Better Rethink that Trip to Somalia, Folks!

[yall]

I'm not sure what you're having difficulty understanding.  While Christianity may have a stronghold on certain populaces (meaning the majority of citizens are believers), they don't control governments or policy ANYWHERE in the manner they used to OR Islam does NOW.  You may believe that's because of the some kind of reform.  I don't.

 

I have little doubt if the Christians were ever to gain such control again (like the Muslims have in Iran as one example), it wouldn't take more than a couple of generations before they started going off the deep end again.

859810[/snapback]

 

"In the manner Islam does now" is exactly what we are talking about here.

 

Yes I would agree that with that clause in place what you have said is a true statement. Take that qualification out and we could argue semantics for days on end.

 

But again it's off topic. Islam's take on individual and human rights is a problem and something needs to be done. I'm hoping it comes from within, as people tend not to like having their belief trampled on by outsiders.

[Bungee Jumper]

No women on the beaches isn't nearly the worst of it!

859360[/snapback]

 

Of course, lost in all this is the fact that Somalia's a pit that's largely unrepresentative of Islam anyway...this is less an indictment of Islam than it is of one moron saying "I'm Islamic and I have power, so Allah says I can do whatever the !@#$ I want."

[yall]

Of course, lost in all this is the fact that Somalia's a pit that's largely unrepresentative of Islam anyway...this is less an indictment of Islam than it is of one moron saying "I'm Islamic and I have power, so Allah says I can do whatever the !@#$ I want."

859827[/snapback]

 

It goes well beyond just "one moron" and is indicative of a mentality that values the teachings of a violent criminal over human life and freedom. It may not represent all of Islam and certainly not all Muslims....just as a moderate Christian can choose to ignore the nasty bits of the Bible, a Muslim may do the same. But waaaaay to many of them are not moderate, and that is a genuine problem.

[Chilly]

I think AD's point is a valid one.

 

The first question that needs to be answered is that exactly what reform made it where Christianity no longer did the things that they did. Was it a reform of the system or the religion?

 

Ultimately, I would have to say that it is the system. Inherent in any religion known to man kind is a need to convert people to that religion.

 

For example, during the civil war, one of the arguments in the South was that slavery was a good thing. Sure, slaves might not have that good of a life on Earth, but if they hadn't been slaves, they would surely be going to hell. Slavery is good for the soul.

 

The need to have people convert to your religion is overwhelming, and lots of people feel that it is their life's work to do so.

 

If we continued to have a system in which power was not checked, it would be the case that when one person makes this their life's work and their legacy, they would stop at nothing to make sure that it gets done. Use of oppression for non-believers would be rampant.

 

I'm sure that most Christians would say the tactics involved would be the wrong way to go about it. However, at that point it doesn't matter. A person believes in their version of Christianity and their calling, and the ends justify the means. In this case, since they have a wide variety of options available to them, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is an appropriate phrase.

 

Christianity would, in this case, be viewed as violent oppressors, even if the majority of Christians in the country did not agree with the means. The country couldn't do anything about it, and the leaders, who are viewed as the representatives, continue to go against the mainstream and distort the religion.

 

Separation of church and state as well as checks of power in American Democracy helped to make sure that this wasn't the case with Christianity or any religion in this country anymore.

 

It was a direct parallel to the middle east though. The extremists have control of the governments over there and pander to their own kind. The peaceful Muslims can't do jack squat about it either.

 

The rest of the world sees this extreme example and labels Islam as a violent religion, whether or not that is actually currently true. History aside, religion evolves over the years, and religion today isn't the same as it was in time past. To judge a religion as violent solely on extremist reactions and/or history is to not look at the whole picture.

 

Its telling that RkFast would use a quote from al-Qaeda's strategy in referencing the Muslim religion. This is taking an extremist group and labeling them as representatives of the whole religion, when they aren't.

 

Any religion will attempt to convert many people as they can. Since religion isn't the same for each individual, some people will always have radical ideas about what should be accomplished. When more "extremist" pre-dispositions are combined with absolute power, they are easily corruptable given the opportunities to oppress as a punishment for a lack of conversion. People then use the leaders with power as representatives of the religion as a whole, thus giving a distorted picture of what actually happens.

