[Drjones]

***STOP. This topic is something that interests me greatly, and I really want to discuss it among the intelligent and wise members of this forum. I do NOT want it to get locked. Let's all be civil and remember we are on "The High Road."

Act Accordingly.

If you have nothing positive to contribute, or cannot contribute in a positive manner, DON'T BOTHER. Thank you***


Is Islam really a violent religion?

Or is it peaceful like so many claim?

I've read some excerpts from it that would definitely prove it to be violent and hate-filled.

HOWEVER, I have also read many parts of the bible that could also depict Christianity as being violent and bloodthirsty.

We all know the oceans of blood that have been spilled in the name of religion. (Which is one reason why I personally detest religions of all sorts.)

It seems to me that a large problem is the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam. However, that again would only prove the point that it IS indeed a violent religion at its most basic, fundamental roots.

Of course there are some fundamentalist Christian wackos, but the big difference seems to be the fact that fundamentalist Christians do not go out and kill people indiscriminately.

Anyhow, what do you think?

KEEP THIS CLEAN, PLEASE!

[10-Ring]

From what I've read, Islam is not a violent religion. Those that have taken it to an extreme have perverted some of its scriptures to serve their needs. There are many Muslims (mostly here in the US) who have gotten quite upset at the actions some in the Arab world have taken in the name of their god.

[Carlos]

About a year ago, I did some reading in the Koran. Yes, you're right, it's no more violent than our Christian, Catholic, Baptist views.

On the face of it, the Koran parallels the bible in a lot of ways; re how to treat people, no stealing, etc.

Perhaps at the time of its writing, was a little less PC than the Bible actually was.

No, bottom line, is Islam is not a religion of hatred. It's the nutjobs that gave it a bad name.

Same applies to our religion, I guess.

[Soap]

No religion in and of itself is violent. If it is offensively violent, it is no longer a religion but rather cult-like in nature (somewhat like the Klan). The problem is that people will use religion as a justification for anything they feel like. It could be warfare or it could be "Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV". Regardless, people will distort ideas that are founded in peace and attempt to prove their points with them. See the Inquisition for reference.

[SodaPop]

Every religion has its Theology, but human nature is violent in and itself.

There is a difference between various religions, some more than others, but I've lived within the Muslem community in India and they were far less hostile than the Hindus in India, but I've never been assaulted by a computer programmer in this country.

Well, not yet.....:D

[Frohickey]

It actually depends on degrees.

I think, and I could be wrong, that there is no Islamic group that is challenging the fundamentalist Islamic groups, and this is what emboldens the fundamentalists to degree that they are now.

Same thing could happen if there were no Christian groups challenging fundamentalist Christian groups.

As to 'Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV'... I think Jesus would. How else can you fit you and your 13 buddies/apostles? Might be a tight fit, but its easier to fit into an SUV, than in a hybrid econobox. Maybe Jesus drove a double-decker bus. :rolleyes:

[DeltaElite]

I don't believe any religion is violent.
After all, the Crusades were pretty violent, but the base religion professed peace.
It is the individual that is violent, not the religion.

[Tamara]

Like every religion, it will let you justify what you want to do.

The Q'uran says of unbelievers "kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out. . . . Such is the recompense of the unbelievers", but then Christ came "not to bring peace, but a sword".

You have to look past the religion to the person following it.

[BigG]

Has any mainstream Islamic organization spoken out publicly against terrorism?

[Ebbtide]

We should not confuse “fundamentalist” with “radicals”. There is a big difference not only in "our" interpretation of the two, but of Muslims as well. I recently learned that most American Muslims feel it is fitting to be a "fundmentalist"---Following the fundamentals of the Koran as closely as possible, observing the fasts, prayer, traditions, et al.

I never considered Muslims (those who worship the Islamic religion) to be violent. I have many Muslim, Jew, and Christian friends and we all consider ourselves to be essentially the same. We often joke of the other's holidays, but never force ours theological views on each other (glass houses, ya know).

