|
A Muslim terror attack on a factory near Grenobel, France, has killed by decapitation one person and left several others injured, the BBC reports.
Adding more once sources come in.
On June 26 2015 18:31 Grettin wrote: One arrested. Apparently carried Islamic flag (IS flag?) Source: AFP
On June 26 2015 20:22 VelJa wrote: UPDATE
Name of the Terrorist : Yassim Salhi, He was already known by the DGSI
Source : Speech of Bernard Cazeneuve, French Minister of the Interior
|
Religion of peace boys
User was warned for this post
|
One arrested. Apparently carried Islamic flag (IS flag?)
|
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
|
On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys
I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid.
|
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. because it is all too easy to bury your head in the sand and say "not all muslims are terrorists" as if that will make the problem go away. the issue is that many of these terrorists ARE muslim and importantly, use islam or their interpretation of it to justify their actions
|
|
On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid.
How dare he suggest that because Muslims kill non-Muslims because the Prophet of Islam tells them so in the holy book of Islam, somehow Islam is at fault? How racist and ignorant of him.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 26 2015 19:28 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. How dare he suggest that because Muslims kill non-Muslims because the Prophet of Islam tells them so in the holy book of Islam, somehow Islam is at fault? How racist and ignorant of him.
If Islam would be the actual problem, Germany with its giant turkish Population would burn like a christmas tree.
|
On June 26 2015 19:30 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:28 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. How dare he suggest that because Muslims kill non-Muslims because the Prophet of Islam tells them so in the holy book of Islam, somehow Islam is at fault? How racist and ignorant of him. If Islam would be the actual problem, Germany with its giant turkish Population would burn like a christmas tree.
German Turks are usually about as Muslim as the Pope.
|
On June 26 2015 19:30 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:28 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. How dare he suggest that because Muslims kill non-Muslims because the Prophet of Islam tells them so in the holy book of Islam, somehow Islam is at fault? How racist and ignorant of him. If Islam would be the actual problem, Germany with its giant turkish Population would burn like a christmas tree.
No. Turks are not religious at all.
|
Oh, we are allready at the "they are Muslims, they define themselves as Muslim, but for me they are not Muslim enough" Argument? That was quick.
Please - go on...
I'm sure reading your stuff about this topic will be exciting in more ways than i can even imagine at this point.
|
This is so sad
On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid.
It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made.
|
On June 26 2015 19:39 Velr wrote: Oh, we are allready at the "they are Muslims, they define themselves as Muslim, but for me they are not Muslim enough" Argument? That was quick.
Please - go on...
I'm sure reading your stuff about this topic will be exciting in more ways than i can even imagine at this point.
Would you call a white person of Christian parents who hasn't seen the inside of a church in ages, who doesn't believe in a theistic god, who doesn't adhere to religious rituals and who barely even celebrates Christmas a Christian?
|
On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid.
France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims.
|
On June 26 2015 19:48 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:39 Velr wrote: Oh, we are allready at the "they are Muslims, they define themselves as Muslim, but for me they are not Muslim enough" Argument? That was quick.
Please - go on...
I'm sure reading your stuff about this topic will be exciting in more ways than i can even imagine at this point. Would you call a white person of Christian parents who hasn't seen the inside of a church in ages, who doesn't believe in a theistic god, who doesn't adhere to religious rituals and who barely even celebrates Christmas a Christian? Dat straw man. There a re still a lot of practisign muslims in germany, also among the Turks. And just ask them if they see themselves as Muslim. Most will answer with yes.
|
On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims.
Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ?
User was warned for this post
|
|
On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made.
I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for.
If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection.
And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable.
|
On June 26 2015 19:58 VelJa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims. Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ?
You must be an excellent human being
|
[off topic]For me, the problems is religions, all of them, not only muslim ... I just can't understand why people trust a book written ages ago I mean come on ... [/off topic]
Workers are still confined in the factory Source RMC radio
The head found was probably the head of the truck driver. This guy was apparently the ostage of the Terrorist Source LeMonde.fr / RMC radio
|
On June 26 2015 20:00 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:58 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims. Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ? You must be an excellent human being Yes, I am. Awesome as fuck Now can you answer please ?
|
On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. He did not defend much, he said it is a harmful comment to make. And that is indeed true, what is the point of labeling all Muslims as terrorists, or trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion? Do you want to ban it? Do you want to tell peaceful Muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they have to be violent to be "real" Muslims? Do you want to round them all up? What is the end game here? I dont see how hightening tensions/ divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims is helpful in any way. That is only doing the terrorists job for them, because that is exactly what they want to achieve.
|
On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable.
There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities.
+ Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3
|
On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. I looked up data on what you claimed, it seems that it's indeed quantifiable, but I doubt French muslims ("western" muslims in general) feel represented by those acts. They feel at worst a mild apathy about it.
|
On June 26 2015 20:04 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. He did not defend much, he said it is a harmful comment to make. And that is indeed true, what is the point of labeling all Muslims as terrorists, or trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion? Do you want to ban it? Do you want to tell peaceful Muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they have to be violent to be "real" Muslims? Do you want to round them all up? What is the end game here?
Nobody wants to do that, nobody is saying that.
|
On June 26 2015 20:04 VelJa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:00 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 19:58 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims. Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ? You must be an excellent human being Yes, I am. Awesome as fuck Now can you answer please ?
Based on your behavior neither one of us is going to get anything out of that discussion and I do not appreciate being called a retard by a complete stranger since my view opposes what I am assume is a nationalistic point of view, otherwise why get so mad? I think its better we let this one go buddy
|
On June 26 2015 20:08 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:04 Redox wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. He did not defend much, he said it is a harmful comment to make. And that is indeed true, what is the point of labeling all Muslims as terrorists, or trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion? Do you want to ban it? Do you want to tell peaceful Muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they have to be violent to be "real" Muslims? Do you want to round them all up? What is the end game here? Nobody wants to do that, nobody is saying that. Oh well , take a long at the rest of my post then. What is the point of recognizing Islam as violent, or as a problem?
|
On June 26 2015 20:09 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:04 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 20:00 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 19:58 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims. Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ? You must be an excellent human being Yes, I am. Awesome as fuck Now can you answer please ? Based on your behavior neither one of us is going to get anything out of that discussion and I do not appreciate being called a retard by a complete stranger since my view opposes what I am assume is a nationalistic point of view, otherwise why get so mad? I think its better we let this one go buddy Strange move to label a whole country as intolerant and then refuse to offer any explanation for how you reached that conclusion.
|
On June 26 2015 20:10 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:08 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 20:04 Redox wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. He did not defend much, he said it is a harmful comment to make. And that is indeed true, what is the point of labeling all Muslims as terrorists, or trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion? Do you want to ban it? Do you want to tell peaceful Muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they have to be violent to be "real" Muslims? Do you want to round them all up? What is the end game here? Nobody wants to do that, nobody is saying that. Oh well , take a long at the rest of my post then. What is the point of recognizing Islam as violent, or as a problem?
...you realise you basically just said "i can't think of a solution to this problem, so why even consider it a problem?", right?
