Something dramatic would unify them all right.. attacks on Mecca or Medina, or other actions seen by most Muslims that are clearly anti-Islam.

No text.

yeah, I agree. no text.

[Husker19D30]

Our country, educational institutions, hospitals, and ironically science are all the products of men practicing Christianity.

Aristotle and Socrates certainly weren't Christians. Neither was Hippocrates. Thomas Paine was rather famously a deist, and strong evidence indicates that at least Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson shared those religious leanings.

[nvfone]

Untrue

let me put it this way. Other than the basic principles which make Christianity different from Islam different from Hinduism different from Jainism, etc:

the one thing that various religious reformation movements in europe had in common, was anti-catholicism. after that they were all very different.

the thread that I see most unifying the Middle East is anti-westernism, anti-colonialism, anti-americanism, anti-israelism--whatever term you want to use. Of course, it's not a cohesive factor, because after that Islam looks different anywhere you go.


Of course it is very easy to argue that christian reformers all professed a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the divinely inspired nature of biblical scripture, and in the significance of the Christian Church in one way or another. In the Middle East I think it's safe to assume that most Muslims believe that the son of blessing was Ishmael, that Mecca is a holy city, and that Mohammad is the prophet of God. but the contested area for reformation christianity and 20th century Islam is not what defines their religion in a way unique from other religions, but rather what defines their religion from within the borders of its identity as a world religion.

which part of the above do you dispute?


It is possible that all of this conversation is a mute point, that the reality is that European Christianity was only really saved by the discovery and colonization of the New World, and that without that discovery there would not have been a hope in hell for Europe to settle its differences. If that is the case then we might as well wall off the Middle East and let them fight it out until they all kill each other or some uncontested victor emerges.


whatever it is that might emerge to unify Islam I have my doubts that it will happen until the revenues that are enjoyed from the oil industries dry up. After that, I see it becoming a fucking free for all over there (although possibly in the west as well), and you never know if even an Arabo-centric movement might emerge from the malaise. as crazy as it sounds, Hitler taking over Europe and Japan ruling East Asia sounded pretty damn crazy to a lot of people too...until it happened.

[nvfone]

Our country, educational institutions, hospitals, and ironically science are all the products of men practicing Christianity.

Aristotle and Socrates certainly weren't Christians. Neither was Hippocrates. Thomas Paine was rather famously a deist, and strong evidence indicates that at least Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson shared those religious leanings.


nor were the Islamic mathematicians who developed algebra Christians.

but I do agree that science as we know it was a system developed by Christian Europeans for the resolution of questions of natural philosophy that were threatening England at the time. Sir Francis Bacon's Christianity is in dispute, but I for one believe in it. Nobody disputes Sir Isaac Newton's Christianity, nor that of Sir Robert Boyle.

as for the founding fathers, Ben Franklin was no more a Christian believer than was Vladimir Lenin.

[Matt_]

SOTB Wrote: Really?

Husker19D30 Wrote: Aristotle and Socrates certainly weren't Christians. Neither was Hippocrates. Thomas Paine was rather famously a deist, and strong evidence indicates that at least Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson shared those religious leanings.

nvfone Wrote: nor were the Islamic mathematicians who developed algebra Christians.


Guys if you string the time line out long enough and nit pick that one individual along the way was agnostic or atheistic or dietis or whatever you're missing the point.

I live in America so the contexts of my post are in regard to America and it's foundings and what was going on in the world immediately before it's founding and the frame work in which society operated at that time. So basically my posts are in regards to what was happening in the world immediately pre-magna carta forward.

I had a really long post wrote out but instead I'm just going to post up links supporting my view that you can read if you like.:smile:



Hospitals: Scroll down to History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital)

The Founding Fathers: Scroll down to religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Delegates_wh o_signed)

Universities: You can read about "Early Universities" i.e. Islamic Universities or just scroll down to the second paragraph of Medieval Universities which is more pertinent to my train of thought. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)

[nvfone]

Isn't comparing modern Christianity an unfair comparison to modern Islam? I can't seem to remember the last time a Deacon video taped him self hacking someone’s head off with a dull knife or the when was the last time a group of American soldiers corn-holed a prisoner of war?

