I think much in the way Christianity has been hijacked by evangelicalists and such, the same thing is happening to Islam.
If by "hijacked" you mean "people actually sticking with what their holy book says instead of adapting it to modern morality," then okay.
No, I mean "taking parables and symbolism literally"
I don't think Christainity has so much "matured" as it having to do with regions. The white suburbs and the bible belt where evangelicals pop up are not areas used to seeing the mass violence and killings
you find in the middle eastern areas where Jihadism sprouts.
While you have a point, Saudi Arabia has a lower crime rate than much of the United States and is a major exporter of jihadist theology.
They also kill dissenters and torture criminals, so maybe not the best comparison when it comes to crime rates.
Is Islam itself horribly violent and oppressive? Not completely, there's plenty of passages speaking for peace and unity, much in the line with the Bible's Old Testament and New Testament.
I noted in the film that most of the violent passages were coming from (what I presume is) the book of Surah (sp?). Does all the radicalism stem from these passages?
I don't think you're familiar with any of these books. Surah means "chapter."
Alright my mistake. I have a good understanding of various doctrines and sayings of both, just never went into such detail for the Quran.
The problem I see is that the peaceful portion of Islam never really comes out, in full view, and condemns such attacks. I believe there were plenty for 9/11, but that was a big thing. You don't hear about the condemnation of the Iraqi insurgency or the Dutch (Danish?) protests.
This is because Muslims are not publically condemning the Iraqi insurgency or the cartoon protests.
No, I mean "taking parables and symbolism literally"
The legal codes of the Bible and Quran are not symbolic, nor are they parables.
They also kill dissenters and torture criminals, so maybe not the best comparison when it comes to crime rates.
Well, the U.S. also tortures criminals, but that's neither here nor there. My only point was that expansion of fundamentalist Islamic theology does not necessarily correspond to war-torn regions or endemic criminality.
Which seems to be the problem correct?
The problem being that Muslims are in large part unwilling to look critically at their own religion, their holy book, and the actions of their fellow believers (with the exception, of course, of the sectarian conflict that has been endemic in the religion since right after Muhammad died)? Yes, I'd say that's a huge problem.
The problem I see is that the peaceful portion of Islam never really comes out, in full view, and condemns such attacks. I believe there were plenty for 9/11, but that was a big thing. You don't hear about the condemnation of the Iraqi insurgency or the Dutch (Danish?) protests.
This is because Muslims are not publically condemning the Iraqi insurgency or the cartoon protests.
And you have yet to condemn the Westburo Baptist Church.
Well?
I'm waiting.
Also, go read God's Crucible. It'll explain why the Islamic world hasn't followed the Christian world in a renaissance: they already had one! Christianity followed them.
Mark Twain had some fun quotes about Christianity, why don't you go read some?
And you have yet to condemn the Westburo Baptist Church.
Well?
I'm waiting.
...
Mark Twain had some fun quotes about Christianity, why don't you go read some?
I think it's rather hilarious that you want me to be more openly critical of Christianity. Remind me to post pictures of my Easter dinner.
Also, go read God's Crucible. It'll explain why the Islamic world hasn't followed the Christian world in a renaissance: they already had one! Christianity followed them.
The fact that the Islamic Empire was more scientifically advanced, at the time, than Christendom does not mean Islam had a scientific or humanist enlightenment.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton all challeneged the fundamental truth of the Bible. Such challenges to the Quran either did not happen or were not tolerated in the Islamic world. Humanist philosophers in Europe founded systems of morality that stemmed from human reason instead of Biblical law, which eventually formed the basis of Western social organization. No similar movement existed (or was tolerated) in the Islamic Empire. It is completely disingenuous to say that Islam underwent a Rennassaince in the same way Christendom did.
He has a point. Most of southern and large swathes of northern Asia are majority-Muslim, but they're rarely talked about or violent, and any violence is almost exclusively secular in nature (usually separatist). I'm actually starting to think heat, such as that in the middle east and South America, just makes people pissy.