Personally I think we have to be very careful making broad statements about any group, much less acting on them, but the argument you're putting forward is ridiculous.
|
Alright, I made a snide remark about islam, and apologise. Let me give you the reasoning behind what I say. I am not going to go out there and say all muslims are terrorists because that is ignorant. But the religion is fundamentally not designed for modern society, free speech and democracy. The holy Qu'ran says Allah is the only god (I am paraphrasing) and the entire religion is built around a framework of restrictions. Now I am not an atheist, but I reject all religious institutions, whether it's the catholic church or Islam or whatever. But over time, these religions have mellowed and become more liberal, to fill the needs of modern society. Islam however, for the large part has remained intransigent. If you notice the stereotypical appearance of a muslim has them sporting a large beard, pants that end above their ankles, skull caps etc. This is not just middle-eastern regional wear, it is specifically stated in the religion. Many things are haram, like listening to music, men and women dancing toether etc. My point here is, while there may be muslims who love peace, and follow the religion in a more liberal fashion, they are not really following their religion because again, it is specifically stated that one must follow these rules in islamic texts. More importantly for my point, Islam is a strict religion. Naturally, to politically ambitious individuals this gives them a means of controlling individuals who have strong faith, and leveraging their power as "upholders" or "strict followers" of such laws they commit violent acts against those that do not follow them. I do not for one second believe that the people at the top of organisations like ISIS do what the do out of religious sentiment. They are using religion to accumulate political power, with blatant disregard for human life. Organisations like this exist outside of religion as well, but no religion seems to breed hatred for other religions and noncompliance of religious rules, nor action upon such hate, as islam does. This is not a black or white issue, there are many complex factors that have brought islam to this crossroad, where it is almost universally regarded as conducive to hatred towards other religions and perpetration of terrorist acts. And this is not just a stereotypical view, there is no other religion that has resulted in so many deaths to innocent people, in order to bring death to infidels.
TL;DR Muslims are not the issue, Islam is a strict religion and politically ambitious leaders interpret this to meet their ends and use this to motivate individuals to commit acts of terror.
Edit - Something interesting I read while researching for this comment
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/24/isis-brides-secret-world-jihad-western-women-syria
|
On June 26 2015 20:14 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:10 Redox wrote:On June 26 2015 20:08 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 20:04 Redox wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. He did not defend much, he said it is a harmful comment to make. And that is indeed true, what is the point of labeling all Muslims as terrorists, or trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion? Do you want to ban it? Do you want to tell peaceful Muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they have to be violent to be "real" Muslims? Do you want to round them all up? What is the end game here? Nobody wants to do that, nobody is saying that. Oh well , take a long at the rest of my post then. What is the point of recognizing Islam as violent, or as a problem? ...you realise you basically just said "i can't think of a solution to this problem, so why even consider it a problem?", right? Personally I think we have to be very careful making broad statements about any group, much less acting on them, but the argument you're putting forward is ridiculous. No, the point is that you are exacerbating the problem here with these kind of general statements. Its like hacking off an arm because it itches. Or maybe better comparison, trying to quench a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
|
UPDATE
Name of the Terrorist : Yassim Salhi, He was already known by the DGSI
Source : Speech of Bernard Cazeneuve, French Minister of the Interior
|
On June 26 2015 20:11 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:09 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 20:04 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 20:00 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 19:58 VelJa wrote:On June 26 2015 19:55 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. France is not what I would call the example of tolerance towards Muslims. Oh really ? Can you explain why please my dear retard friend ? You must be an excellent human being Yes, I am. Awesome as fuck Now can you answer please ? Based on your behavior neither one of us is going to get anything out of that discussion and I do not appreciate being called a retard by a complete stranger since my view opposes what I am assume is a nationalistic point of view, otherwise why get so mad? I think its better we let this one go buddy Strange move to label a whole country as intolerant and then refuse to offer any explanation for how you reached that conclusion.
Not saying France is the worst country, simple offering a counter point to him stating that being French is instilling some kind of standard of morality, without any explanation either. Because based on what I have experienced living in that country for a couple of years makes it hard for me to accept that generalisation. Good for him for being tolerant, but I really doubt his nationality has anything to do with that
|
This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'?
|
On June 26 2015 19:22 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. because it is all too easy to bury your head in the sand and say "not all muslims are terrorists" as if that will make the problem go away. the issue is that many of these terrorists ARE muslim and importantly, use islam or their interpretation of it to justify their actions Well, by that logic, ALL of these terrorists ARE religious and importantly, use religion or their interpretation of it to justify their actions...
The problem is not Islam. The problem is that we have parts of the world where people are poor, hungry and oppressed and seek answers/help/justice in religion.
What happened in Grenoble is horrible, but we should not point fingers to innocents, just because they are muslims.
|
On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3
You have weakened your stand by stating this. There are fundamentalist groups and individuals in every religion, but it's almost exclusively Muslim fundamentalist groups that indulge in violent behaviour. It is not by accident that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah etc all exist, while there isn't a single religious terrorist organisation in the spotlight right now that is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or any other religion. Case in point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
Let me clarify something. I do not judge individuals for being muslim, and I am not an islamophobe. But the evidence irrefutably points to the fact that the religion of Islam is conducive to, and has a greater likelihood for causing involvement in terrorist behaviour.
|
On June 26 2015 20:27 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:22 ahswtini wrote:On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. because it is all too easy to bury your head in the sand and say "not all muslims are terrorists" as if that will make the problem go away. the issue is that many of these terrorists ARE muslim and importantly, use islam or their interpretation of it to justify their actions Well, by that logic, ALL of these terrorists ARE religious and importantly, use religion or their interpretation of it to justify their actions... The problem is not Islam. The problem is that we have parts of the world where people are poor, hungry and oppressed and seek answers/help/justice in religion. Well this is not correct either. Many of those terrorists were not poor. Losers with little success in life maybe, but surely not hungry. Relatively more of them are from western countries than from poor regions.
|
UPDATE :
Yassim Salhi was arrested by Fireman, not Policeman. The Fireman was the 1st arrived on the crime scene Source : Le Monde
|
On June 26 2015 20:29 manicmessiah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 You have weakened your stand by stating this. There are fundamentalist groups and individuals in every religion, but it's almost exclusively Muslim fundamentalist groups that indulge in violent behaviour. It is not by accident that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah etc all exist, while there isn't a single religious terrorist organisation in the spotlight right now that is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or any other religion. Case in point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groupsLet me clarify something. I do not judge individuals for being muslim, and I am not an islamophobe. But the evidence irrefutably points to the fact that the religion of Islam is conducive to, and has a greater likelihood for, terrorist behaviour.
What about those buddist terrorist, who blow up and murder people in the name of their religion? What about the numerous times people have used Christianity to invade and murder innocents for their own gain, while their soldiers probably believed their actions to be just?
|
On June 26 2015 20:31 VelJa wrote: UPDATE :
Yassim Salhi was arrested by Fireman, not Policeman. The Fireman was the 1st arrived on the crime scene Source : Le Monde
I wonder if the fireman "arrested" him or the arrested one gave himself up. Doesn't matter tho.
|
Crusades are a bit ancient now.
|
Well, i guess it was bigger than one guy.
|
|
On June 26 2015 20:25 fmod wrote: This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'?
It's not that random in fact. It's a chemical factory, classified as slightly dangerous.
