I'm on the Pope's side on this one

[there buster]

Quote:

Stereotyping a whole faith based on the actions of a few is just plain morally wrong.

1. No one has stereotyped every Muslim on the basis of a few. You jumped to that conclusion on your own. Since you apparently missed it, there is a difference between A:"Muslims hijacked the planes on 9/11," and C:"All Muslims are hijackers." Getting from A to C is a logical fallacy called "jumping to a conclusion."

2. As I pointed out 57% (according to Pew Research) of Jordanians approved of terrorism. That's a majority. Worldwide, the figure of 30% has been given. That's a large proportion.

3. As I demonstrated with historical data, assassination was named for a group of Muslims, and jihad meant holy war--ever hear of "the Koran, tribute, or the sword?"-- from the inception of the religion.

I have disagreed with your position. I have repeatedly demonstrated that your arguments simply don't work, by the effective device of applying them to other situations. So now you resort to moral instruction, based on a false conclusion you leaped to.

In my experience, sound moral teaching rarely results from unsound logic.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Islam is a 7th century religion of war locked in a 7th century culture.

For about 30% of Islam that is correct. And many of the 70% that are moderate Muslims are afraid to publically criticise those in the 30%.

Contrast this to Christianity. Minority Christians, like Seventh-day Adventists, openly criticise other Christians. Adventists even publically call the papacy the Anti-christ. Pat Robertson openly criticises liberal churches that ordain gays. If moderate Muslims were not so intimidated and afraid of the fundamentalists it would make for a much healthier religion - like Christianity is.

[there buster]

Quote:

I'm entitled to the opinion that it's a bigoted opinion to hold, and an ill-informed one.

Ah, back to name calling.

As for ill-informed, which part of the history do you dispute? Must we now revise history books to delete the Battle of Tours and the Alhambra?

In Europe, mutilation for crime was still practiced in the 7th century. But Europe moved away from that. As far as individual Muslims are concerned many are urbane, erudite, devout, and civilized. Muslim Turkey moved forward. But those Muslims, mainly Arabs, but some Persians, who still practice mutilation, female circumcision, and honor killings-- yes, those are the remnants of the 7th century. Those are facts.

This is not bigoted. I don't believe there's anything inherent or genetic about this. But beliefs have consequences. It is beliefs we're talking about, not people.

To say that the KKK is dysfunctional and frozen in an outmoded ideology is not bigoted. Beliefs have consequences.

And so do words. Throwing the word "bigoted" around doesn't prove anything. It doesn't intimidate me, because I know it's vacuous.

[Bravus]

No name calling involved: as you always request (demand?), I characterised your opinion, not you. Anyway, we're clearly not getting anywhere.

[lazarus]

Quote:

Casting it as a religious war casts it as a war between a billion Christians on one side and a billion Muslims on the other, with a billion Hindus and a billion Confucians (with a thin veneer of Maoism) looking on. That kind of all out war on a culture would kill millions on *both* sides, and have no winners.

Sadlly, framing this conflict in this way is the easy thing to do. It usually comes from those most ignorant of the people in the middle east or those who have had limited contact with those of the muslim faith. My guess is that anyone who has lived in predominantly muslim communites or who have friends from region will have a more nuanced and intelligent vew of the conflict.

[there buster]

Quote:

Anyway, we're clearly not getting anywhere.

Yes. This is a common reply when the facts are on one side of the issue. The history I have cited is easily verified.

And yes, I do insist on speaking to ideas rather than persons. But "bigoted" is inflammatory, and you know it.

As far as characterizing this as a religious war, that's a straw man that keeps being raised. No one that I know of has so characterized this war. As Bernard Lewis, probably the greatest living scholar on these issues, who not only has lived there but speaks Arabic, Turkish and Farsi, and has read the original documents in most cases, put it in a speech recently, it comes down to this: "Either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us."

"We," in his speech, are the western advanced nations.

Oh, and before someone gets the notion of "we" being a codeword for American Christians, Lewis was born in Britain, of Jewish parents. I believe he's pretty much secular in his personal life.