He has a point. Most of southern and large swathes of northern Asia are majority-Muslim, but they're rarely talked about or violent, and any violence is almost exclusively secular in nature (usually separatist). I'm actually starting to think heat, such as that in the middle east and South America, just makes people pissy.
In fact, the majority of Muslims are not in the Middle East!
He has a point. Most of southern and large swathes of northern Asia are majority-Muslim, but they're rarely talked about or violent, and any violence is almost exclusively secular in nature (usually separatist). I'm actually starting to think heat, such as that in the middle east and South America, just makes people pissy.
In fact, the majority of Muslims are not in the Middle East!
You're blowing my mind, Fencingsax.
Qingu on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
He has a point. Most of southern and large swathes of northern Asia are majority-Muslim, but they're rarely talked about or violent, and any violence is almost exclusively secular in nature (usually separatist). I'm actually starting to think heat, such as that in the middle east and South America, just makes people pissy.
In fact, the majority of Muslims are not in the Middle East!
You're blowing my mind, Fencingsax.
Well, you act like you have absolutely no idea, so I'm just trying to help out.
I've never seen anything to convince me that the Quran is significantly more offensive by any metric than the Bible. They both have odious parts telling people to do nasty things mixed in with happy parts telling everyone to sing kumbaya and give reach-arounds.
The difference is that Christianity has matured to the point where the vast majority of adherents worldwide are reasonably tolerant (by which I mean they don't go around killing and enslaving non-believers) while Islam has, for whatever reason, not. "Extremist" Muslims comprise a greater percentage of all Muslims than do "extremist" Christians. I leave the definition of "extremist" deliberately vague, but I'm not referring to all the dimbulbs who believe in YEC and think that apples fall down because Jesus wills them to his loving bosom - I mean the folks who want to get their murder on.
We don't need to excise Islam, we need to figure out how to advance it to the same plane of tolerance as Christianity. Because really, Christianity 500 years ago was about the same as Islam today.
I don't like the use of the word "mature" in this context. It has a lot of connotations that I think put an incorrect spin on the way memes evolve. I think that it's not that religions go through some natural cycles and end up largely secular at the end, per se. I think it's more that they are affected by their environment and circumstances (which change), which is reflected on their core attributes (the canon, traditions, etcetera, which can also slowly change).
Simply because there were similarities in large swaths of Christianity and Islam 500 years ago (and I think this characterization is simplistic in the extreme, the result of cherry-picking a few commonalities) is no indicator that the majority of Muslims in 500 years will be like the majority of Christians today, or anything similar. I think it's obviously possible for Muslims to be as secular as some of the most secular, go-to-church-twice-a-year Christians. It may be that it's going to be a lot more difficult though, because of the circumstances that surround a lot of the adherents, and given the content of a lot of the traditions.
I've never seen anything to convince me that the Quran is significantly more offensive by any metric than the Bible. They both have odious parts telling people to do nasty things mixed in with happy parts telling everyone to sing kumbaya and give reach-arounds.
The difference is that Christianity has matured to the point where the vast majority of adherents worldwide are reasonably tolerant (by which I mean they don't go around killing and enslaving non-believers) while Islam has, for whatever reason, not. "Extremist" Muslims comprise a greater percentage of all Muslims than do "extremist" Christians. I leave the definition of "extremist" deliberately vague, but I'm not referring to all the dimbulbs who believe in YEC and think that apples fall down because Jesus wills them to his loving bosom - I mean the folks who want to get their murder on.
We don't need to excise Islam, we need to figure out how to advance it to the same plane of tolerance as Christianity. Because really, Christianity 500 years ago was about the same as Islam today.
I don't like the use of the word "mature" in this context. It has a lot of connotations that I think put an incorrect spin on the way memes evolve. I think that it's not that religions go through some natural cycles and end up largely secular at the end, per se. I think it's more that they are affected by their environment and circumstances (which change), which is reflected on their core attributes (the canon, traditions, etcetera, which can also slowly change).