According to the cops, it seems the attacker(s) expected the factory to blow up, spreading fire and toxic gases all around. The goal could be to kill as many people as possible I guess.
|
On June 26 2015 20:32 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:29 manicmessiah wrote:On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 You have weakened your stand by stating this. There are fundamentalist groups and individuals in every religion, but it's almost exclusively Muslim fundamentalist groups that indulge in violent behaviour. It is not by accident that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah etc all exist, while there isn't a single religious terrorist organisation in the spotlight right now that is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or any other religion. Case in point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groupsLet me clarify something. I do not judge individuals for being muslim, and I am not an islamophobe. But the evidence irrefutably points to the fact that the religion of Islam is conducive to, and has a greater likelihood for, terrorist behaviour. What about those buddist terrorist, who blow up and murder people in the name of their religion? What about the numerous times people have used Christianity to invade and murder innocents for their own gain, while their soldiers probably believed their actions to be just?
I don't know which buddhist terrorist outfit you are referring to so I cannot say. As for the fact that people have used christianity to invade nations in the past - yes that is true. But as I mentioned in my earlier comment, in earlier days all religions used to be extremely fundamentalist. But with time, every religion has mellowed down to suit the needs of modern society. Islam has not. So in a modern context, Islamic terrorist outfits far outnumber those of any other religion (if at all such non-islamic terrorist organisations exist)
|
If people find French stuff and want translation feel free to ask.
|
On June 26 2015 20:35 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:25 fmod wrote: This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'? It's not that random in fact. It's a chemical factory, classified as slightly dangerous. According to the cops, it seems the attacker(s) expected the factory to blow up, spreading fire and toxic gases all around. The goal could be to kill as many people as possible I guess. Thankfully most of these terrorists are pretty stupid.
|
On June 26 2015 20:34 ZenithM wrote: Crusades are a bit ancient now.
We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me
|
On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 There's an important point that I think Daniel Dennet brought up in some book - how many of these theists really believe in the religion on a regular basis, and do they believe in its entirety in a serious way or just as a cultural custom? Some gallup polls have shown some strikingly high agreement with things like death to adulterers. I haven't done a large scale comparison of all religions, but from what I do know I'd find it wrong to equate all religions as if they were all equally dangerous, that the KKK is the christian version of ISIS or something. Or think about Jainism or Buddhism, are there really the same teachings and belief system as you'd find in Islam?
|
On June 26 2015 20:39 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:35 Agathon wrote:On June 26 2015 20:25 fmod wrote: This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'? It's not that random in fact. It's a chemical factory, classified as slightly dangerous. According to the cops, it seems the attacker(s) expected the factory to blow up, spreading fire and toxic gases all around. The goal could be to kill as many people as possible I guess. Thankfully most of these terrorists are pretty stupid. yeah, that's pretty much why they are terrorist
|
On June 26 2015 20:35 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:25 fmod wrote: This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'? It's not that random in fact. It's a chemical factory, classified as slightly dangerous. According to the cops, it seems the attacker(s) expected the factory to blow up, spreading fire and toxic gases all around. The goal could be to kill as many people as possible I guess.
The attack itself is a complete failure: badly planned, selected target dubious and hardly any impact (2 slightly wounded, 1 of them possibly one of the attackers). They brought a beheaded body with them and put the head on display with a written message on it ... my guess would be they did not expect to survive the explosion?
|
On June 26 2015 20:40 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 There's an important point that I think Daniel Dennet brought up in some book - how many of these theists really believe in the religion on a regular basis, and do they believe in its entirety in a serious way or just as a cultural custom? Some gallup polls have shown some strikingly high agreement with things like death to adulterers. I haven't done a large scale comparison of all religions, but from what I do know I'd find it wrong to equate all religions as if they were all equally dangerous, that the KKK is the christian version of ISIS or something. Or think about Jainism or Buddhism, are there really the same teachings and belief system as you'd find in Islam? Daniel Dennett.........you're better than that.
|
If you grew up under the circumstances some "terrorists" did the chances are not that low you would be a terrorist now, too. Dont be so arrogant. It's a much bigger Problem than some "deranged lunatics".
|
On June 26 2015 20:25 fmod wrote: This thread got out of hand quickly.
I am just shocked of course and don't understand why these people chose this random small factory. What message do they think they are sending? Do they want to show that 'no one is safe, it could happen to anyone'?
To me, this was just a 'side attack', led by people who got carried by whatever htey took and did this on a whim.
It's pretty obvious to me that the attack wasn't well planned, if planned at all, and that the terrorists themselves were not that much of 'real' terrorists. By that I mean : one got caught. If we learned anything about those guys, it is that they are NEVER EVER caught alive. I still don't know if he got caught thanks to amazing police job, or else coz they were kinda sloppy terrorists, but...
As for the subject within the topic, I'd just expose my theory.
Islam, as a religion, begun in the 7th century. 600 years after christianity. What were the christian doing 600 years ago ? I guess that's called Cruisade. AKA killing everyone not christian (especially muslims) you can see and being blessed by EVERYONE, from Popes to priests, to do that. IMO, Islam's having pretty much the same evolution than christianity. They are following the same way with 600 years of delay. Some are moving on faster, of course, the great majority of muslims in western countries for example.
Of course, this theory is based on nothing concrete. Nothing more than my thoughts on the matter.
|
On June 26 2015 20:38 manicmessiah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:32 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 20:29 manicmessiah wrote:On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 You have weakened your stand by stating this. There are fundamentalist groups and individuals in every religion, but it's almost exclusively Muslim fundamentalist groups that indulge in violent behaviour. It is not by accident that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah etc all exist, while there isn't a single religious terrorist organisation in the spotlight right now that is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or any other religion. Case in point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groupsLet me clarify something. I do not judge individuals for being muslim, and I am not an islamophobe. But the evidence irrefutably points to the fact that the religion of Islam is conducive to, and has a greater likelihood for, terrorist behaviour. What about those buddist terrorist, who blow up and murder people in the name of their religion? What about the numerous times people have used Christianity to invade and murder innocents for their own gain, while their soldiers probably believed their actions to be just? I don't know which buddhist terrorist outfit you are referring to so I cannot say. As for the fact that people have used christianity to invade nations in the past - yes that is true. But as I mentioned in my earlier comment, in earlier days all religions used to be extremely fundamentalist. But with time, every religion has mellowed down to suit the needs of modern society. Islam has not. So in a modern context, Islamic terrorist outfits far outnumber those of any other religion (if at all such non-islamic terrorist organisations exist)
If only there were tons of different interpretations of Islam and not one unified evil version.
|
Can you at least learn the basics of what you are trying to discuss otherwise its a bit silly
|
On June 26 2015 20:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:40 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 There's an important point that I think Daniel Dennet brought up in some book - how many of these theists really believe in the religion on a regular basis, and do they believe in its entirety in a serious way or just as a cultural custom? Some gallup polls have shown some strikingly high agreement with things like death to adulterers. I haven't done a large scale comparison of all religions, but from what I do know I'd find it wrong to equate all religions as if they were all equally dangerous, that the KKK is the christian version of ISIS or something. Or think about Jainism or Buddhism, are there really the same teachings and belief system as you'd find in Islam? Daniel Dennett.........you're better than that. it was the first and only page i read, if that helps you lol. i just think it's an interesting question to think about.
|
It's a pathetic trait of religious end-of-times thinking that the current age is the goal of all history, the peak of progress, and that everything in the past should be judged in relation to current standards. You see this all the time with Christian fundamentalists and their criticisms of Islam. It's the defense mechanism of someone who is equally dishonest with others as they are with themselves. If you're tempted to use the words "modern" or "21st century" while discussing this issue, you should probably just step away from the computer for a while.
|
On June 26 2015 20:52 lolmlg wrote: It's a pathetic trait of religious end-of-times thinking that the current age is the goal of all history, the peak of progress, and that everything in the past should be judged in relation to current standards. You see this all the time with Christian fundamentalists and their criticisms of Islam. It's the defense mechanism of someone who is equally dishonest with others as they are with themselves. If you're tempted to use the words "modern" or "21st century" while discussing this issue, you should probably just step away from the computer for a while.
