10/15/2005: Monk protection

[John]

Originally Posted by mlandman

The association is there. Period. I'm not defending it, advocating it. If you don't think Islam (And yes, while there is no 'pope' there are grand poobahs) as an entity should do one thing about it, great. Head in sand.

So, why don't you hold all Baptists responsible for Phelps, Terry, Robertson, and the KKK? Sure, there's no Baptist "pope", but there are grand poobahs. Why haven't Baptists, as the single entity they so *obviously* are to you, done something about the repugnant actions of a small minority of Baptists?

[BigV]

We're missing your point, or we don't agree with your point?

If we're missing it, explain yourself. If you say my head's in the sand, that implies I insist on not seeing something you do. That sounds like you think I'm merely disagreeing with you. There's a difference, an important difference.

I want to explore this a little: the grand poobahs and what "they" should do about it. Do you know who these poobahs (imams) are? Have you read anything by any (and there are many) of them? Do you know what "they" are saying? I think you fall into a dangerous trap by lazily assuming there's some controlling "they". There isn't. Stop wasting your time looking for "them".

There ARE imams who incite violence, yes, there are. Many many more of them oppose it. Which do you think makes better copy? Which is more exciting? Which one will make the 6 o'clock news?

You make a suggestion for improving the situation: "Islam as an entity should do something about it". That's a great start. But it just begs the question, who is going to do something? Individual muslims? And when one DOES do something peaceful, will you talk about "Islamic" peaceniks? You probably mean the leaders in the communities of faith, the imams. What would you have them do? Condemn the violence? Do you have some other suggestion as to what "they" should do? Be specific.

You're on the right track, keep going. I'll work it with you.

[mlandman]

Originally Posted by BigV

We're missing your point, or we don't agree with your point? If we're missing it, explain yourself. If you say my head's in the sand, that implies I insist on not seeing something you do. That sounds like you think I'm merely disagreeing with you. There's a difference, an important difference.

MISSING it. I see alot of arguments from people defending Islam as not preaching violence. But, that's not a point I'm trying to make, so I don't know why that's a counterpoint. My point is the association exists whether it's justified or not. So, people can choose to pretend that association doesn't exist (hence my head in the sand comment), or they can acknowledge it whether it's a justified association or not.

If you don't think a very very large number of people are associating Islam with violence, you are wrong. I'm not asking if you agree with the association, merely it's existance. It's rapidly growing existance.

Whether you choose to agree with the COUNTLESS articles that discuss how Islamic leaders need to denounce killings of innocents 'in the name of islam' is irrelevant.

It's different re: McVeigh re: Ohio. He didn't do it in the name of religion. Yet, suicide attack after suicide attack after suicide attack after bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after hotel bombing after school siege after plane explosion is 'IN THE NAME IS ISLAM'. So, you go ahead and choose to believe that there isn't an association growing across the world with islam and terrorism. Again, not saying that true islam preaches this, but I'm saying these terrorists are have an EFFECT on people's perception of Islam, whether YOU **like** it or not.

[capnhowdy]

Be careful guys.... UT is responsible for your actions/comments since you are all cellarites. Don't force him to get his

SHIT UNDER CONTROL.

*****beaming with sarcasm while hitting alt + s*****

IMO most terrorist/radicals aren't at all commited to any religion or group. They use these for something to conveniently (and cowardly) hide behind, hoping to imply the "safety in numbers" theory. They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do.

[mlandman]

Originally Posted by capnhowdy

IMO most terrorist/radicals aren't at all commited to any religion or group. They use these for something to conveniently (and cowardly) hide behind, hoping to imply the "safety in numbers" theory. They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do.

Still feel the same way?

[BigV]

capn, you said it three sentences what I wanted to say in three pages. I like yours better now. Well put.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by BigV

capn, you said it three sentences what I wanted to say in three pages. I like yours better now. Well put.

The only problem is that I don't belive it to be true.

The people that blow themselves up do it because their religion says it's the thing to do, not because it makes any form of sense outside of that framework.

Without the fervent belief that their ephemeral little soul was in jeopardy or that they get the virgins and the grapes and no women when they go to heaven they would have a much more shallow pool of motivation to draw from.

[BigV]

Which of these statements do disbelieve?

IMO most terrorist/radicals aren't at all commited to any religion or group.

I think that many terrorists have mixed motivations, including a portion of political, religious, and psycho. I think they're trying to get something done here on earth, and at best, secondarily motivated to achieve some reward in the hereafter.

They use these for something to conveniently (and cowardly) hide behind, hoping to imply the "safety in numbers" theory.

I think the "religious" motivations are as much for those who stay behind as it is for those who die. They, and we must include more than just those who actually explode on impact in that "they", use the colors of religion for the recruiting value, for the prestige value, for the abililty to leverage such forces as shame and xenophobia as motivational tools. This is how propoganda works. Terrorism in the name of religion is terrorism powered by propoganda. "This is the truth, this is why, don't question (my religious) authority, obey (my political orders)." That's where the disconnect happens. A religious leader says something for secular reasons, but justifies it in religious terms.

They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do.

I doubt we disagree on this point. If you do, please correct my misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

The only problem is that I don't belive it to be true.

The people that blow themselves up do it because their religion says it's the thing to do, not because it makes any form of sense outside of that framework.

Without the fervent belief that their ephemeral little soul was in jeopardy or that they get the virgins and the grapes and no women when they go to heaven they would have a much more shallow pool of motivation to draw from.