Simply because there were similarities in large swaths of Christianity and Islam 500 years ago (and I think this characterization is simplistic in the extreme, the result of cherry-picking a few commonalities) is no indicator that the majority of Muslims in 500 years will be like the majority of Christians today, or anything similar. I think it's obviously possible for Muslims to be as secular as some of the most secular, go-to-church-twice-a-year Christians. It may be that it's going to be a lot more difficult though, because of the circumstances that surround a lot of the adherents, and given the content of a lot of the traditions.
And I wouldn't say Christianity is that much better, largely tying its extremism to causes w/o the word "Christ" in them, especially compared to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Scientology (which is kind of like a crazy great uncle: totally fucking insane, but benignly).
In all honesty, lives will be saved if someone finds a way to forcibly remove this from the internet.
The fact that certain Muslims will murder people who criticize Islam means we should censor criticism of Islam?
No, but you need to have the intelligence to know when your criticism will do nothing but incite violence. This is the wrong way to go about it, entirely. It can only be divisive.
I've never seen anything to convince me that the Quran is significantly more offensive by any metric than the Bible. They both have odious parts telling people to do nasty things mixed in with happy parts telling everyone to sing kumbaya and give reach-arounds.
The difference is that Christianity has matured to the point where the vast majority of adherents worldwide are reasonably tolerant (by which I mean they don't go around killing and enslaving non-believers) while Islam has, for whatever reason, not. "Extremist" Muslims comprise a greater percentage of all Muslims than do "extremist" Christians. I leave the definition of "extremist" deliberately vague, but I'm not referring to all the dimbulbs who believe in YEC and think that apples fall down because Jesus wills them to his loving bosom - I mean the folks who want to get their murder on.
We don't need to excise Islam, we need to figure out how to advance it to the same plane of tolerance as Christianity. Because really, Christianity 500 years ago was about the same as Islam today.
I don't like the use of the word "mature" in this context. It has a lot of connotations that I think put an incorrect spin on the way memes evolve. I think that it's not that religions go through some natural cycles and end up largely secular at the end, per se. I think it's more that they are affected by their environment and circumstances (which change), which is reflected on their core attributes (the canon, traditions, etcetera, which can also slowly change).
Simply because there were similarities in large swaths of Christianity and Islam 500 years ago (and I think this characterization is simplistic in the extreme, the result of cherry-picking a few commonalities) is no indicator that the majority of Muslims in 500 years will be like the majority of Christians today, or anything similar. I think it's obviously possible for Muslims to be as secular as some of the most secular, go-to-church-twice-a-year Christians. It may be that it's going to be a lot more difficult though, because of the circumstances that surround a lot of the adherents, and given the content of a lot of the traditions.
The above is correct. The religion and the number of "extremists" has a lot more to do with the political situation in those areas than "Islam should be more tolerant" If muslim nations were on the giving end of the colonial/imperial pointy stick we'd have a lot more extremist christians around here.
Aridhol on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I've never seen anything to convince me that the Quran is significantly more offensive by any metric than the Bible. They both have odious parts telling people to do nasty things mixed in with happy parts telling everyone to sing kumbaya and give reach-arounds.
The difference is that Christianity has matured to the point where the vast majority of adherents worldwide are reasonably tolerant (by which I mean they don't go around killing and enslaving non-believers) while Islam has, for whatever reason, not. "Extremist" Muslims comprise a greater percentage of all Muslims than do "extremist" Christians. I leave the definition of "extremist" deliberately vague, but I'm not referring to all the dimbulbs who believe in YEC and think that apples fall down because Jesus wills them to his loving bosom - I mean the folks who want to get their murder on.
We don't need to excise Islam, we need to figure out how to advance it to the same plane of tolerance as Christianity. Because really, Christianity 500 years ago was about the same as Islam today.