It is my understanding that the according to the Koran, there is no separation between Church and State, and if there was it would be in direct conflict with he Koran and the Islamic religion. Most all Muslims I talk to believe this of the Koran and the muslim faith. This the only bone of contention I have with this war, meaning, I doubt they want a democracy. And for what it is worth, look what it has done to us?

But no, not violent.

ehenz

[EJ]

It's not a coincidence --
The religion itself tends to be intolerant to all except it's own sects--
Hence it does not discourage violence--
It is not a violent religion in as it is more of a violence tolerant religion--

[Steel]

What I have read from Muslim-Christian converts and researchers is that Islam has been tagged as advocating violence against Christians and other infidels by virtue of numerous Qur'an passages.

Many of the "fella-next-door" or the "guy-at-work" muslims are simply not sold out on all the tenants of the Qur'an and not "radical" enough to bring the commands or sentiments in the verses to pass.

http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/brewer/brewer_021.htm

[rock jock]

I love it. Armchair theologians unite!

Islamic teaching divides the world into two parts: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam means the House of Islam. Dar al-Harb means the House of War. If a person lives within the House of Islam there is peace, and everything outside is mired in chaos. Muslims are urged to embrace a holy struggle which will bring everything into submission to God. There is a wide spectrum of views on how to achieve submission. So to say that Islam is either "peaceful" or "violent" is to miss the point, which is that Islam is highly interpretative. Right now, it would appear that a fair percentage of Muslims adopt the view that submission to God means killing infidels. What percentage that is I don't know. If you watch the news it would appear to be rather high, but only because the more peaceful adherents don't strap explosives around their waist and blow up pizzarias.

[EJ]

I'll go with Dante's interpetation in his "Inferno"

He found Mohammed in the sixth level of hell split open from forehead to chin and neck to crotch-- walking a track during which he healed only to be split asunder again by a demon -- starting the process over again--

This was due to his teaching of devisiveness and polarizing the comunity of man--

That's the main problem with Islam -- You're either with us or you're (or should be ) dead--

[p35]

I have tried to read the Koran, and what I can say is that it's written in a prophetic, esoteric (I'm struggling for the right word here) style that makes it hard to follow what it's talking about. The psychologists would call it "loose associations". I understand that in Muslim countries, they sell a lot of books about "what the Koran says about....." because even many Muslims can't draw a clear teaching directly from the Koran's words. That makes it easy to take parts out of context and use them to justify a preconceived idea, for believers and nonbelievers alike. Same's true of the Bible.

Look at the Five Pillars of Islam, the basic duties imposed on a believer: Belief in one God and Mohammed as his messenger, Praying at the right times, helping the less fortunate, fasting during Ramadan (the month when the Koran was revealed to Mohammed) and making the pilgrimage to Mecca if you can afford it.

What there implies violence?

[beckrodgers]

Shouldn't do this . Yes . But so are others . Ignorance to me almost always leads strait to violence. The Moslems are gunna have to fix thier religion or theres a fair chance of unspeakable war in our generation.

[spacemanspiff]

let me preface this by saying that its been several years since i have researched islam, and some of what i say may be inaccurate, outdated, etc.


what do you call a muslim that takes his religious beliefs so seriously that he tries to play 'god'/'allah'/'yahweh'?
terrorist.

what do you call a christian that takes his religious beliefs so seriously that he tries to play 'god'/'yahweh'/'jesus'?
lunatic.

is there any difference between akbar strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up those he thinks allah wants destroyed, opposed to wayne who murders those who he thinks lives a godless lifestyle?

its rare that a christian will do this, but it has happened in the past. we dont call them 'terrorists' though. even though they may do the same things a muslim does in the name of his god.
and while christianity in todays form is not as often linked to violence, all that seperates muslims from christians is that more muslims than christians act upon their beliefs rather than talk about them. however, this usually constitutes criminal behavior.

but we still have pastors that preach fire and brimstone to rain down upon the unbelievers (infidels). we still have falwell denouncing all who dont conform to his opinions. many religious people still have violent thoughts/words/beliefs about what should happen to those who are different from them. the violence is in their hearts.

[SodaPop]

but then Christ came "not to bring peace, but a sword".