Lewis is so deeply immersed in Islamic culture that recently a Lebanese American published an article about Lewis. It seems that the Lebanese American had been attempting to trace his roots, and had run into a dead end. He met Lewis at some function, and they talked about several things, including this fellow's search for his ancestral home. Several days later, he received in the mail an original document from something like the middle ages, that contained property records which included his family name. Lewis had sent it from his own collection.

This notion that "if we really knew anything about Muslims" we'd think differently is simply a backdoor way of calling someone else ignorant. Well, I haven't lived in the MIddle East, so I go looking for someone who has, and who has studied the issues deeply. Bernard Lewis is such a person, a person who loves the region. That's why he said, "Either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us."

[Nicodema]

No name calling involved: as you always request (demand?), I characterised your opinion, not you. Anyway, we're clearly not getting anywhere.

you forget the cardinal rule of that one, bravus: it's only name-calling and ad hominem when it is an accurate characterisation of something he likes, agrees with, or cherishes. particularly if it is wingnut garbage that no one with his intelligence should, logically, be lending any credence or support toward.

when he does it, it is always justified.

that is the cardinal rule to his game.

(Ed i do not oppose you as a person. i oppose this nonsense and the hijacking of your mind by this garbage you seem determined to throw yourself away upon. such a waste for such an otherwise intelligent mind and literary talent.)

[lazarus]

I'm not surprised that you would be a "fan" of Lewis. His perspective on Islam and the middle east pervades much of the Bush Admin policy.

Lewis' perpective basically supports the notion that the Western colonialism has not been reponsible for the current problems in the Middle East. It is no surprise that his work is respected by those in the west!!!

Obviously, his scholarship is extensive and widely received by many on the right.

Lewis recently predicted an Iranian attack on Israel by Iran on August 31st because of the religious significance of the date. Of course that did not happen. It does however feed the notion that thses Muslims are irrational, crazy. Many Muslims find his perspectives racist.

Your willingness to accept his conclusions about the current situation (rather than Edward Said for example) may be precisely due to your lack or person interaction with muslims and their communities, perhaps.

[Dr. Shane]

Muslims have been aggressive since the religion began. Why does anyone want to pretend it is becuase of poverty, colonialism or the US? The majority has moved beyond its violoent roots but a large minority is behind many of the world's problems today. Why is that so hard for some people to admit?

[there buster]

Well, let's see.

You got the date wrong. IT was Aug 22.

You got the prediction wrong. He said it would not be surprising if such a thing happened.

I'm quite familiar with Said and his marxist cant. Said's theories are the problem with the Middle East, not the solution. They've been blaming their problems on others for decades.

Most of the countries in the MIddle East have huge incomes from oil, but they can't build stable societies. Hong Kong and Singabpore have NO resources except their people, and they become wealthy.

Marxism was born in the 19th century, and lives in the 19th century. Too bad it's the 21st.

I'm always fascinated that the more marxism and socialism is discredited in practice, the more fashionable it becomes.

Oh, and another error. AS it happens, the town where I do my business has one of the largest and oldest Muslim communities in the nation. I've been interacting with Muslims since 1967. The best man at my wedding went to college in Beirut.

[Nicodema]

Wouldn't these nasty, hateful little people (Muslim Extremists) love to conquer the world and usher in a bloody new era of the Dark Ages?

Fundy wingnut Xtians in the USA are already WELL in progress on that project. Ooops. Sorry, Muslim extremists.

[Dr. Shane]

If we can focus on one topic at a time, Muslim extreamists would like to conquer to world... and they would kill us, make us slaves or make us pay for the right to be alive. These are very scary people and we shouldn't be playing politics with the issue.

[Nicodema]

Fear-mongering. I seem to recall hearing about the exact same rhetoric and tripe trotted out about "communists" back in the Fifties.

[Dr. Shane]

I wasn't alive in the '50s but the communists were a real threat. We can thank Ronald Wilson Reagon for defeating them. Well, he didn't do it alone but was instrumental in making it happen.

It is not responsible to ignore things we should fear. For example, we should fear driving at night without turning on our headlights. If I remind someone to turn on their headlights, that shouldn't be considered fear-mongering.

Likewise, we were right to fear the communists. Who was it that beat his shoe on the table at the UN and said he would bury us? We should also fear fundamental Muslims.