I don't like the use of the word "mature" in this context. It has a lot of connotations that I think put an incorrect spin on the way memes evolve. I think that it's not that religions go through some natural cycles and end up largely secular at the end, per se. I think it's more that they are affected by their environment and circumstances (which change), which is reflected on their core attributes (the canon, traditions, etcetera, which can also slowly change).
Simply because there were similarities in large swaths of Christianity and Islam 500 years ago (and I think this characterization is simplistic in the extreme, the result of cherry-picking a few commonalities) is no indicator that the majority of Muslims in 500 years will be like the majority of Christians today, or anything similar. I think it's obviously possible for Muslims to be as secular as some of the most secular, go-to-church-twice-a-year Christians. It may be that it's going to be a lot more difficult though, because of the circumstances that surround a lot of the adherents, and given the content of a lot of the traditions.
The above is correct. The religion and the number of "extremists" has a lot more to do with the political situation in those areas than "Islam should be more tolerant" If muslim nations were on the giving end of the colonial/imperial pointy stick we'd have a lot more extremist christians around here.
Which is 1)a fucking scary thought, and 2) your average Indonesian is probably not thinking about blowing themselves up anyway, so worrying about it in the context of "Muslims are terrorists" is fucking stupid.
The religion and the number of "extremists" has a lot more to do with the political situation in those areas than "Islam should be more tolerant" If Muslim nations were on the giving end of the colonial/imperial pointy stick we'd have a lot more extremist Christians around here.
Well... maybe. Probably, I guess. Yeah, an external threat does tend to cause people to hunker down and such, yeah. But my point is that, to put it more similarly to your terms, the religion has a lot more to do with the environment (this includes the political situation, etcetera), reflected off of the individual traditions. Think of it as nature and nurture. The genealogies (as it were) of different traditions can cause adherents to act in dramatically different ways when confronted with similar situations.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it seems like you're focusing on the "nurture" part when the "nature" part is also, I think, very important.
Loren Michael on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The religion and the number of "extremists" has a lot more to do with the political situation in those areas than "Islam should be more tolerant" If Muslim nations were on the giving end of the colonial/imperial pointy stick we'd have a lot more extremist Christians around here.
Well... maybe. Probably, I guess. Yeah, an external threat does tend to cause people to hunker down and such, yeah. But my point is that, to put it more similarly to your terms, the religion has a lot more to do with the environment (this includes the political situation, etcetera), reflected off of the individual traditions. Think of it as nature and nurture. The genealogies (as it were) of different traditions can cause adherents to act in dramatically different ways when confronted with similar situations.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it seems like you're focusing on the "nurture" part when the "nature" part is also, I think, very important.
The nature part would be the colonization part. And then the foreign interventionist history part. The nurture part would be us fucking around right now. The Islam part, not so much. I have seen no evidence anywhere to suggest that what they're doing is totally unlike what Christian fundy extremists would do, and much more evidence to suggest that if the positions were reversed the same kind of shit would be pulled.
Fencingsax on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
Blaming Islam for extremists reminds of people who blame violence in Africa on the 'savagery of blacks'.
Especially since Western civilization had a massive influence on the situation with both regions.
"Hey guys, remember that group of people we fucked over and exploited? It seems they're having a bit of trouble forming a perfect democratic utopia like us. I wonder why."
Blaming Islam for extremists reminds of people who blame violence in Africa on the 'savagery of blacks'.
Especially since Western civilization had a massive influence on the situation with both regions.
"Hey guys, remember that group of people we fucked over and exploited? It seems they're having a bit of trouble forming a perfect democratic utopia like us. I wonder why."
So most Dutch political parties and Muslim organisations have greeted the clip with a resounding meh. Now to wait for the creepy Imams to yell all sorts of wild stuff during the Friday mass and lets see if they're going to lynch some Dutchmen/burn some flags/threaten to bomb us.