And Jesus was referring to bringing the "TRUTH" not violence. You aren't bringing peace when you tell your father he is doing wrong by cheating on your mother. You don't bring peace when you tell your neighbor they are doing wrong. Do police bring PEACE when they arrest a man for rape? They aren't bringing peace and they aren't bringing violence. They are holding someone accountable for doing wrong. Jesus is warning people that they are doing wrong and will be held accountable. Then they are passed on to the judicial system where they are judged and sentenced.;)

I undestand what you are trying to say, Tamara, but The Quran is still read in its native language. The Bible has gone threw far more translations making it difficult to take it literally (even though I'm sure I'm going to get some Christians mad by saying that).




You have to look past the religion to the person following it.

Mohammed and Ghandi don't belong in the same historical category nor do Jesus and Muhammed. Ghandi and Jesus weren't military leaders. If you take what history (aside from the Bible) you can't compare what Jesus DID to what Muhammed DID. I think a great many Christians should be offended when people compare Muhammed to Jesus. They weren't the same.

To each his own WE LIVE IN AMERICA. Believe what you want but don't tread on me.:)

[Lancel]

There are more similarities than differences in the sacred writings of the three western religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Strict, closed-minded interpreters can find "Death to nonbelievers" in each.

The failure and fear of moderate moslems to speak out against the extremists causes a continuation of hostilities and atrocities against us "heathens".

In short, Islam is no more or no less violent than Judaism or Christianity. But the current fanatics certainly are. That's why God gave as the M1 Abrams.

Larry

[C-Note]

Name ONE country with an Islamic majority that is not at war with it's neighbors. Turkey doesn't count because it's government is secular, not religious.
I believe Islam is Fascism with Allah in place of the State. Hence, I consider the Islamic cult to be a violent one.

[SodaPop]

In short, Islam is no more or no less violent than Judaism or Christianity

Guns don't kill people.....people kill people.

[2dogs]

the Muslem community in India and they were far less hostile than the Hindus in India

Massacre-shocked Hindus plan to flee India's troubled Kashmir


Kashmiri Hindus, stunned by the massacre of 24 of their community members, said they wanted to leave the restive region, and urged India to make way for their evacuation.

"I will no longer stay in Kashmir," said Ramesh Kumar, one of the survivors of the massacre which took place Sunday in this village in Indian-administered Kashmir.

"If I stay, life will not be same again for me and my family," said Chandji, a day after he cremated his father and sister who were among the 24 men, women and children gunned down by unidentified men.

On Tuesday, India's Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani visited the village to try and console the bereaved families.

Advani was confronted by hundreds of Hindus on his arrival who begged the leader to shift them from the Muslim-majority region, wracked by 13 years of Islamic insurgency, to a safer area.

"For god's sake, please make arrangement for our safe migration from Kashmir," an aged Hindu begged Advani.

"It will be a great gesture," he added, as others folded their hands and pleaded to be moved to Jammu, the Hindu-majority winter capital of Indian Kashmir.

"We want to live without fear," another unnamed Hindu shouted, as his Muslim neighbours watched silently.

Advani was visibly moved by the pleading of the group of Hindus who arrived here to search for their relatives among the pile of bullet-riddled corpses.

"We have not done justice with Kashmiri Hindus. We should protect them at all costs," Advani said.

"We will make arrangements for you to live elsewhere, but that's what the enemy wants. Personally I would be reluctant to do it," he added.

Advani said there were some 8,000 to 10,000 Hindus in Kashmir, while more than 200,000 had left since the start of the anti-Indian Muslim rebellion in 1989.

"Those who have carried out the massacre want the remaining Hindus to leave the Kashmir valley," Advani said, amid fears that the massacre had shattered Indian efforts to resettle the displaced Kashmiri Hindus.

Advani, however, said many Hindus were keen to return to Kashmir, where separatist violence has claimed more than 37,500 lives.

But the Hindus gathered here said they were now determined.