"Modern Christianity" may look pretty tame compared to modern Islam, but seventeenth century Christianity was not by any means. the Thirty Years War was one of the most brutal experiences in European history. and I'm thinking if I had to go violently, I'd rather be beheaded then burned at the stake, which was the method of choice for Christianity to rid itself of undesirables. Or try being drawn and quartered. talk about gruesome. Germans in the Thirty Years War believed that prisoners would not tell the truth UNLESS they were tortured. It's pretty hard to imagine torturing five year old children to get them to tell the truth, but there are records of that very thing.

so if by "modern" you mean "contemporary" then no, I don't see many correspondances between today's Islam and today's Christianity. but go back 200-500 years and you have a radically different view of Christianity.

what changed the West was not Christianity, but an Enlightenment-based humanism that placed a higher value on any human life than on God or religion.

[Matt_]

"Modern Christianity" may look pretty tame compared to modern Islam, but seventeenth century Christianity was not by any means. the Thirty Years War was one of the most brutal experiences in European history. and I'm thinking if I had to go violently, I'd rather be beheaded then burned at the stake, which was the method of choice for Christianity to rid itself of undesirables. Or try being drawn and quartered. talk about gruesome. Germans in the Thirty Years War believed that prisoners would not tell the truth UNLESS they were tortured. It's pretty hard to imagine torturing five year old children to get them to tell the truth, but there are records of that very thing.

so if by "modern" you mean "contemporary" then no, I don't see many correspondances between today's Islam and today's Christianity. but go back 200-500 years and you have a radically different view of Christianity.

what changed the West was not Christianity, but an Enlightenment-based humanism that placed a higher value on any human life than on God or religion.



Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[nvfone]

Guys if you string the time line out long enough and nit pick that one individual along the way was agnostic or atheistic or dietis or whatever you're missing the point.

I live in America so the contexts of my post are in regard to America and it's foundings and what was going on in the world immediately before it's founding and the frame work in which society operated at that time. So basically my posts are in regards to what was happening in the world immediately pre-magna carta forward.

I had a really long post wrote out but instead I'm just going to post up links supporting my view that you can read if you like.

Dude, the magna carta was in 1215. that's hardly immediately before the founding of the US.

as for the wiki entries, it seems to me that the section on "religion" for the founding father entry supports an argument that a significant represention of the most influential of the founding fathers were antagonistic in one way or another to Christianity as a formal religion.

"Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin."
-wikipedia entry on founding fathers of the US


Speaking of universities, Jefferson founded the University of Virginia in order to offer a secularized education as an alternative to the Christianity of the Ivy League schools. UVa was the model for almost every other major state-funded university in part because it is secular, not Christian.

The majority of advances that you seem to want to say are Christian are the results of Enlightenment thought, not religious thought.

[nvfone]

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

sorry didn't see this....

[smoked]

as for the founding fathers, Ben Franklin was no more a Christian believer than was Vladimir Lenin.

While he may not have a Christian, he was absolutely a theist:

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see."

--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790

[smoked]

...as for the wiki entries, it seems to me that the section on "religion" for the founding father entry supports an argument that a significant represention of the most influential of the founding fathers were antagonistic in one way or another to Christianity as a formal religion.

"Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin."
-wikipedia entry on founding fathers of the US


Speaking of universities, Jefferson founded the University of Virginia in order to offer a secularized education as an alternative to the Christianity of the Ivy League schools. UVa was the model for almost every other major state-funded university in part because it is secular, not Christian.

The majority of advances that you seem to want to say are Christian are the results of Enlightenment thought, not religious thought.

Critical points. Nearly half the founders had seminary/theology degrees.

More from our founders:

George Washington

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

John Hancock

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

[Matt_]

Dude, the magna carta was in 1215. that's hardly immediately before the founding of the US.