[Alaska Darin]

"In the manner Islam does now" is exactly what we are talking about here.

What you're inferring is not what I meant by the phrase.

Yes I would agree that with that clause in place what you have said is a true statement. Take that qualification out and we could argue semantics for days on end.

Ok.

But again it's off topic. Islam's take on individual and human rights is a problem and something needs to be done. I'm hoping it comes from within, as people tend not to like having their belief trampled on by outsiders.

859826[/snapback]

Christians have changed their stance on the same things as they've lost more and more of their base. It's all about closing the deal.

[yall]

What you're inferring is not what I meant by the phrase.

 

Ok.

 

Christians have changed their stance on the same things as they've lost more and more of their base.  It's all about closing the deal.

859844[/snapback]

 

I hate multi-quotes so BlueFire you are first:

 

I completely understand the point of your post, but it doesn't address the current problem at had which is that Islam does not only have a disproportionate number of extremists, but that they are generally the ones in control. They control the education and subsequently breed more of their own.

 

Where I'm going with this is: what can be done? I'm not advocating that Islam be eliminated (and I'm pretty sure it could not be done anyway). But the problem still exists. Ignoring it will do very little. Over time, as more extremists represent the religion it will be in a phase of greater conflict with other cultures, nations, and religions and the violence will not only continue, but increase.

 

AD: Islam seems to be growing just fine despite it's not-so-foward thinking approach. Where is the incentive to become more moderate if the current plan is generating "membership"?

 

With regard to the "What you're inferring is not what I meant by the phrase." part, I'm not sure what I was supposed to infer by it. It seemed as though you were stating that the current course of Islam was similar to other belief systems in the past where the religion controlled the population, but now that control has wained. I WOULD consider that reform or at least progress. Perhaps I misunderstood...

[Alaska Darin]

AD: Islam seems to be growing just fine despite it's not-so-foward thinking approach. Where is the incentive to become more moderate if the current plan is generating "membership"?

Until they run out of third world countries to recruit from. Islam, like just about every other movement, will eventually implode on itself. The more they attempt to control, the more tenuous the grasp of the hard liners will become. Happens with virtually every entity, regardless of the endeavor.

With regard to the "What you're inferring is not what I meant by the phrase." part, I'm not sure what I was supposed to infer by it. It seemed as though you were stating that the current course of Islam was similar to other belief systems in the past where the religion controlled the population, but now that control has wained. I WOULD consider that reform or at least progress. Perhaps I misunderstood...

859872[/snapback]

I guess you could call it progress (I'd say you did a better job understanding me than I did you). I look at it as the inevitable consequence of endeavor. Islam is just the latest in a long line of "religions" taking their turn in the box. They'll eventually find their place - which will be nowhere near the top of the food chain, especially once their poor figure out all the bluster ain't making their lives any better.

[yall]

The more they attempt to control, the more tenuous the grasp of the hard liners will become. 

859884[/snapback]

 

Why can I think of nothing other than Princess Liea (sp?) when I read that?

[Chilly]

I completely understand the point of your post, but it doesn't address the current problem at had which is that Islam does not only have a disproportionate number of extremists, but that they are generally the ones in control. They control the education and subsequently breed more of their own.

 

Part of my point is that the extremists are generally in control, which gives the appearance of there being a "disproportionate number of extremists".

 

Sure, control will tend to breed more extremists, but saying that there is a "disproportionate number of extremists" is trying to interpret too much.

 

In order to determine whether there actually is a disproportionate amount you can't compare the Islam of today with Christianity of today. You'd have to compare the numbers of extremists claiming to be Muslims with the numbers of extremists that existed in a similar situation. The only parallel that I could think of there with Christianity would perhaps be during the time of the crusades.

 

To my knowledge no one has made that comparison.

 

Where I'm going with this is: what can be done? I'm not advocating that Islam be eliminated (and I'm pretty sure it could not be done anyway). But the problem still exists. Ignoring it will do very little. Over time, as more extremists represent the religion it will be in a phase of greater conflict with other cultures, nations, and religions and the violence will not only continue, but increase.

859872[/snapback]

 

I don't know. I don't think anyone knows, which is what a big part of the problem is.