[Nicodema]

Oh Shane, you have GOT to be kidding!!!

No one "defeated" the communists, least of all Ronnie Ray-Gun.

The world woke up to how stupid it was for a brief shining second in the LATE 80s (after doofus was out of office already) ... which was destroyed by the next doofus who came along just a few short years ago.

Man! Learn your history! :D

[aldona]

Quote:

What I find difficult to understand is why any Christian would quote him with approval.

Is this an insinuation that Aldona's faith should now be called into question?

(not a reply to Nico, but to the previous post quoted.)

So if an atheist says something, are they automatically wrong and we are not to quote them?

If an atheist said "2+2 = 4" we would start going around looking for evidence that 2+2 = 5, just so we wouldn't be seen agreeing with an atheist?

If an atheist says "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west", are insinuations made about our level of spirituality because we tend to agree?

If we are to throw out all the facts and discoveries made by atheists simply because of who came up with them, you would see most of the world's science, mathematics, history, geography, art and culture disappear.

Then again, maybe that is what the fundamentalist religious types want.

So here is a quote from Aldona Jones, baptised member of the SDA religion in good standing, and believer in God:

"The more religion, the more dysfunction."

Just my observation.

(Disclaimer: "Religion" is NOT equivalent to "spirituality."

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

If the fundamental Muslims get nuclear weapons, they will be a greater threat than the communists were and it will take more than a brillant and well-spoken President to defeat them.

That is not fear-mongering. It is straight-talk.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"Religion" is NOT equivalent to "spirituality."

Topic for another thread. Spirituality is religion without rules. The ancients that went to thier temples and had gay sex with young boys were spiritual.

[cricket]

"spiritual" is a word. You can misconstrue it any way you like, but it doesn't change the meaning for the rest of us.

[lazarus]

Quote:

You got the date wrong. IT was Aug 22.

You got the prediction wrong. He said it would not be surprising if such a thing happened.

my error does not negate the point. He would not be surprised if the leader of Iran would lead an attack that would result in the destruction of his own people. Those assertions feed the media frenzy that says Ahmedinejad is "hitler" or some such bizzare comparison. Its the same old tactic of demonising the oposition so when you bomb them its doesn't seem so bad. This is Iraq all over again.

Despite his knowlege and profound understanding of the Middle East he ends up at the same point as Rush Limbaugh!

Quote:

. Hong Kong and Singabpore have NO resources except their people, and they become wealthy.

Those are interesting examples, Hong Kong, until the recent past was a UK territory and Singapore is definately an extroardinary sucess story, but I hope we would compare apples with apples.

Interaction can mean buying groceries from a muslim or it can mean sharing a meal, it can mean riding in a taxi driven by a muslim or it can mean revising for an exam with your friend who is muslim. It can mean hearing the call to prayer as you happen to walk through a neigbourhood or it can mean going to prayer simply becasue you are invited by your neighbour.

My wife was a missionary in the south pacific but that does not necessarily translate into an understanding of the people, culture or their aspirations on my part.

[lazarus]

, Muslim extreamists would like to conquer to world... and they would kill us, make us slaves or make us pay for the right to be alive. These are very scary people and we shouldn't be playing politics with the issue.

It seems like these Muslims have alot in common with the Christians of the last 300 years. I guess the Western nations should be able to recognise imperialists, enslavers, mass murderers when they seem them!

[lazarus]

If the fundamental Muslims get nuclear weapons, they will be a greater threat than the communists were and it will take more than a brillant and well-spoken President to defeat them.

That is not fear-mongering. It is straight-talk.

I think if Iran gets a nuclear weapon it may final bring some peace to the Middle East. It will moderate Israel and force them into a setllement with the palestinians.

[Nicodema]

The ancients that went to thier temples and had gay sex with young boys were spiritual.

AND a heck of a lot closer to their gods than most "religious" people seem to theirs. case closed.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I think if Iran gets a nuclear weapon it may final bring some peace to the Middle East.

I am sure it will. Iran will nuke Israel. Israel will nuke Iran, and perhaps some other Islamic nations. And then there will be peace.

But is that the price we want to pay?

[Kountzer]

Lost in the intimidation of Islam? A sense of Irony:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4205783.html