I just didn't understood the whole link with the topic. Could you explain it for me ?
|
On June 26 2015 20:43 SkrollK wrote: What were the christian doing 600 years ago ? I guess that's called Cruisade. AKA killing everyone not christian (especially muslims) you can see and being blessed by EVERYONE, from Popes to priests, to do that.
Err ... nope. Crusades would be ~900/800 years ago.
600 years ago, you can have have the inquisition if you need a bloody mess.
400/500 years ago, you then have wars of religion in europe that were nice too.
|
On June 26 2015 21:05 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:43 SkrollK wrote: What were the christian doing 600 years ago ? I guess that's called Cruisade. AKA killing everyone not christian (especially muslims) you can see and being blessed by EVERYONE, from Popes to priests, to do that. Err ... nope. Crusades would be ~900/800 years ago. 600 years ago, you can have have the inquisition if you need a bloody mess. 400/500 years ago, you then have wars of religion in europe that were nice too. , yeah 500y ago, it was when people were dumb as fuck now we are less dumb we can explain so much things by science and all shit, why do people still believe in religions? such a mistake
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 26 2015 20:39 Erandorr wrote:We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me
Cherry picking the last few decades? These are the decades in which we live. Things that happened 500-1000 years ago simply don't carry the same weight as things happening today for the current population.
On June 26 2015 20:52 lolmlg wrote: It's a pathetic trait of religious end-of-times thinking that the current age is the goal of all history, the peak of progress, and that everything in the past should be judged in relation to current standards. You see this all the time with Christian fundamentalists and their criticisms of Islam. It's the defense mechanism of someone who is equally dishonest with others as they are with themselves. If you're tempted to use the words "modern" or "21st century" while discussing this issue, you should probably just step away from the computer for a while.
If we can't compare "Now" or "Modern" to "Then" or "Ancient" what are we even doing? Things must change over time. If thoughts and behaviors aren't supposed to be compared to older times, why even bother making the advancements we do in society, technology, etc.? Other religions have "modernized" and morphed into things that (generally) fit the current norms. Personally, I detest religion(s) as an institution, but which of the current religions uses its dogmas as justification to behead random factory workers?
|
On June 26 2015 21:05 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:43 SkrollK wrote: What were the christian doing 600 years ago ? I guess that's called Cruisade. AKA killing everyone not christian (especially muslims) you can see and being blessed by EVERYONE, from Popes to priests, to do that. Err ... nope. Crusades would be ~900/800 years ago. 600 years ago, you can have have the inquisition if you need a bloody mess. 400/500 years ago, you then have wars of religion in europe that were nice too.
Ye, I see what you mean. Even tho the word cruisade could be employed for Reconquista. Some historians consider the cruisade era just till Lepanto.
But, history consideration apart, I guess you got my point
|
There were also terrorists attacks on tourists in Tunisia (19-29 victims so far) and some bombing in Kuwait (at least 15 dead).
|
i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve?
|
On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy.
|
On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Beautifully said.
|
On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act?
|
If your freedom (aka killing others after reading religious texts) interferes with another person freedom (most of us i guess enjoy being alive) then the free world should exactly do the things you do question to remain a free world.
You can believe in whatever you want as long as it dosn't intefere with my health or security, if it does then problems starts and solutions need to be implemented, cause when im wondering if i should cancel my vacations due to security risks caused by some religious fanatics this is becomming hilarious. Political correctness isn't always the answer to every problem.
|
A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended.
|
On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? Ideologies themselves, no ; the people who manipulate these ideologies to reach their own goals, yes
|
On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on.
On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended.
I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse.
|
On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on.
Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"?
|
On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"?
Exact quote :
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Steven Weineberg
|
On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"? Some idiot who wanted to make a dumb catch phrase? In law we say "Criminal law makes you see bad people at their best, Family law makes you see good people at their worst." Its catchy, but doesn't really apply all the time.
|
The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too?
|
On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"?
Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The religion itself is not responsible for the beheading.
But there is no doubt that islam carries with it certain tenets that allow violence to manifest and be justified.
The violence and killing of Sunni vs Shiite Muslims is just a perfect example of this, where ISIS considers all shiite Muslims to be infidels to be converted by force or death. Their raiskn d'etre have a lot to do with how Islam was originally created by Muhammad.
These terrorists are VERY much Islamic. The world doesn't have a problem with Muslims. The world has a problem with Islamists, which is an important distinction.
|
On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism.
|
On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two.
Historicly every religion was a tool of total control and partly explained all the "miracles" ppl could not recognize, and basicly almost every single religion went head to head with their own fanatics.
Reason and consequence.
Until the real majority of ppl realises that there is no old and hoary guy is sitting on the cloud above - religion will be the issue and a real source of lie/conspiracy/manipulation.
|
On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion.
|
On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion.
France included, since 1905, mind you. Very much agreeing on what you are saying.
|
On June 26 2015 22:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote: Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"? Some idiot who wanted to make a dumb catch phrase? In law we say "Criminal law makes you see bad people at their best, Family law makes you see good people at their worst." Its catchy, but doesn't really apply all the time.
Right, a Nobel Prize laureate in Physics for formalizing the electroweak interaction is "some idiot".
|
What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough?
|
On June 26 2015 22:32 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:01 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote: Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"? Some idiot who wanted to make a dumb catch phrase? In law we say "Criminal law makes you see bad people at their best, Family law makes you see good people at their worst." Its catchy, but doesn't really apply all the time. Right, a Nobel Prize laureate in Physics for formalizing the electroweak interaction is "some idiot". The guy is real good at science, so I should listen to him on the subject of theology. I think I will call a priest to talk to me about particle physics too. Also, I should call a plumber to repair my car. Because in life when I want an expert opinion, I call people who are not trained in the field.
On June 26 2015 22:32 ZenithM wrote: What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough?