I start there because it is the orgin in my view that the gov't has a responsibility to the governed, i.e. Democracy.

as for the wiki entries, it seems to me that the section on "religion" for the founding father entry supports an argument that a significant represention of the most influential of the founding fathers were antagonistic in one way or another to Christianity as a formal religion.

"Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin."
-wikipedia entry on founding fathers of the US



Well of the 40+ recognized founders, maybe five were not all out Christians. I think it would be a difficult position to say Jefferson was more influential than Madison or Franklin had more of a hand in the revolution than Patrick Henry.

Speaking of universities, Jefferson founded the University of Virginia in order to offer a secularized education as an alternative to the Christianity of the Ivy League schools. UVa was the model for almost every other major state-funded university in part because it is secular, not Christian.

UNC at Chapel Hill is the oldest State University and The University of Georgia is the nations oldest public university.

The Colonial colleges - Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Rutgers, and Dartmouth ( in order of founding date ) only Princeton had no religious affiliations although at one time it did have close ties to The Presbyterian church.

The majority of advances that you seem to want to say are Christian are the results of Enlightenment thought, not religious thought.

I agree which is why I said in my post a while back Christianity "ironically" brought about the change or institutions.

[nvfone]

Critical points. Nearly half the founders had seminary/theology degrees.

More from our founders:

George Washington

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

John Hancock

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

thanks for the quotations. always good to read the original words of any of those great men.

the common theme that I read in these quotations is a gleaning from Christianity of a set of virtues that are not always discernable in churches or in the moralizations of many Christian apologists or polical pundits. They do not represent a dogmatic position of Christian theology but a Humanistic appreciation of Christianity.

I interpret the fine point of Christianity's part in the founding of the US like this: While many of the founding fathers were devout church-going Christians, many were not. However, those who were not (and those who were not had an equally remarkable influence on the direction of the nation) nonetheless maintained an appreciation for Christianity that was unique and sincere. Does that make the founding fathers "practicing" Christians as Matt's original comment stated? I don't know...how do we define practicing?


One of the questions of this thread is whether or not the same principles that John Adams lists in his first quotation above can be found in the texts of Islam. Of course they can be, but todays environment has made reading the Qu'ran without picking up on the negative parts challenging. the same was true of 16th and 17th Century Europe. I maintain that without the Enlightenment experience Christian Europe would not have found the principles that Adams enumerates, but would continue to be awash in the arguments of dogmatic theology that plagued it in the the centuries of "the Religious Wars". It is only after the Enlightenment that the work of Adams, Washington, and all of the others could have made these "Christian" truths apparent to the world.

I've only read fragments of the Qu'ran. I remember feeling some excitment about it, but it's threats and scare tactics turned me off and I put it away. I feel for people who are struggling to come to terms with that book, just like I feel for people who are struggling to come to terms with the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. those are difficult books to read and feel love, charity, and peace, let alone freedom. but I do believe that the principles of love and truth are at the core of it or else it would not exert such a powerful influence on the world.

IMO the Middle East could definately use a break from the Qu'ran for a while like Europe took a break from the Bible in the 18th Century.

[Matt_]

nvfone, great post.

I really think we are all talking about the same thing just different parts of the conversational specture.

Religion and Government has taken hundreds of years to part in the western world, which again is why I start at magna carta, and I think, we all think, the Islamic world may be better off to start considering about how it wants to be governed in the future if it isn't already. Any line of thinking away from Sharia law will take hundreds of years for it to permeate through ME Islamic soceities. It may also be that the current norms will continue to be the different societies desires. Et al Hezballah being democratically elected in Palastine. Either way for the forseeable future I think Kipling said it best "Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old."

[smp52]

This is an interesting article (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/14/when_jesus_met_buddha/?page=full)....history of Christianity with respect to Asia and co-existence with Buddhism.

I thought this was a neat reference in the article:


Consider the story told by Timothy, a patriarch of the Nestorian church. Around 800, he engaged in a famous debate with the Muslim caliph in Baghdad, a discussion marked by reason and civility on both sides. Imagine, Timothy said, that we are all in a dark house, and someone throws a precious pearl in the midst of a pile of ordinary stones. Everyone scrabbles for the pearl, and some think they've found it, but nobody can be sure until day breaks.