 

If you look at how it happened with Christianity, it was in large part due to the expansion to the New World. Conflicting branches of Christianity escaped to America because it allowed for them a way to start over without being oppressed. In order to resolve these differences, the separation of church and state was necessary to make sure not one single religion took control.

 

Looking at the middle east, one of the problems is that, from my understanding, most people are not opposed to having Islam as the official religion and have it play an active role in government. This gives the religion power and sets the stage for the abuse of that power as a means to religious goals.

 

It involves changing the whole culture to separate government leaders from religious leaders. But how the hell do you change something thats so ingrained into everyday life, especially when you are not part of that culture?

 

It worked for America because America gave the opportunity to start a brand new culture and way of doing things. This spread to the areas where the culture, which was rejected by the Americans, originated from.

 

How can you get a group of people in the middle east to change their culture, especially if its being forced upon by people who are viewed as outsiders?

 

Beats the hell out of me. I think that they will have to reject it themselves, and that our efforts will be moot until they do so.

[X. Benedict]

It seems to me that hatred of religion is a pathology almost as dangerous as simplistic notions of God.

 

Nearly every stream of religion (not every denomination, however) - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. began as a counter to violence or the injustice of its day, and in some way practiced (and still do) their own brand of social justice or compassion for the dispossessed.

 

Blaming wars on Religion - or claiming that Religion is the main cause of war seems to ignore that for the last 2 millennium the tribe, ethnicity, or nation state has had a much more cohesive role to play in conflicts than religion.

 

Religion's role in the propagation of war, however can't be ignored either. God is invoked on every side of every conflict - but to what end? Rarely have doctrinal issues been a casus belli in most enduring conflicts, but sectarian differences often break down on religious lines.

 

Counterbalancing any radical or fundamentalist stream in most religions is a mystical tradition that eschews literal understandings. Sensibilities, that one could call religious seem to mitigate options for total war in the same way Koresh prevents me from gloating after I skull !@#$ my enemies.

[Chilly]

I don't think anyone is saying that religion itself starts wars. Obviously, people are needed to make it happen.

 

What I do think, though, is that using oppression and power to obtain false religious ends is a cause of lots of conflicts. The state and control of resources is in the hands of people who do this, and thus it happens.

[X. Benedict]

I don't think anyone is saying that religion itself starts wars.  Obviously, people are needed to make it happen.

 

What I do think, though, is that using oppression and power to obtain false religious ends is a cause of lots of conflicts.  The state and control of resources is in the hands of people who do this, and thus it happens.

859934[/snapback]

 

It happens. But isolationism is also a characteristic of American religious thought, and many types of Buddhism. Religion is contextual - whether it is used for propaganda or restraint.

[yall]

Nearly every stream of religion (not every denomination, however) - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. began as a counter to violence or the injustice of its day, and in some way practiced (and still do) their own brand of social justice or compassion for the dispossessed.

 

 

859929[/snapback]

 

Given the history of Islam, I'd have to disagree with your inclusion of it in that assertion.

 

Mohammed claimed to receive messages from Gabriel at a point in his life where he was a modestly successful trader. From what I know, this wasn't a counter action to any injustice percieved or otherwise. I can't begin to say he did or did not speak with an angel, but there is no evidence to support your claim that the religion was founded as a reaction to violence or oppression.

 

The first bit of conflict seems to have come when Mohammed was telling the Meccan's that their god's were false and they apparently didn't care for that. He got scared, fled to Medinia and got together some worshippers.

 

He was pretty pissed at the way he was treated in Mecca and plotted revenge against them while slowly gaing power in Medina. While in Medina he preached tolerance but the proclaimed jews should be killed as they openly began to call him out about his contradictory teachings. So, he had all the jews in medina killed. Swell guy.

 

All the while he was organizing raids on Meccan caravans, of which he supposedly led a great number. Then there were some peace treaties with the Meccans to allow the pilgrimage (which was a pagan tradiotn prior to Mohammed incorporating it into Islam... wow, just like Christmas! Nice!) but then once he was powerful enough, he broke the treaty and was basically in control of most Arab tribe. Then he died.

[Bungee Jumper]

Given the history of Islam, I'd have to disagree with your inclusion of it in that assertion.