"It will be tragic to leave Kashmir but it is better to live without shelter than to live under constant fear," said ," said Ajay Koul.



http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030325/1/39dl5.html


Are all Muslims violent? Of course not. But take a look at who is PURPOSELY killing and bombing CIVILIANS all around the WORLD.

HELLO- it ain't Buddists, Catholics, Protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Quakers, Mormons, Earth Goddess worshippers or even freakin SATANISTS for cripes sake. For a non violent religion an awful lot of it's adherents are doing a good job of imitating one.

[Marko Kloos]

Name ONE country with an Islamic majority that is not at war with it's neighbors.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Armenia, and Qatar should do for starters. All of these countries have a Muslim majorities, msot of them are outright Muslim nations, and none of them are currently at war with anyone.

Now I'd be interested what kind of parallels you draw between fascism and Islam.

[rock jock]

Lancel got it right for the most part. The Christian church was responsible in the Middle Ages for not speaking more forcefully against the Inquisition. Ignorance on the part of the average Christian was partly to blame. Same today with Islam. Modern Muslims must work harder to marginalize the extremists.

[pax]

But take a look at who is PURPOSELY killing and bombing CIVILIANS all around the WORLD.
Irish nationalists are, too .. something about Protestants and Catholics?

But it's too inconvenient to remember things like that. :(

You know, I used to marvel at how the Holocaust got its start. Germany in the 1930's was a modern country, after all. How could they decide that an entire segment of their population was the source of all evil in the world?

pax

Heaven have mercy on us all -- Presbyterians and Pagans alike -- for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending. – Herman Melville

[Marko Kloos]

I recall plenty of bombing and killing of civilians for religious reasons right here in the good ol' USA, and it wasn't done by Muslims. Bring that up, though, and people can't jump up fast enough to shout, "But those aren't true believers!"

[MeekandMild]

I will re-ask BigG's question.

Has any mainstream Islamic organization spoken out publicly against terrorism?

C'Mon, its an easy one. Name one single mainstream Muslim religious leader who's spoken out against jihad.

[rock jock]

I agree with you. But we deal with each threat as it comes up. Right now, Islamic extremists are the terrorist du jour. It is only logical that we give greater scrutiny to those in sensitive positions that are Muslim and who display any tendencies toward, or sympathies with, extremist beliefs within their religion. Hopefully, this will blow over in a few years and the feds can go back to focusing their attention on us white angry male gun nuts.

[spacemanspiff]

http://www.jw-georgia.org/eng/rights/hrwf00sep19.htm

christians have often behaved just as violently and depraved towards those whose beliefs dont match theirs. even in this country there have been many attacks made on religious groups that some feel are 'cults'.

[Marko Kloos]

C'Mon, its an easy one. Name one single mainstream Muslim religious leader who's spoken out against jihad.

Okay...


Islamic Organizations

A Message from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html)

American Muslim Leaders Condemn Attacks (http://islamicity.com/urlrticles/urlrticles.asp?ref=AM0109-335)

American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism on Anniversary of 9/11 (http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp)

Australian Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attack (http://www.muslimaffairs.com.au/News/PR-terror.htm)

Bin Laden Distorts Islam, Islamic Scholars Say (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-distortion.html)

Bin Laden's Idea of 'Jihad' is Out of Bounds, Islamic Scholars Say (http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/39887_islam22.shtml)

British Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1062)

Canadian Muslims Condemn Terorist Attacks (http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html)

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders (http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm)

Islamic World Deplores U.S. Losses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/urlmericas/newsid_1544000/1544955.stm)

Looking for Answers in Islam's Holy Book: What Islamic Scholars Have to Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/urlc2/wp-dyn/url43785-2001Sep29?language=printer)

Muslim Reactions to Sept 11 (http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/muslim_reactions_to_sept_11.htm)

Muslim World Condemns Attacks on U.S. (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/urlrticle18.shtml)

Muslim rulers condemn WTC attacks (http://muslimunity.net/condemn.htm)

New Zealand Muslims Condemn Terrorism (http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/FIANZWEB16/PressRelease1.html)

Organization of the Islamic Conference Foreign Ministers Condemn International Terrorism (http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/11_extraordinary/declaration.htm)