There people who are doing that. The issue is Muslims are not one group, just like Christians. The Pope doesn't have a lot off pull over the people living in religious compounds in the US either. Just because the news media lumps all Muslims together doesn't make it true.
|
On June 26 2015 20:29 manicmessiah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2015 19:59 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 19:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is so sad On June 26 2015 18:56 Kerm wrote:On June 26 2015 18:31 manicmessiah wrote: Religion of peace boys I was going to report this because it's shocking (basically saying "all muslim = murderous terrorists"), but actually it might be that I (as French) have different standard (not claiming they are better btw) than US people so i'll just say here i find that kind of statement very harmful. And stupid. It's definitely a harmful and stupid comment to be made. I love how liberal people have to defend an idelogy that attacks everything liberalism stands for. If you had a political party that advocates stoning adulterers, forces women to cover themselves, commands the killing of gays, and demands the death penalty for thought crime, you'd be free to criticise that party. But because it is a religion, it's excempt from critical inspection. And if IS and Boko Haram don't represent Islam at large, surely the overwhelming majority of Muslisms who live in Muslim majority countries are. They don't kill people, because they're not psychopaths, but more often than not they condone the killing. And that "more often than not" isn't a shot in the blue, it's quantifiable. There are fringe lunatics and extremists who cherry pick ignorant and violent verses in all religions. All texts have them. But just as how the KKK and WBC doesn't inherently make Christianity a religion of war/ murder/ hate, especially when adapted into modern society and understanding, neither does painting 1.6+ billion Muslims with the same brush just because of the occasional terrorist attacks by their fundamentalist minorities. + Show Spoiler +I know that the TL gods mods frown upon such religious debate, and so I'm going to leave this thread and go play some tennis Have a wonderful day <3 You have weakened your stand by stating this. There are fundamentalist groups and individuals in every religion, but it's almost exclusively Muslim fundamentalist groups that indulge in violent behaviour.
What the heck are you talking about? You realize I literally even said KKK, right? They're non-violent? They're Christian. To suggest that Muslim fundamentalists are the only violent religious group is absurd.
|
On June 26 2015 22:32 ZenithM wrote: What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough? That particular signal tends to get lost in the background noise of the initial reaction to a terror attack, re-emerge a few days after with a few news clips or articles online, then fades from general media coverage as the interest in the attack wanes.
|
On June 26 2015 22:32 ZenithM wrote: What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough?
No, I think their general silence on the issue speaks volumes.
|
On June 26 2015 22:32 ZenithM wrote: What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough?
From what I've heard from minimal activist coverage, there are huge groups of Muslims, especially in the Middle East, trying to speak up. But between direct threats and the American preferences of fearmongering, we don't hear that much about it.
|
On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion.
You consider the US to have a secular government? You have "In God we trust" on your money. France absolutely is a secular country, more so than the USA.
At least, in theory. In practice, not so much...
|
On June 26 2015 22:32 ZenithM wrote: What bothers me also is that nobody is speaking up for Muslims against terrorism in the name of Islam. I hear all the anti-Islam douches fine, I hear all the "no overgeneralization!" politically correct elite fine, but that's it. Muslims need to be more vocal about this. Am I just not listening well enough? Yes, you're not listening well enough. Every time something like this happens (in France at least) you have plenty of imams, even the most important imams in France, who express their disgust for the attack and their support to the victims. Thing is, it gets lost among the noise, because ofc most medias prefer to talk about what the racist fucks at the Front National/far right wing of Les Républicains have to say about the event than what actual Muslims have to say. Additionally, medias tend in these situations to give more attention to politicians' reactions rather than intellectuals/theologians/experts/whatever, and guess what? There are very, very few Muslim politicians in France (and I guess in the whole of the Western countries).
|
what are you guys talking about.... just google Muslims against terrorism there are tonnes and tonnes of them speaking up. Of course you wouldn't see it in western media.
|
On June 26 2015 22:49 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion. You consider the US to be have a secular government? You have "In God we trust" on your money. France absolutely is a secular country, more so than the USA. At least, in theory. In practice, not so much... Tangential question to your spat with Plansix, do we know why the attack was in France to start? I know that elements of French policy, no identifying religious garments or symbols in public schools comes to mind immediately, wouldn't be popular with groups inclined to carry out this kind of violence.
Charlie Hebdo was far more apparent, so I am a bit confused as to why France again, and why Lyon. I haven't been able to turn up anything on Google just yet.
|
On June 26 2015 22:54 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:49 Spaylz wrote:On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion. You consider the US to be have a secular government? You have "In God we trust" on your money. France absolutely is a secular country, more so than the USA. At least, in theory. In practice, not so much... Tangential question to your spat with Plansix, do we know why the attack was in France to start? I know that elements of French policy, no identifying religious garments or symbols in public schools comes to mind immediately, wouldn't be popular with groups inclined to carry out this kind of violence. Charlie Hebdo was far more apparent, so I am a bit confused as to why France again, and why Lyon. I haven't been able to turn up anything on Google just yet.
It could be because our government has been pretty vocal about supporting the air strikes on the Islamic State. It could be a "follow-up" to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or even a retaliation to the massive support the journalists received.
It could be good old ignorance.
|
On June 26 2015 22:57 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:54 ThomasjServo wrote:On June 26 2015 22:49 Spaylz wrote:On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion. You consider the US to be have a secular government? You have "In God we trust" on your money. France absolutely is a secular country, more so than the USA. At least, in theory. In practice, not so much... Tangential question to your spat with Plansix, do we know why the attack was in France to start? I know that elements of French policy, no identifying religious garments or symbols in public schools comes to mind immediately, wouldn't be popular with groups inclined to carry out this kind of violence. Charlie Hebdo was far more apparent, so I am a bit confused as to why France again, and why Lyon. I haven't been able to turn up anything on Google just yet. It could be because our government has been pretty vocal about supporting the air strikes on the Islamic State. It could be a "follow-up" to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or even a retaliation to the massive support the journalists received. It could be good old ignorance. All possible I suppose. I just didn't know if something more obvious, or directly offensive than support for ISIS air strikes had happened.
|
On June 26 2015 23:02 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:57 Spaylz wrote:On June 26 2015 22:54 ThomasjServo wrote:On June 26 2015 22:49 Spaylz wrote:On June 26 2015 22:25 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:12 ZenithM wrote:On June 26 2015 22:06 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 22:02 ZenithM wrote: The thing is, if we accept that ideas can be harmful, like sexism, racism (and thus must be dealt with), why can't religions be part of that too? Dealt with, as in, secularism? Separation of church and state? How do you plan to "deal with religion"? Religions have been the source of harm throughout history, but also great good as well. The same can't be said for those other two. I'm not saying we need to deal with religion, and I would be hard-pressed to know how to do that in the first place, but I just don't like how religions are beyond criticism. They are not above criticism. Interpretations of Christianity were used to justify some terrible acts in history. Same with Islam. That is why we in the US have created a basically secular government. The same with a lot of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I understand the fear of religious ideologues and how they can harmful. But the key to dealing with that isn't to go after the religion itself, but the ideologues and their use of the religion. You consider the US to be have a secular government? You have "In God we trust" on your money. France absolutely is a secular country, more so than the USA. At least, in theory. In practice, not so much... Tangential question to your spat with Plansix, do we know why the attack was in France to start? I know that elements of French policy, no identifying religious garments or symbols in public schools comes to mind immediately, wouldn't be popular with groups inclined to carry out this kind of violence. Charlie Hebdo was far more apparent, so I am a bit confused as to why France again, and why Lyon. I haven't been able to turn up anything on Google just yet. It could be because our government has been pretty vocal about supporting the air strikes on the Islamic State. It could be a "follow-up" to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or even a retaliation to the massive support the journalists received. It could be good old ignorance. All possible I suppose. I just didn't know if something more obvious, or directly offensive than support for ISIS air strikes had happened. Probably because the attacker(s) live(s) in France? Why go blow up something hundreds of km away when you can blow up shit at your door?
|
On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse.
Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah.
Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam.
The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge).
You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world.
|
On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. If your main argument is that religions need to adapt and work within a secular society, you will get no argument from me. But the only way that happens is by focusing on people and those promoting radical versions of that religion. And acting like the violence in that region is just because of Islam is a over simplification of the complex issues in the middle east.
|
you think they did it more than christians tho? like it has more core issues? #notallchristians #notallmuslims w.e. why hate on the religion.
EDIT: a radical christian literally just killed 9 people last week.
I mean im pretty anti-theist too but this tragety is not an excuse to forward your hatred for a specific religion
|
On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them.
Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church.
By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity - thus, in the end, it was an issue with people themselves and the societal culture surrounding them. Why would it be different now for Muslims?
|
we need to be more tolerant
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On June 26 2015 23:27 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them. Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church. By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity. Why would it be different now for Muslims?
We don't have 500 years of patience to wait for Islamic countries to turn secular.
Christianity became tolerable when it became irrelevant, neutered of all rights and law over humans, same needs to happen to Islam.
|
On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"?
I love that this quote keeps being brought up in these situations. There are so many things wrong with it.
- Assumes the existence of good and bad people (What are the criteria? Who picks them?) - Assumes the possibility of bad acts being committed by good people (What is the difference between a good and a bad person, if both are capable of doing bad acts?) - Assumes the capacity to become a bad person when you're good, but casually dismisses the capacity to become a good person when you're bad (good is like white, once you stain it, the color never comes back).
If anything, that quote proves to me you don't need religion to hold nonsensical beliefs about how people function.
|
On June 26 2015 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. If your main argument is that religions need to adapt and work within a secular society, you will get no argument from me. But the only way that happens is by focusing on people and those promoting radical versions of that religion. And acting like the violence in that region is just because of Islam is a over simplification of the complex issues in the middle east. What does "focusing on people and those promoting radical versions of that religion" mean exactly?
|
On June 26 2015 23:33 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:27 OtherWorld wrote:On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them. Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church. By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity. Why would it be different now for Muslims? We don't have 500 years of patience to wait for Islamic countries to turn secular. Christianity became tolerable when it became irrelevant, neutered of all rights and law over humans, same needs to happen to Islam. And how do you suggest we do that? Unless you resort to methods that would make a well-known Central European dictator proud, you have to wait until societal evolution happen from the inside of the Muslim world. Obviously that can be speeded up through commercial and cultural exchanges, and opening borders, but you can't expect to make Islam irrelevant in less than a century.
On June 26 2015 23:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:59 deathly rat wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. Who was it that said "bad people will always do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things"? I love that this quote keeps being brought up in these situations. There are so many things wrong with it. - Assumes the existence of good and bad people (What are the criteria? Who picks them?) - Assumes the possibility of bad acts being committed by good people (What is the difference between a good and a bad person, if both are capable of doing bad acts?) - Assumes the capacity to become a bad person when you're good, but casually dismisses the capacity to become a good person when you're bad (good is like white, once you stain it, the color never comes back). If anything, that quote proves to me you don't need religion to hold nonsensical beliefs about how people function. 100% agreed :D I always found that quote dumb, and I'm not religious at all
|
On June 26 2015 23:27 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them. Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church. By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity - thus, in the end, it was an issue with people themselves and the societal culture surrounding them. Why would it be different now for Muslims? Pretty sure that some religions haven't used violence to convert people; at least not on any significant scale. Mostly this applies to religions that don't aim to convert other people at all. Though there may have been some violence in dealing with people who convert away.
|
It just means that people who are otherwise decent civil human beings can be brought to believe and act badly when it's a godly command. That there are good and bad people is almost tautology. The person judging good and bad is obviously the speaker of the quote.
|
On June 26 2015 23:33 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:27 OtherWorld wrote:On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them. Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church. By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity. Why would it be different now for Muslims? We don't have 500 years of patience to wait for Islamic countries to turn secular. Christianity became tolerable when it became irrelevant, neutered of all rights and law over humans, same needs to happen to Islam.
My sons nurse is muslim, some of my sons friends are muslim, I work with people doing ramadan. I was at school (and it was some time ago, i'm old ^^) with muslim kids and they were too doing ramadan and avoiding pork meat at lunch. And all those people are perfectely integrated within what you call the "modern world" (which is more accurately the "western society"). Scared and ignorant people like you would have those people persecuted, just because we don't have a clue on how to deal with fanatics that are willing to kill other to grow fear and hatred ?
No thanks.
The solution is not in dealing with Islam, it's with dealing with terrorists.
|
On June 26 2015 23:48 Roe wrote: It just means that people who are otherwise decent civil human beings can be brought to believe and act badly when it's a godly command. That there are good and bad people is almost tautology. The person judging good and bad is obviously the speaker of the quote.
If all it takes is a word in a book to get them to act badly, what qualifies them as "decent civil human beings"?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On June 26 2015 23:49 Kerm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:33 Tien wrote:On June 26 2015 23:27 OtherWorld wrote:On June 26 2015 23:08 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:47 Roe wrote:On June 26 2015 21:44 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2015 21:35 brickrd wrote: i don't understand the point of debating if islam is "at fault"
individuals are responsible for their choices... we live in a free society where people can practice and interpret all kinds of beliefs. even if there is a problem with the way islam is taught, the responsibility for a terrorist's actions lies in his heart, not his interpretation of a religious text
even if islam were theoretically at fault so what? what does that mean? ban the free practice of a religion? kick them out of our societies? that's not how a free world works. if someone does wrong then prosecute them, why isn't that good enough? why do we need to express bigoted anger toward people for their spiritual beliefs? what exactly does that achieve? Because it's easier to blame a religion and act like it is the root of the problem, rather than people. Its like blaming communism for the purges under Stalin. Its fast, easy and lazy. Are ideologies ever at fault for how people act? No. People are responsible for themselves. The worst actors in history all justified it with something from religion to nationalism. At the end of the day it was an excuse or lie they told themselves to justify actions. Fanaticism is bad. Pride in your country to a fault is bad. But getting to that level is the act and fault of people, not the ideology decide to hang their hat on. On June 26 2015 21:51 deathly rat wrote: A lot of people find it difficult to reconcile the "the problem is not Islam" with the numerous awful things we see in the news done in the name of Islam.
Humanists do not suggest banning religion, but expunging it from every aspect of civil institutions. People should be free to express their religious views, but those views should not impact on those which do not share those views.