In other news:
The image of Mohammed B. (murderer of Theo van Gogh) used in the clip is actually a picture of the rapper Salah Edin dressing up like this terrorist for his latest album "Nederlands Grootste Nachtmerrie" (The Netherlands's biggest nightmare). link
Wilders violated the copyrights of the Danish cartoonist Westergaard by using his cartoon of the prophet with the bomb without asking permission. Westergaard noted that he would not have given permission for such a lousy movie. link
The nature part would be the colonization part. And then the foreign interventionist history part. The nurture part would be us fucking around right now.
No, that's all the nurture part. Islam wasn't formed as a response to Western colonialism. That's part of the point Loren's driving at.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The nature part would be the colonization part. And then the foreign interventionist history part. The nurture part would be us fucking around right now.
No, that's all the nurture part. Islam wasn't formed as a response to Western colonialism. That's part of the point Loren's driving at.
My point was more that Islam isn't really unique in it's response to being fucked around.
Which is 1)a fucking scary thought, and 2) your average Indonesian is probably not thinking about blowing themselves up anyway, so worrying about it in the context of "Muslims are terrorists" is fucking stupid.
And I wouldn't say Christianity is that much better, largely tying its extremism to causes w/o the word "Christ" in them, especially compared to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Scientology (which is kind of like a crazy great uncle: totally fucking insane, but benignly).
The fact that all of the major religions and most of the minor ones are batshit insane doesn't mean you can't talk about islam being problematic IN A THREAD ABOUT ISLAM. Knock it off.
The Cat on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which is 1)a fucking scary thought, and 2) your average Indonesian is probably not thinking about blowing themselves up anyway, so worrying about it in the context of "Muslims are terrorists" is fucking stupid.
Oh hi there. Go wiki the Bali bombings.
Still doesn't really demonstrate how Islam is special. Every religion has its own nuts doing crazy/stupid things. For example, one of those bombings was in direct response to the war on Terror, and the actions in East Timor. Simply saying that it's Islam's fault, rather than, say, specific sociopolitical situations is stupid, shortsighted, and frankly, somewhat dangerous. This thread is a bout a reactionary movie, and I can posit that its message is an ineffective and incoherent one.
And I wouldn't say Christianity is that much better, largely tying its extremism to causes w/o the word "Christ" in them, especially compared to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Scientology (which is kind of like a crazy great uncle: totally fucking insane, but benignly).
The fact that all of the major religions and most of the minor ones are batshit insane doesn't mean you can't talk about islam being problematic IN A THREAD ABOUT ISLAM. Knock it off.
Yes, Cat, a post saying that Christianity isn't better than Islam in response to a post that says Christianity is better than Islam is certainly an unreasonable post in a thread about Islam.
So, a racist political party put out a hate video that equates Islam with violence. No surprises there; fringe parties have been doing this since the Protocols of Zion 100 years ago, which the Nazis used to try and get elected. There has always been votes in bigotry and fear. I think every multi-party democracy must have a xenophobic party: in Australia, its called 'one-nation', and runs on a similar anti-immigration platform.
What can we do about it? Not give any credence to their propaganda, for a start; engagement implies legitimacy.
Blaming Islam for extremists reminds of people who blame violence in Africa on the 'savagery of blacks'.
Hi Kagera. Let's go over some things.
Race is a physical characteristic. It has to do largely with the melanin count in your skin cells.
Religion is a cultural ideology. It has to do with social traditions and, in the case of Islam, is strongly grounded in a collection of writings which contain behavioral commands.
Which is 1)a fucking scary thought, and 2) your average Indonesian is probably not thinking about blowing themselves up anyway, so worrying about it in the context of "Muslims are terrorists" is fucking stupid.
Which is 1)a fucking scary thought, and 2) your average Indonesian is probably not thinking about blowing themselves up anyway, so worrying about it in the context of "Muslims are terrorists" is fucking stupid.
Oh hi there. Go wiki the Bali bombings.