Quran a Book of Peace Not War, Islamic Scholars Say (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html)

Scholars of Islam Condemn Terrorism (http://groups.colgate.edu/urlarislam/response.htm)

Some American Muslims Take a Look at Their Communities' Shortcomings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/urlc2/wp-dyn?pagename=articles&node=&contentID=A50342-2001Nov18)

U.S. Muslim Scholars Condemn Attacks (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/urlrticle1.shtml)

UK Muslim Leaders Condemn 'Lunatic Fringe' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1554000/1554177.stm)

When is jihad OK? Muslim Perspectives (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134342698_jihad17.html)


 

Specific Muslim Scholars


Attacks on Civilians: Forbidden by Islam (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/urlrticle25.shtml), by Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi

Bin Laden's Violence is a Heresy Against Islam (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-heresy.html), by AbdulHakim Murad (Tim Winter)

Expert Says Islam Prohibits Violence Against Innocents (http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm), by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Condemns Suicide Bombings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1690000/1690624.stm), by Shaykh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi

Iran's Supreme Leader Condemns Attacks on U.S. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1549000/1549573.stm), by Ayatollah Ali Khamanei

Islam and the Question of Violence (http://www.al-islam.org/urll-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm), by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Iranian scholar

Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose (http://www.isna.net/Library/khutbahs/Jihad.asp), by Muzammil H. Siddiqui

Most Prominent Sunni Muslim Scholar Condemns Killing of Civilians (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/15/urlrticle2.shtml), by Shaykh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University

Muslim Attitudes about Violence (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21757&dgn=3), by Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid

On the Terrorist Attacks (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-imamzaid.html), by Imam Zaid Shakir

Reclaiming Islam from the Terrorists (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-murad.html), by AbdulHakim Murad, British scholar

Reflections on the National Horror of September 11, 2001 (http://www.isna.net/Library/khutbahs/IslamandtheMuslimsofAmerica.asp), by Muzammil H. Siddiqui

Refutation of Bin Laden's Defense of Terrorism (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questions.jsp?point=3&id=1007), by Moiz Amjad, Pakistani scholar

Response to a Question about Islam and Terrorism (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questions.jsp?point=3&id=955), by Moiz Amjad, Pakistani scholar

Saudi Clerics Condemn Terrorism (http://www.iviews.com/scripts/news/stories/default.cfm?id=670835), by Sheikh Abderrahman al-Sudayes

Saudi Grand Mufti Condemns Terrorist Attacks in U.S. (http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm), by Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Ashaikh

Scholars' Statements Regarding The Attacks In The United States (http://www.alharamain.org/english/urlrticles/scholars_on_attack.htm), by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Aali-Shaykh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and President of the Committee of Senior Scholars, and Shaykh Saleh Al-Lehaydaan, Chief Justice Of The Saudi Arabian Judiciary, and Shaykh Dr. Saaleh Ibn Ghaanem As-Sadlaan, Pres. Higher Studies Dept. Al-Imaam Muhammd Ibn Saud Islamic University

Terrorism Is at Odds With Islamic Tradition (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/open-archive/message/10), by Khaled Abou El Fadl

Terrorism: Not a doorway to heaven (http://urlrchives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=satrdr22&date=20010922), by Jamil Abdul Razzak Hajoo, of Idriss Mosque, Seattle

The Myth of Islamic Terrorism Exploded (http://www.theclearpath.com/old/urlrticles/theclearpath/20.html), by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz and Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saalih al Uthaymeen

The worst enemies of Islam are from within (http://www.islamfortoday.com/hamza01.htm), by Hamza Yusuf

Top Saudi Cleric Says Attacks on U.S. a Terrible Crime in Islam (http://www.iviews.com/scripts/news/stories/default.cfm?id=647305), by Shaykh Salah al-Lahidan, head of the Islamic Judiciary of Saudi Arabia

Violence Against Innocents Violates Islamic Law (http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/imam-wahhaj.html), by Imam Siraj Wahhaj

[Justin]

Can a religion be inherently violent? I suppose that if you're talking about the Incas, then, in practice, yes. Such religions made human sacrifice a required part of the ritual. Islam is nothing like this, it bears far more resemblance to Judaism and Christianity than anything else. Saying that a religion causes violence is just as much a fallacy as saying that guns cause violence. If you want to find the cause of acts of violence, logic would suggest that you look to the one common thread: violent people.