People should also be free to express their critical views of religion, however these are often censored by those over sensitive of offending those who are easily offended. I could go through out history and pick out horrible things done in the name of capitalism, science, national pride or religion. But none of these were the reason the acts were committed, just the excuse. Islam has a long history of using violence in order to forcibly convert non-Islamic peoples. Like literally, since the religion itself was created. This is an undeniable fact. It has been the way of their people for literally over a thousand years, it's not like it's suddenly going to change. The core tenets of Islam allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion. Under the early Caliphates, the Islamic empire rapidly expanded by sheer force, and they'd call these military expeditions Jihads. Under the Ottoman Empire, they'd do the same thing, as well as under various other Muslim Empires such as the Egyptian Empire, the Turks, blah blah blah. Point being, let's not pretend that the core beliefs of Islam aren't at fault here. Every other old world religion has adopted itself to the new world. Hell, even Catholicism is making slow, but gradual changes to adapt to the modern world. Yet here we are, with literally millions of radical Muslims running around proclaiming that they are killing people in the name of God. And no, I'm not just talking about Muslims killing Western Europeans/Americans. I'm also talking about how both the Shia and the Sunni factions of Muslims also kill each other by the hundreds per day all in the name of Islam. The new definition of Jihad being an 'inner religious struggle' is a load of bullshit balogne that was created by more modern Islamic scholars who felt that they needed to defend the term. Why? Because it's a loaded ass term that is pretty inflammatory, similar to the term Crusades. In the most classical sense, most Islamic theologians from the like the early 1100s and on all pretty much strictly saw the term Jihad as a 'holy war' or some sort of military struggle. Mostly it's supposed to be proclaimed by the current ruler/spiritual leader of the Islamic group (such as the Caliph/Caliphate, but basically whoever is in charge). You can keep saying the religion of Islam is not at fault here, but let's be honest. There's some serious core issues with the religion of Islam when you try to apply it to the modern world. Every religion used violence to convert people. And Islam didn't use only violence (just like no religion used only violence), a major part of the spread of Islam came from merchants/commercial exchanges as well as financial means (special tax for non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands). The core tenets of any religion allow for the justification of violence in order to expand the religion, just check out how the Conquistadors justified their killings in Mesoamerica ; in fact, the core tenets of any religion pretty much allow for the justification of anything depending of how you read and interpret them. Secondly, why would the fact that Islam currently appears to be rather desynchronized with the rest of the world mean that there's an inherent issue with it? Look at the Islamic Golden Age : mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, intellectuals, etc, arts & science were thriving in the Arab world, while in Christian Europe, people were getting burned at the stake for being "witches", medicine was basically nonexistent as it consisted in praying to God to get good health, and any form of scientific progress was impossible, mainly because of the Christian Church. By your reasoning, looking at the situation back then, we could have concluded that there was a core issue with Christianity. Yet, the fact that Christianity mainly adapted to the modern world (although this is incomplete and very recent - also, the fact that less and less people are Christians in developed countries give us the illusion that most Christians are more open-minded than they actually are) shows us that there wasn't a core issue with Christianity, but rather with what people did on the basis of Christianity. Why would it be different now for Muslims? We don't have 500 years of patience to wait for Islamic countries to turn secular. Christianity became tolerable when it became irrelevant, neutered of all rights and law over humans, same needs to happen to Islam. My sons nurse is muslim, some of my sons friends are muslim, I work with people doing ramadan. I was at school (and it was some time ago, i'm old ^^) with muslim kids and they were too doing ramadan and avoiding pork meat at lunch. And all those people are perfectely integrated within what you call the "modern world" (which is more accurately the "western society"). Scared and ignorant people like you would have those people persecuted, just because we don't have a clue on how to deal with fanatics that are willing to kill other to grow fear and hatred ? No thanks. The solution is not in dealing with Islam, it's with dealing with terrorists.
The solution is dealing with Islamists that want to impose religious rule of law, Muslims and Christians can practice their religion and that isn't the issue.
We need to have open dialogue about tenets of Islam.
|
On June 26 2015 23:54 Tien wrote: The solution is dealing with Islamists that want to impose religious rule of law, Muslims and Christians can practice their religion and that isn't the issue. Are you legitimately fearful that sharia law is going to take hold in Canada or France, or any Western country?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
What is very hypocritical in this situation is how unwilling many individuals want to discuss violent Islamism when a terror attack happens.
When Dylann Roof poses a picture of himself next to the confederate flag, the outcry was to get the flag banned / pulled down all across America, a decision I support.
When an Islamist uses certain violent tenets of Islam to help justify their actions, criticizing those specific violent tenets of Islam is suddenly off limits.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On June 26 2015 23:57 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:54 Tien wrote: The solution is dealing with Islamists that want to impose religious rule of law, Muslims and Christians can practice their religion and that isn't the issue. Are you legitimately fearful that sharia law is going to take hold in Canada or France, or any Western country?
There are 100 plus sharia courts in England already that deal with family law for Muslims. Guess what, these sharia courts are notorious for unequal rights with respects to women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10973009/Sharia-courts-ban-would-harm-British-Muslim-women.html
Do you think these courts equate to progress? I don't.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 23:17 ComaDose wrote: you think they did it more than christians tho? like it has more core issues? #notallchristians #notallmuslims w.e. why hate on the religion.
EDIT: a radical christian literally just killed 9 people last week.
I mean im pretty anti-theist too but this tragety is not an excuse to forward your hatred for a specific religion
His (internal) justification for those killings was based on skin color, not religion. That's a radicalized view on physical race characteristics not on "holy words" in an old, warped, story book. Not sure how that comparison works. Not sure where Jesus said to kill blacks. But I'm pretty sure the great prophet puts a strong emphasis on slaying infidels.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 23:57 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 23:54 Tien wrote: The solution is dealing with Islamists that want to impose religious rule of law, Muslims and Christians can practice their religion and that isn't the issue. Are you legitimately fearful that sharia law is going to take hold in Canada or France, or any Western country?
No. But why even allow such a destructive idea to fester? "Sharia" law is totally counter to the social advancements many western societies have made.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 27 2015 00:01 Tien wrote: What is very hypocritical in this situation is how unwilling many individuals want to discuss violent Islamism when a terror attack happens.
When Dylann Roof poses a picture of himself next to the confederate flag, the outcry was to get the flag banned / pulled down all across America, a decision I support.
When an Islamist uses certain violent tenets of Islam to help justify their actions, criticizing those specific violent tenets of Islam is suddenly off limits.
I agree with this sentiment completely.
|
your link is broken. it worked now, from the article.
Sharia councils are able to provide advice to those Muslims who voluntarily choose to use them to resolve civil and family disputes....Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal promises to make an “Islamic decision quickly and cheaply” but accepts that its status in English law will be no more than “evidence before the civil court”.
Private affairs based on both parties stipulating that they agree to the system, potentially enforceable at actual courts as pertaining to the parties. Not Sharia law as sanctioned by the state, or used for criminal cases.
Also operating within the existing legal framework of the UK, so... If they found a loophole and are operating legally and the citizens of the UK find this to be ass backwards, they should probably close that loop hole. It has hardly, as best I can tell, been a means for extremists to use Sharia to the ends you're implying, or try and convict anyone of anything, because they can't.
You are implying that it is superseding UK legal authority, when it is a means for members of a community to resolve simple, civil matters. I get the potential women's rights issues, but didn't turn up anything concrete for examples.
So I'm calling bunk.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Never said they were sanctioned by the state or used for criminal cases.
Just read more about how Sharia courts in England with respects to women's rights.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5512/sharia-courts-muslim-women
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.
Why are we even allowing these courts to hand decisions when they are grossly unfavourable to women? And the Muslim women are pressured into using these courts by their entire family (that really act like arbitration but you don't fight it if you are deeply religious).