Still doesn't really demonstrate how Islam is special. Every religion has its own nuts doing crazy/stupid things. For example, one of those bombings was in direct response to the war on Terror, and the actions in East Timor. Simply saying that it's Islam's fault, rather than, say, specific sociopolitical situations is stupid, shortsighted, and frankly, somewhat dangerous. This thread is a bout a reactionary movie, and I can posit that its message is an ineffective and incoherent one.
I was responding to your position that Indonesian Islamists didn't blow shit up. They quite frequently do, along with burning and looting non-muslim places of worship. They're no better or worse than any other Islam-heavy region.
In all honesty, lives will be saved if someone finds a way to forcibly remove this from the internet.
Good way to support freedom of speech there, buddy.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. And it is absolutely not a right that should be pushed no matter what the circumstances. When my words could mean the death of someone else, I would probably bite my tongue, unless what I say is of such importance that I would sacrifice innocents for it.
This movie is not going to have a huge impact, it is not really as confronting as we had feared. Wilders is just repeating the same stuff he has been saying for months. Only this time the whole world can enjoy it without having to first translate it.
And I wouldn't say Christianity is that much better, largely tying its extremism to causes w/o the word "Christ" in them, especially compared to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Scientology (which is kind of like a crazy great uncle: totally fucking insane, but benignly).
The fact that all of the major religions and most of the minor ones are batshit insane doesn't mean you can't talk about islam being problematic IN A THREAD ABOUT ISLAM. Knock it off.
Yes, Cat, a post saying that Christianity isn't better than Islam in response to a post that says Christianity is better than Islam is certainly an unreasonable post in a thread about Islam.
There've been several people in here attacking qingu (of all people!) for not hating christianity in this thread on an equal basis with islam or whatever else, which is quite unutterably stupid and should stop immediately. In a thread about a particular topic there is no need for people to declare their opinions on every other topic that could be remotely relevant just to shut these silly, silly people up.
So, a racist political party put out a hate video that equates Islam with violence. No surprises there; fringe parties have been doing this since the Protocols of Zion 100 years ago, which the Nazis used to try and get elected.
Again, is his party actually racist? Or is it anti-Muslim? Islam is a religion, not a race.
And have you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It is a fictional account of a nonexistent Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. It is literally nothing at all like Wilder's film, which mostly (from what I can tell, not speaking moon-language) juxtaposes violent passages from the Quran with images of Muslims who apparently take those passages to heart.
There has always been votes in bigotry and fear. I think every multi-party democracy must have a xenophobic party: in Australia, its called 'one-nation', and runs on a similar anti-immigration platform.
What can we do about it? Not give any credence to their propaganda, for a start; engagement implies legitimacy.
I agree with you that political parties should not be based on fear or on ostracizing a cultural group, even a barbaric cultural group. I would not support such a party, and I think there are better ways of getting Muslims to integrate with Western culture than constantly attacking their religion.
However: this film, to me, seems to be little more than a far-reaching criticism of the Quran. Its criticism of Islam is by extension of its criticism of the Quran, which is entirely fair as it is implicitly limited to those Muslims who take the Quran seriously and revere it as relevant to modern morality.
The Quran should be criticized. And all of us should support the airing of such criticism.
Uh, Wilders is pretty racist, Qingu. Not bad enough to be tossed in jail, but bad enough to have every racist in the country vote for him as the new Janmaat or Fortuyn.
In all honesty, lives will be saved if someone finds a way to forcibly remove this from the internet.
The fact that certain Muslims will murder people who criticize Islam means we should censor criticism of Islam?
No, but you need to have the intelligence to know when your criticism will do nothing but incite violence. This is the wrong way to go about it, entirely. It can only be divisive.
I am not comfortable with this argument. By the same logic, Americans should not have criticized the Italian mafia in its heyday because it could lead to assassinations. Or, civil rights reformers should not have criticized racist policies because that also incited much violence.
I do not like throwing around the word "terrorism." But when fear of violent reprisal is what keeps you from criticizing a religious text, you are succumbing to terrorism.