In high school, one of my friends was a Muslim foreign exchange student, and at no time did I fear for my safety when around her.
Are there passages in the Koran that come across as advocating violence? Yeah, but then there are passages in the Bible that do as well. That doesn't mean that both of those religions cause or incite violence. Besides, neither the central tenets of Christianity (The Ten Commandments) or of Islam (The Five Pillars) advocate violence against others.

However, I think that Islam gets a bad rap because it is tied to politics in Middle Eastern countries. Every nation is proud of itself and suspicious of outsiders. Once you start tying national pride to the claim that God is on your side, it's going to be an intoxicating mixture indeed-just look at how wrapped up people at the Republican/Democratic National Conventions get. Throwing religion into a situation like that isn't going to be conducive to rational or logical thinking.

I hope that makes sense...

[pax]

Lendringser,

That's cheating!

It was more than one... :D

pax

Nothing is as frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what he's talking about. -- Sam Ewing

[longeyes]

Any religion, taken to mania, can turn violent because all religions tend toward exclusiveness. Maybe a better question is whether Islam is compatible with civil liberties as we understand them. If you are deprived of your basic freedoms, does it matter whether it happens "with a human face" or by the sword?

[rock jock]

Perhaps meekandmild should have said "an unqualified" statement against jihad. A brief reading of your sources only serves to bolster Mr. Mild's argument.

From www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp,

We believe in justice and peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. We are convinced that security for Israel can only be achieved by justice for Palestinians. Today, a modicum of justice requires the establishment of an independent Palestinian state through the exercise of Palestinian self-determination. We believe that the continued occupation of Palestinian territories, and Israel's repeated disregard of international law, have made life in the occupied territories unbearable. We say most clearly, however, that the killing of innocent civilians, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, is always wrong and is forbidden in Islamic law and ethics.
These guys can't even get through a simple condemnation of al Queda without immediately starting to refer back to Israel and the Palenstinians?? What does Israel have to do with 9/11? Answer: NOTHING. The very fact that they devote half of their statement to Israel-bashing only shows that they consider the al Queda perspective to have some validity. How about if, when apologizing to the American-Japanese interned during WWII, the US govt says something to the effect of "well, we're sorry, BUT you know, those Asians were really putting it to us and we would not have had to throw you in camps if it wasn't for your brethren across the Pacific! And by the way, how come they're so violent, and..uh. oh, yeah, we're sorry, I guess."

[2dogs]

Irish nationalists are, too

Give me a break- for the most part they killed Brits- not anybody and everybody who wasn't Irish.:rolleyes:

[Ryder]

I read a post on another board written by a person who lives in the Middle East. He said over there that peace preachers are looked upon as we view those who have seen bigfoot or UFO's. They are a very small minority and are not regarded seriously being barely tolerated.

Another comment he made was in regards to the way that the Koran is interpreted. He said that anything written at a later time countermands or cancels out that which was written earlier. Islam was a peaceful religion in it's infancy because they had no choice. As they became more numerous they no longer had to fear others and have become the majority to be feared. This influenced how the text was written and explains why there are so few peace makers anymore.

I don't claim to know myself but this guy sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about. He was highly educated on the matter and was using words which required definitions to be supplied in order to follow along.

[Soap]

2dogs- So I could morally reconcile killing anyone that is black since I'm not killing anyone that isn't white? :rolleyes:

[Marko Kloos]

Irish "Proddies" and Catholics have been killing each other with great enthusiasm over the last century or so. The British only have a cursory role in the conflict...most killers and killees in and around Ulster have been Irish nationals.