In the same way, he said, the pearl of true faith and wisdom had fallen into the darkness of this transitory world; each faith believed that it alone had found the pearl. Yet all he could claim - and all the caliph could say in response - was that some faiths thought they had enough evidence to prove that they were indeed holding the real pearl, but the final truth would not be known in this world.

[smp52]

Kipling said it best "Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old."

Kipling was good writer, but quite a bigot when it came down to his personal views that were colored with British Imperialism. Either way, I think people underestimate how "uncivilized" the west can potentially be. Being modern or western has nothing to do with fundamental civility. Nazi Germany was technologically as advanced as any nation at it's peak, yet under the veneer of the modern outlook, primitive forces and bigotry still drove it to genocide and war, resulting in millions dead.

Man - western, middle eastern, south asian, east asian, etc. all are very, very capable of being uncivilized. I think our founding fathers understood this very well when creating the structure of our republic, else why worry about having a second amendment? Or forbidding a state religion?

[Greenhat]

most unifying the Middle East is anti-westernism, anti-colonialism, anti-americanism, anti-israelism--

This is the part I dispute. The Middle East is in no way unified except maybe by OPEC... which is about how they can make money from that black stuff that they float on.

[SOTB]

This is the part I dispute. The Middle East is in no way unified except maybe by OPEC... which is about how they can make money from that black stuff that they float on.Ditto.

The "Arab Street" that people purport to be such a big deal is made up of a group of countries that have oil, but who readily buttfuck each other on quotas; a group of countries who don't have oil, but get around that by keeping their populations in abject poverty while the leaders roll around in style; the Palestinians, which don't really have a home and none of the Arab countries wants their asses in their territory but enjoy the excuse to take a shot at Israel; Iran, who is not Arab but wants to be the shining example of the ME and if they can't be the one that others emulate they will be happy with killing those who aren't impressed. Most of these countries are readily for sale, that is their leadership will suck our cocks live on Al Jazeera if we pay them enough.

The one thing that these countries all have in common is that they are shitty crapholes that are in the vicinity (some more than others) of stuff the rest of the world needs. They hate each other as much as they hate anyone else.

Commonality of religious beliefs? Not that much....

[Chaplain]

Religion and Government has taken hundreds of years to part in the western world, which again is why I start at magna carta, and I think, we all think, the Islamic world may be better off to start considering about how it wants to be governed in the future if it isn't already. Any line of thinking away from Sharia law will take hundreds of years for it to permeate through ME Islamic soceities."[/I]

Actually, religion and government have not been separated completely in the western world. In Germany, if you want to be a Lutheran minister, you apply thru the state and attend a state-run seminary, and then the state assigns you a church. The state also requires "religious education" in the public schools. The U.S. has the greatest level of separation because many of its founders were reacting to the European problems they had recently escaped and were consciously trying to free religion from government influence.

Islam has not had a similar history where some "Pilgrams" (more technically, Puritan Separatists) got fed up with not being able to practice their religion and fled to the New World. While there are places in the world where Islam is functioning quite nicely under a mostly secular government, such as Indonesia or India, these may be viewed as "not real Muslims" by the hard-liners in the Middle East. There will be no drift away from wanting Sharia law for the hard-liners, even in hundreds of years, as long as they see the imposition of Sharia law as the solution to the problem of some Muslims not taking their religion seriously (ie. not as fanatic as I am) and the "corruption" coming from the Western cultures. While it is fortunate that the ME Muslims are not the majority, it certainly doesn't stop them from being a huge threat to peace around the world. I would not expect the Muslims from more stable, secular governments to rally to the Jihad or to any unified caliphate (unless we do something stupid like nuke Mecca and Medina!), but they are not likely to convert the hard-liners over to a more moderate view of Islam, either.