Uh, Wilders is pretty racist, Qingu. Not bad enough to be tossed in jail, but bad enough to have every racist in the country vote for him as the new Janmaat or Fortuyn.
The fact that racists support these people does not mean they themselves or their parties are racist—anymore than the fact that Louis Farrakan supports Obama means Obama thinks Jews are evil.
I do not see anything in those Wikipedia pages that supports your allegation of racism. Being against multiculturalism and immigration is not racism.
A lot of you are throwing the R-word around here without any reason or support.
There's a fine line between criticizing something and poking it with a sharp stick.
On the one hand, I could go on about passages of a text I think should be altered, or messages that should be heeded more. On the other hand, I could just Godwin the whole thing and do nothing but try and pitch the whole group in a horrible light based on a minority of it's people.
One opens a conversation, the other attempts to pick a fight.
Posts
No, I mean "taking parables and symbolism literally"
They also kill dissenters and torture criminals, so maybe not the best comparison when it comes to crime rates.
Alright my mistake. I have a good understanding of various doctrines and sayings of both, just never went into such detail for the Quran.
Which seems to be the problem correct?
Well, the U.S. also tortures criminals, but that's neither here nor there. My only point was that expansion of fundamentalist Islamic theology does not necessarily correspond to war-torn regions or endemic criminality.
The problem being that Muslims are in large part unwilling to look critically at their own religion, their holy book, and the actions of their fellow believers (with the exception, of course, of the sectarian conflict that has been endemic in the religion since right after Muhammad died)? Yes, I'd say that's a huge problem.
Well?
I'm waiting.
Also, go read God's Crucible. It'll explain why the Islamic world hasn't followed the Christian world in a renaissance: they already had one! Christianity followed them.
Mark Twain had some fun quotes about Christianity, why don't you go read some?
Edit, actually, that works for 'sax too. Wherein do we see Qingu's Asian Beef?
The fact that the Islamic Empire was more scientifically advanced, at the time, than Christendom does not mean Islam had a scientific or humanist enlightenment.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton all challeneged the fundamental truth of the Bible. Such challenges to the Quran either did not happen or were not tolerated in the Islamic world. Humanist philosophers in Europe founded systems of morality that stemmed from human reason instead of Biblical law, which eventually formed the basis of Western social organization. No similar movement existed (or was tolerated) in the Islamic Empire. It is completely disingenuous to say that Islam underwent a Rennassaince in the same way Christendom did.
I fucking hate Chinese food, if that's what you mean.
I don't like the use of the word "mature" in this context. It has a lot of connotations that I think put an incorrect spin on the way memes evolve. I think that it's not that religions go through some natural cycles and end up largely secular at the end, per se. I think it's more that they are affected by their environment and circumstances (which change), which is reflected on their core attributes (the canon, traditions, etcetera, which can also slowly change).
Simply because there were similarities in large swaths of Christianity and Islam 500 years ago (and I think this characterization is simplistic in the extreme, the result of cherry-picking a few commonalities) is no indicator that the majority of Muslims in 500 years will be like the majority of Christians today, or anything similar. I think it's obviously possible for Muslims to be as secular as some of the most secular, go-to-church-twice-a-year Christians. It may be that it's going to be a lot more difficult though, because of the circumstances that surround a lot of the adherents, and given the content of a lot of the traditions.
And I wouldn't say Christianity is that much better, largely tying its extremism to causes w/o the word "Christ" in them, especially compared to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Scientology (which is kind of like a crazy great uncle: totally fucking insane, but benignly).
The above is correct. The religion and the number of "extremists" has a lot more to do with the political situation in those areas than "Islam should be more tolerant" If muslim nations were on the giving end of the colonial/imperial pointy stick we'd have a lot more extremist christians around here.