[longeyes]

Guns don't kill people. IDEAS kill people. Guns are tools. Religions are belief systems, or, perhaps more cynically, mind-control systems. Some "faiths" are invidious and dangerous, conducing to high body-counts and restricted personal freedoms. Some of us here might consider Marxism to fit that bill. We are as entitled to analyze the likely tendencies of religions and cultures as any other set of beliefs, asking ourselves why they might prosper or fail. It is the essence of Political Correctness to be intellectually timorous about doing so.

[2dogs]

Non Muslims are by no means saints, but lately the count is going way up on one side:


*In the United States, where these acts have just begun, Muslims bombed the World Trade Center, and conspired to blow up other important buildings and commuter tunnels. Before that, they held Americans hostage in Iran and in Lebanon.

*In southern Sudan, Muslims have destroyed whole villages, killing thousands of Christians, after they crucified their leaders before their eyes.

*In Uganda, Idi Amin slaughtered 300,000 of his people, mostly Christians, after he embraced Islam.

*In Nigeria, Christians are being beaten, imprisoned, and killed by Muslims. Converting to Islam is seen as an easy way out.


*At the start of World War I, Muslim Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians for no apparent reason other than being Christian.

Let's not forget the Phillipines and the Balkans.

It certainly seems that in recent history, certainly the last 50-60 years, the mass slaughters of civilians have been committed by Nazi's, Communists and dare I say it- Islamofascists.
Not by "Irish", not by voodoo practioners, and sure as heck not by Americans of any faith.

[2dogs]

So I could morally reconcile killing anyone that is black since I'm not killing anyone that isn't white

Tell me where I suggested that- I simply indicated that equating the Irish/British killing to what has gone on in the name of Islam is ludicrous.

Or did I miss where the Irish flew jumbo jets full of people into giant skyscrapers full of people in , oh say, downtown Stockholm.:uhoh:

[Marko Kloos]

That just proves that religion in general has a tendency to bring out the worst in some people. Name one religion that hasn't seen its share of bloodshed committed in the name of its deity. Singling out Islam as particularly prone to barbarism is selective and revisionist. Some folks here contend that extremist nutjobs come in all religious flavors. You try hard to convince the assembly that only Islam is afflicted with them.

Even if that was the case, it would hardly give you any justification, constitutional, moral, or otherwise, to hold peaceful Muslims responsible for the acts of their fringe. it would be like saying Christianity is inherently violent because the Southern baptist Convention hasn't publically taken a stand against the Inquisition and the Crusades yet. Why should they? It wasn't committed in their name, nor did they commit it themselves. "Inherited guilt" is a deeply immoral concept, and we are rightly outraged when the gun grabbers try to hold us responsible for the deeds of a few bad apples.

[SodaPop]

2dogs-The Hindus in India have killed more Christians and Muslems than the Muslems have killed Christians or Muslems.


The comparisons between what is going on in Ireland compared to the Islamic world is lame . Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants are a decimal point of the Christian world.

What does Israel have to do with 9/11? Answer: NOTHING.

Osama Bin Laden directly referred to kicking the Crusaders and Jews out of "their" land after Sept 11th. Do a search on the letter Bin Laden sent out last year. Its all about the Crusaders and Israelis.

[SodaPop]

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Armenia, and Qatar should do for starters. All of these countries have a Muslim majorities, most of them are outright Muslim nations, and none of them are currently at war with anyone.


You didn't really mean that did you?:confused:

You've just named some of the most unstable countries in the world do to Islamic militants. All of the leaders in those countries have to use force to stay in power because their very existance is threatened on a daily basis.

90% if the countries in that region are one assassination away from a total change of government.

[MeekandMild]

lendringser, thank you. :D I haven't had time to look more thoughly at your list, but are any doing anything proactive to stop violent Muslims from continuing to practice jihad?

In answer to your return question, I can't find any evidence that the mainstream sects of modern Wicca advocate violence.

[Beorn]

The thing to remember about Islam is this: Mohammed had his writing (the Qu'ran), and then the 'learned men' had their writings (the Sunnah).