 

Mohammed claimed to receive messages from Gabriel at a point in his life where he was a modestly successful trader. From what I know, this wasn't a counter action to any injustice percieved or otherwise. I can't begin to say he did or did not speak with an angel, but there is no evidence to support your claim that the religion was founded as a reaction to violence or oppression.

 

The first bit of conflict seems to have come when Mohammed was telling the Meccan's that their god's were false and they apparently didn't care for that. He got scared, fled to Medinia and got together some worshippers.

 

He was pretty pissed at the way he was treated in Mecca and plotted revenge against them while slowly gaing power in Medina. While in Medina he preached tolerance but the proclaimed jews should be killed as they openly began to call him out about his contradictory teachings. So, he had all the jews in medina killed. Swell guy.

 

All the while he was organizing raids on Meccan caravans, of which he supposedly led a great number. Then there were some peace treaties with the Meccans to allow the pilgrimage (which was a pagan tradiotn prior to Mohammed incorporating it into Islam... wow, just like Christmas! Nice!) but then once he was powerful enough, he broke the treaty and was basically in control of most Arab tribe. Then he died.

859975[/snapback]

 

Not quite true. Sort of...but some important details are wrong (most particularly, you're neglecting the tribal considerations that came in to play; most of what determined who Mohammed fought with and against was based on tribal rather than religious considerations, including the Medina Jews, who just happened to align themselves with the wrong Meccans).

 

I'll post more on it when I get home from work.

[yall]

I'll post more on it when I get home from work.

859979[/snapback]

 

Please do, as this type of info is pretty hard to unearth (or at least versions that aren't completely tainted).

[Bungee Jumper]

Please do, as this type of info is pretty hard to unearth (or at least versions that aren't completely tainted).

859982[/snapback]

 

The Arabs didn't keep very good records (again...tribal desert people. Didn't write much). A lot of the history comes from writings of the Abbasid Caliphite...who were Persian and pretty much hated the Arab Omayyid Caliphs (which is why they revolted and took over the Caliphite). So even the earliest written histories are understandably tainted.

 

They're also tough to read. Omar's killing Ali, who killed Omar, who killed Ali al-Musaf, who killed Musaf al-Omar, which upset Omar al-Ali. It gets just a little monotonous after a while...

[bills_fan]

If you look at how it happened with Christianity, it was in large part due to the expansion to the New World. Conflicting branches of Christianity escaped to America because it allowed for them a way to start over without being oppressed. In order to resolve these differences, the separation of church and state was necessary to make sure not one single religion took control.

 

Based on my understanding, Christianity began to lose its absolute hold over people around the time of the Enlightenment in Europe. As the feudal lands were broken up and sold off, more and more people became educated. Through education, people read the texts on their own (never permitted before) and formulated their own ideas and judgements. This eventually led to the secularization of governing nations and a separation between church and state.

 

America and the New World enabled those persecuted to start anew, and a completely secular republic was formed, with certain freedoms granted to all...a direct product of the questions raised during the enlightenment.

 

So, I guess perhaps the question ought to be how many Muslims in the middle east are well educated? As education was the foundation of knowledge and logical reasoning that eventually brought down Christianity's vice grip on the old world. That may feed into the theory that discontentment, poverty and lack of education are feeding the particular violent strain of Islam.

[yall]

They're also tough to read.  Omar's killing Ali, who killed Omar, who killed Ali al-Musaf, who killed Musaf al-Omar, which upset Omar al-Ali.  It gets just a little monotonous after a while...

859986[/snapback]

 

No stevestojan.

 

Cultural thing maybe, but the names do get confusing.

[Bungee Jumper]

No stevestojan. 

 

Cultural thing maybe, but the names do get confusing.

859994[/snapback]

 

It's a cultural thing. Same reason why The Brothers Karamazov is unreadable to a non-Russian, with Fyodor Pavlovich and Dmitri Fyodorovich and Ivan Fyodorovich and Alexei Fyodorovich and Pavel Fyodorovich...

[X. Benedict]

It's a cultural thing.  Same reason why The Brothers Karamazov is unreadable to a non-Russian, with Fyodor Pavlovich and Dmitri Fyodorovich and Ivan Fyodorovich and Alexei Fyodorovich and  Pavel Fyodorovich... 

859997[/snapback]

 

Shouldn't there be a goal at the end of that sequence?