There's no bunk here unless you want to be wilfully ignorant.
|
On June 27 2015 00:31 Tien wrote:Never said they were sanctioned by the state or used for criminal cases. Just read more about how Sharia courts in England with respects to women's rights. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5512/sharia-courts-muslim-women http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts Show nested quote +An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage. There's no bunk here unless you want to be wilfully ignorant. I'm not calling bunk on the women's rights issues, I'm calling bunk on the muslim conspiracy mess you're alluding to as though these are outposts from which the broader UK public will succumb to sharia law in lieu of the existing civil system.
loosen the tin foil hat.
|
Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
What conspiracy? Who said secular Westerners will succumb to Sharia Law?
These courts exist in secular western societies dictating law for Muslims, they're not westerners either deserving of equality?
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On June 27 2015 00:42 Plansix wrote: Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general.
If this is the reason why we can't have open dialogue about certain tenets of Islam it's an extremely weak argument.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Tien,
I don't believe we will be able to solve the world's problems. Sometimes you gotta shelf everything.
|
On June 27 2015 00:45 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 00:42 Plansix wrote: Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general. If this is the reason why we can't have open dialogue about certain tenets of Islam it's an extremely weak argument. You have yet to prove "open dialogue" is prohibited or not allowed. You can talk with any practice of Islam about it if you want. Unless "open dialogue" means you talking at people on the internet and telling them how fucked up their religion is and that they need to fix it. I am pretty sure that is just being an asshole with an excuse.
|
I really couldn't care less if someone is man or a woman, Christian or Muslim, identifies as an attack helicopter or worships unicorns. One's actions define you, not your beliefs.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On June 27 2015 00:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 00:45 Tien wrote:On June 27 2015 00:42 Plansix wrote: Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general. If this is the reason why we can't have open dialogue about certain tenets of Islam it's an extremely weak argument. You have yet to prove "open dialogue" is prohibited or not allowed. You can talk with any practice of Islam about it if you want. Unless "open dialogue" means you talking at people on the internet and telling them how fucked up their religion is and that they need to fix it. I am pretty sure that is just being an asshole with an excuse.
I make a point about Sharia Law stifling women's rights.
The response:
Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general.
That's what I mean. Can't even have a discussion about it without hand waving it away.
|
On June 27 2015 00:43 Tien wrote: What conspiracy? Who said secular Westerners will succumb to Sharia Law?
These courts exist in secular western societies dictating law for Muslims, they're not westerners either deserving of equality? you have a freedom vs law issue there; that's all.
|
On June 27 2015 00:51 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 00:48 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2015 00:45 Tien wrote:On June 27 2015 00:42 Plansix wrote: Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general. If this is the reason why we can't have open dialogue about certain tenets of Islam it's an extremely weak argument. You have yet to prove "open dialogue" is prohibited or not allowed. You can talk with any practice of Islam about it if you want. Unless "open dialogue" means you talking at people on the internet and telling them how fucked up their religion is and that they need to fix it. I am pretty sure that is just being an asshole with an excuse. I make a point about Sharia Law stifling women's rights. The response: Show nested quote +Poor treatment of women in closed communities is not something that is limited to Islam, or religion in general. That's what I mean. Can't even have a discussion about it without hand waving it away. Because no one disagrees with you that it needs to be addressed. The article you linked to was how to get it done and that a law prohibiting it might not be effective. That is the dialog you are requesting. The idea that the anyone in this thread is ok with the oppression of women is silly. And the idea that a stern lecture about the issues with Islam will somehow fix it is even sillier.
|
Tunisia, Kuwait, France, Somalia. Fundamentalists everywhere. A bad day for reason.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The dialogue across the nation about the confederate flag being a symbol for something negative got it taken down.
I'm not even talking about "banning Sharia Law", just start with identifying negatives of Islam without the need for hand waving the problems away because it is uncomfortable to talk about.
|
A really bad day for tolerance -.- 80 dead total in 4 different attacks I'm reading.
Some people suggest this is due to ISIS call for more attacks during Ramadan.
|
I would remind you it took 60 years to get the the point we are at with the confederate flag. The idea that you can just fix the issue through a "open dialogue" is a bit simplistic. You also assume that the dialog isn't happening. It just might not be happening on the internet.
|
So weird, was reading about these tunisa attacks all morning, and 5 minutes ago my mom tells me thats where my brother with his girlfriend and 1 year old daughter is staying, I mean I knew he was in tunisa but I didn't know where about, the shootings took place in his hotel.. they are ok though, him and his girlfriend had to run into the closest apartment and barricaded themselves in with another couple.
Whenever I read about shit like this I never expect them to happen to someone I know.. nevermind my family.
|
On June 27 2015 02:13 Reaps wrote: So weird, was reading about these tunisa attacks all morning, and 5 minutes ago my mom tells me thats where my brother with his girlfriend and 1 year old daughter is staying, I mean I knew he was in tunisa but I didn't know where about, the shootings took place in his hotel.. they are ok though, him and his girlfriend had to run into the closest apartment and barricaded themselves in with another couple.
Whenever I read about shit like this I never expect them to happen to someone I know.. nevermind my family.
Glad they're OK tho...
|
On June 26 2015 20:39 Erandorr wrote:We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me I realize it may be a bit late to reply to this but- Christianity has gone through several fundamental changes since the Protestant reformation and the french revolution and the revolutions that followed it. The church lost its political power. It's almost worthless to compare the essentially political entity of the Catholic church pre-modern times to Christianity now
|
On June 27 2015 05:13 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:39 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 20:34 ZenithM wrote: Crusades are a bit ancient now. We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me I realize it may be a bit late to reply to this but- Christianity has gone through several fundamental changes since the Protestant reformation and the french revolution and the revolutions that followed it. The church lost its political power. It's almost worthless to declare the essentially political entity of the Catholic church pre-modern times to Christianity now modern radical christan murders you ask?
|
On June 27 2015 05:27 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:13 MattBarry wrote:On June 26 2015 20:39 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 20:34 ZenithM wrote: Crusades are a bit ancient now. We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me I realize it may be a bit late to reply to this but- Christianity has gone through several fundamental changes since the Protestant reformation and the french revolution and the revolutions that followed it. The church lost its political power. It's almost worthless to declare the essentially political entity of the Catholic church pre-modern times to Christianity now modern radical christan murders you ask? That doesn't really contradict my statement.
|
On June 27 2015 05:35 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:27 ComaDose wrote:On June 27 2015 05:13 MattBarry wrote:On June 26 2015 20:39 Erandorr wrote:On June 26 2015 20:34 ZenithM wrote: Crusades are a bit ancient now. We are talking about religions that are thousands of years old, why cherry pick the last couple of decades when discussing the essence of a religions likelihood to cause violence? That seems to be faulty reasoning to me I realize it may be a bit late to reply to this but- Christianity has gone through several fundamental changes since the Protestant reformation and the french revolution and the revolutions that followed it. The church lost its political power. It's almost worthless to declare the essentially political entity of the Catholic church pre-modern times to Christianity now modern radical christan murders you ask? That doesn't really contradict my statement. oh i thought your statement was in response to the conversation you quoted
|
Condolences to the victim's family..
I am afraid many more people have to die until we are willing to talk about salafi ideology and it's basis in islamic teachings and the violent potential that comes with it honestly. Sad shit.
|
religion.... the root of all evil
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|