[T-Rock]

... there are places in the world where Islam is functioning quite nicely under a mostly secular government, such as Indonesia or India...

Quite nicely for who?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/indonesia605/sharia.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/02/asia/AS-FEA-GEN-Indonesia-Moderate-Islam-Under-Fire.php

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12098&size=A

[Greenhat]

Considering that I very recently was in Indonesia, I can state without any question that none of those three articles is accurate. I'm tempted to say they are nonsense, but there is just enough truth spun that I can't say that.

[T-Rock]

Considering that I very recently was in Indonesia, I can state without any question that none of those three articles is accurate. I'm tempted to say they are nonsense, but there is just enough truth spun that I can't say that.

I sincerely hope you’re right Sir. Since I’ve never been there, and when I see polls such as these:
24 Jun 2008

…52 per cent favoured some form of Islamic legal code…

…Indonesia has traditionally practised a tolerant brand of Islam, although there are some trying to pull the country in a more conservative direction.
The government was recently forced to ban an unorthodox Muslim sect by violent street protests staged by hardline groups…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/2187933/Indonesia-backs-sharia-law%2C-poll-shows.html

And documentaries like these:
This conflict between Indonesia’s long tradition of tolerance, and the dramatic rise of fundamentalist forces, makes Indonesia a unique battleground in the war of ideas over how Islam should be understood – the frontline in what is becoming the most critical conflict of our age
(interesting interview below with Abul Bakar Bashir)

http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_indonesia.html

Makes me wonder and leads me to believe otherwise? :confused:

I don’t get out too much :biggrin:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakar_Bashir

[Greenhat]

Abu Baker Bashir wasn't elected President and I think you'd have a hard time finding many Indonesians who see him as representing them. Quoting him is like quoting Louis Farrakhan and claiming it is representative of the United States.

[SOTB]

Shirwa Ahmed was one of five suicide bombers who killed himself and 29 others last October in northern Somalia.
He is also a Minnesotan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.Apparently, the DHS and the FBI aren't in agreement (if one were to believe the newsbites) as to the probability that homegrown Islamic terrorism will occur on our shores.

But what if the current economic plight severely crimped the ability of our newfound immigrant friends from places like "Somalia" to be happy and productive members of our society? Doesn't that essentially set up the scenario that the Londoners suffered with their attacks? As in unhappy and non-integrated Muslims recruited to do uncool acts (Although in those cases, weren't the attackers English-born? I don't know and should Google to find out.)?

Me? I think we are going to regret our open arms....

FBI (http://kstp.com/news/stories/S801854.shtml?cat=206)

DHS (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/23/dhs-chances-home-grown-attack-low/)

[Blackjack78]

Apparently, the DHS and the FBI aren't in agreement (if one were to believe the newsbites) as to the probability that homegrown Islamic terrorism will occur on our shores.

But what if the current economic plight severely crimped the ability of our newfound immigrant friends from places like "Somalia" to be happy and productive members of our society? Doesn't that essentially set up the scenario that the Londoners suffered with their attacks? As in unhappy and non-integrated Muslims recruited to do uncool acts (Although in those cases, weren't the attackers English-born? I don't know and should Google to find out.)?

Me? I think we are going to regret our open arms....

FBI (http://kstp.com/news/stories/S801854.shtml?cat=206)

DHS (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/23/dhs-chances-home-grown-attack-low/)

SOTB,

The dudes/dudettes from DHS should find a new job. IMHO homegrown are our biggest threats.........my dos centavos.

[SOTB]

IMHO homegrown are our biggest threats.........my dos centavos.Ditto. Although to be fair, I don't think it will all come from Islamic motivations -- I don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't go down that road.

But yeah, sadly I think you are very much correct.

Fuckers better not hit Disney World until after June!:smile:

[Blackjack78]

Ditto. Although to be fair, I don't think it will all come from Islamic motivations -- I don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't go down that road.

But yeah, sadly I think you are very much correct.

Fuckers better not hit Disney World until after June!:smile:

I'll put the word out...................I know how you and the family feel about that magical place:).