|
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
|
|
|
|