Well... maybe. Probably, I guess. Yeah, an external threat does tend to cause people to hunker down and such, yeah. But my point is that, to put it more similarly to your terms, the religion has a lot more to do with the environment (this includes the political situation, etcetera), reflected off of the individual traditions. Think of it as nature and nurture. The genealogies (as it were) of different traditions can cause adherents to act in dramatically different ways when confronted with similar situations.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it seems like you're focusing on the "nurture" part when the "nature" part is also, I think, very important.
Especially since Western civilization had a massive influence on the situation with both regions.
"Hey guys, remember that group of people we fucked over and exploited? It seems they're having a bit of trouble forming a perfect democratic utopia like us. I wonder why."
In other news:
The image of Mohammed B. (murderer of Theo van Gogh) used in the clip is actually a picture of the rapper Salah Edin dressing up like this terrorist for his latest album "Nederlands Grootste Nachtmerrie" (The Netherlands's biggest nightmare). link
Wilders violated the copyrights of the Danish cartoonist Westergaard by using his cartoon of the prophet with the bomb without asking permission. Westergaard noted that he would not have given permission for such a lousy movie. link
No, that's all the nurture part. Islam wasn't formed as a response to Western colonialism. That's part of the point Loren's driving at.
Oh hi there. Go wiki the Bali bombings.
The fact that all of the major religions and most of the minor ones are batshit insane doesn't mean you can't talk about islam being problematic IN A THREAD ABOUT ISLAM. Knock it off.
Yes, Cat, a post saying that Christianity isn't better than Islam in response to a post that says Christianity is better than Islam is certainly an unreasonable post in a thread about Islam.
What can we do about it? Not give any credence to their propaganda, for a start; engagement implies legitimacy.
Race is a physical characteristic. It has to do largely with the melanin count in your skin cells.
Religion is a cultural ideology. It has to do with social traditions and, in the case of Islam, is strongly grounded in a collection of writings which contain behavioral commands.
Good way to support freedom of speech there, buddy.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. And it is absolutely not a right that should be pushed no matter what the circumstances. When my words could mean the death of someone else, I would probably bite my tongue, unless what I say is of such importance that I would sacrifice innocents for it.
This movie is not going to have a huge impact, it is not really as confronting as we had feared. Wilders is just repeating the same stuff he has been saying for months. Only this time the whole world can enjoy it without having to first translate it.
There've been several people in here attacking qingu (of all people!) for not hating christianity in this thread on an equal basis with islam or whatever else, which is quite unutterably stupid and should stop immediately. In a thread about a particular topic there is no need for people to declare their opinions on every other topic that could be remotely relevant just to shut these silly, silly people up.
And have you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It is a fictional account of a nonexistent Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. It is literally nothing at all like Wilder's film, which mostly (from what I can tell, not speaking moon-language) juxtaposes violent passages from the Quran with images of Muslims who apparently take those passages to heart.
I agree with you that political parties should not be based on fear or on ostracizing a cultural group, even a barbaric cultural group. I would not support such a party, and I think there are better ways of getting Muslims to integrate with Western culture than constantly attacking their religion.
However: this film, to me, seems to be little more than a far-reaching criticism of the Quran. Its criticism of Islam is by extension of its criticism of the Quran, which is entirely fair as it is implicitly limited to those Muslims who take the Quran seriously and revere it as relevant to modern morality.
The Quran should be criticized. And all of us should support the airing of such criticism.
I do not like throwing around the word "terrorism." But when fear of violent reprisal is what keeps you from criticizing a religious text, you are succumbing to terrorism.
I do not see anything in those Wikipedia pages that supports your allegation of racism. Being against multiculturalism and immigration is not racism.
A lot of you are throwing the R-word around here without any reason or support.
On the one hand, I could go on about passages of a text I think should be altered, or messages that should be heeded more. On the other hand, I could just Godwin the whole thing and do nothing but try and pitch the whole group in a horrible light based on a minority of it's people.
One opens a conversation, the other attempts to pick a fight.
This movie is nothing more than a needlessly inflammatory attempt to paint all Muslims as extremists.