I once pariticipated in a conversation with some people whose opinion I valued, whose expertise I respected regarding some questions I had about "But what is the church say about that?", or words to that effect. The reply (from deacons and the pastor) was unsatisfyingly zen-like: "YOU are the church. What do you say?" Now I have greatly simplified the discussion I had, but the truth of the matter has grown on me.

You could say, since the terrorists believe it is in the name of Islam, it therefore is. By the same logic, if I say it is not in the name of Islam, then it is not. Viewed in these extremely narrow terms, we have a pretty useless stalemate. I'm not bent on convincing you of the truth about any religious tradition. I sense considerable hostility on your part to the whole notion. Live and let live.

But Islam is not about terrorism. If it were, how do you account for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not terrorists? Are they not Muslims then? Lapsed? Slacking backsliders? Closet Baptists?

The texts, the teachings and the actions of the overwhelming majority of the followers of Islam all, all, indicate peace and not terror.

[capnhowdy]

[BigV]

Ok, I guess I totally misread you.

I **thought** you were saying that you totally associate Islam with suicide bombings and terrorism. I **thought** you were saying that it was up to Islam to seriously take action here. I thought you were saying that your opinion of Islam is decided by what they do, and not by you.

I totally missed the real message that you were concerned that Islam was getting a possibly bad rap in the eyes of the world. I missed the part where you really talking about how dumb people can be. Sorry, dude. My bad.

So, I guess we agree. There's a TON of bad press out there about Islam. I agree that "their" public relations machine is puke compared to the terrorists'. I agree with you that some people, most people will believe **anything**, regardless of the truth of the matter. Witness the stooopidity surrounding the Intelligent Design as Science comedy. I guess we're right inline with each other.

Oh, except that you persist in posting stuff like

Originally Posted by mlandman

Yet, suicide attack after suicide attack after suicide attack after bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after hotel bombing after school siege after plane explosion is 'IN THE NAME IS ISLAM'.

and you clearly imply that you believe this part is true. You don't qualify it, your don't set it apart, you repeat it as though it were true. Let me just say this, In the name of Islam, it just isn't so.

EVEN IF the moron hollers "Allah Akbar!" just before he blows himself up, DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Even if he has brown skin doesn't make it so. Even if he has a foreign sounding name doesn't make it so. Even if he lives in the Middle East doesn't make it so. Loudly repeating a lie only produces a loud lie. Not truth. No matter how long or how loud. It never, ever makes it true.

But that part about the bad rap? Yeah, I totally agree.

[mlandman]

bigV, you're right. None of the suicide bombings are in the name of islam.

None of what is happening in Indonesia is.

None of what sept 11 was about, was.

none of london was.

none of the attempts thwarted in France, Spain, and other countries re: Moroccan and Algerian muslims, is.

You're right, and I'm wrong. This association is all a bad rap. The bad press machine made it happen.

Apologies, they're clearly deserved.

[wolf]

True enough, Islam is not about terrorism.

Islam is about Submission.

That's what it means, right?

The idea is that EVERYONE will submit to Allah.

Not to "some god equivalent to Allah" but Allah.

The one, the only, whose prophet is Muhammed, etc.

Terrorism, as one face of the Jihad, is one such means by which this will occur.

Islam does allow for non-Muslims to live in Muslim lands, however, they are subject to significant restrictions, cannot build houses of worship, cannot celebrate major religious festivals, have to pay a tax (which can be 1/3-1/2 of one's salary plus other applicable secular taxes), and if there is any suspicion that an attempt is being made to convert a Muslim, one can be imprisoned, punished, and even killed.

[Troubleshooter]

You know something. If we didn't have this silly thing called religion we wouldn't have a self-delusional charade to hide behind. We would have to own up to our imperfections. And if those imperfections are blamed on someone else we could at least look at who it was blamed on and find out. We wouldn't have some fictional entity to use as an excuse for predatory actions, or bestial behavior. We would just have to look at ourselves and say, well fuck, I guess I'm just not civilized after all.

Taken as a whole, fuck religion.

(G)god(s) may exist but if they want anything from me then they need to Fedex me a fucking manual and CV that's hard to refute. Otherwise anyone, anywhere who wants me to believe anything other than something that can at least be actually seen can kiss my ass. Repeatedly...

[xoxoxoBruce]

EVEN IF the moron hollers "Allah Akbar!" just before he blows himself up, DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

The hell it doesn't.....even if the rest of the Islamics don't want it to. It's a stain on them that they have to remove. If someone blows them self up in the name of the Baptists, they have to disavow that action or it sticks.

I'm thinking that there is a large number of people here in the good old USofA who would be real cool with a Christian theocracy, and that is real scary. I think some of the vanguard of that fetid governmental philosophy are already in power, so if there's an element of "who cares if they're dead, they're only a bunch of Muslims" to our foreign interventions of late, it is probably par for the course.

I was thinking vice versa. All the muslims who eschew violence but smirk when their neighbor kills an infidel.
It won't stop until everyone on all sides work to stop it. Nobody commits these acts without somebody knowing in advance.

[johningerslev]

The whole

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

fuck religion.

argument sortof falls down in my opinion when you consider aetheism as a religion - i.e. set of beliefs just like the other "religions"... admittedly a very free faith, but a set of beliefs that are based around the principle that there is no god just like religions are a set of beliefs based around the principle that there is a god. What we need is people to question everything they do and try to work it out according to this "right" and "wrong" morals we all intrinsically feel - not anger and hate.
i think.