Mohammed himself was not a violent man. In fact he seemed to be quite against fighting and bloodshed. However, the Sunnah seems to be "reliably transcribed" by his holy interpreters. These are the writings you have to watch out for. They say that these are things that Mohammed did or approved of, yet I do not believe that he condoned any sort of Jihad, or Holy War, for any reason.

This is one of those times when people do things "in the Lord's name." Really? Did God tell you to slaughter Constantinople on your way to "free" the Holy City of Jerusalem? Really? Did God tell you to slaughter countless Jews and Muslims while throwing them out of Spain in the late 15th century? Etc., etc.

Just as the Inquisition does not speak for all Catholics (or indeed, all Christians), The Sunnah does not speak for Mohammed (and we can dance around the "translation versus transliteration" argument all day; let's not).

Irish nationalists are, too Give me a break- for the most part they killed Brits- not anybody and everybody who wasn't Irish.
Um, actually we Irish have been killing each other off quite well for 3000 years. The Romans couldn't get to us (they only once thought about invading Hibernia, and Agricola rightly decided to leave Anglia and head back to Rome), so we decided to kill ourselves.
Two caveats to this...
First, the Vikings and Dublin. They made the city themselves, just so they'd have a place to raid. The further South-West you go, the fewer Vikings that come back alive from raids (circa 800-1000).
Second, Oliver Cromwell. I know he has his own special place in hell for all of the attrocities he committed in Ireland in the early 17th century. Using cannons on Blarney Castle! Bastard!

The Easter uprising was nasty and against the British, but de Valera's and Collin's feud was Irish against Irish. My Mum to this day won't set foot in Ulster (hasn't since 1975) because she dislikes the Orange Party. And she's Irish Protestant! She favors a Brit-free Ireland like most Southerners do. What can I say, we fight each other since few else are worth our consideration!:neener:

"An Irishman is forced to speak to the Almighty, so's he can speak to someone near his station.":D

[twoblink]

I personally find that the religion is pretty violent... for those who choose to enforce the "no tolorance" policy.

I think the fact that most of them take pride in the fact that they hate everything that is not Muslim makes it that much worse.

I cannot comment on the religion from any other perspective then what I have seen myself; but I will say this; I have a lot of friends that are muslim that are very gentle and peaceful, and so all the violence cannot be attributed to the religion alone. Yes, they might all be men with guns; but it's those who chooses to pull the triggers at innocent people that is violent.

People are violent; that I think is the crux of the problem.

I think the extremists really make the religion look bad. It's like LA and SF makes the PRK... well... look like the PRNJ..

[Boudicca]

Lendsringer! Please! Do not lump Armenia among the Islamic nations. Armenia was the very first Christian nation. The first.
My children's grandfather was a survivor of the massacres of Armenians engineered by Those Peaceful Muslims The Turks. His story beggars belief. He was nine years of age when he was kidnapped by Bedouins from the death march. It was the last time he saw his mother. He was a slave of "peaceful" Muslims until rescued by American/Armenian soldiers at the end of WWI.
I will not cast the pain and ultimate triumph of his life before this group, but NEVER make the mistake that Armenians are anything but Christian and know that they have been harrowed by Muslims in the past and continue to suffer at the hand of those peaceful practitioners of that "religion."

You would do well to research the first genocide of the Twentieth Century.

[SodaPop]

Lendringser- your really shooting yourself in the foot with those links you posted. I did a search on on the net of two of the threads you posted and they contradict everything you've said on this thread.

Do a search on the people and the mosques that are mentioned on your links and you'll see how they all lead to arrests of people in the mosques that supposedly condemned 9/11.

Another of the threads that you link there even referred to this:

The leader's remarks make it clear there will be no Iranian support for a large scale military adventure in Afghanistan, although there is absolutely no love lost between Tehran and the Taleban.

Do a little research into Iran's relationship with all of its neighbors. Its been fighting with ALL of them.
Iran and the Taliban were killing each other before the US was over there.



Don't bend over backwards for the enemy.

[Marko Kloos]

My mistake: scratch Armenia from the list. Armenia is 95% Christian, namely Armenian Apostolic.

That's still a sizeable list of predominantly Muslim countries which are currently not at war with their neighbors or anyone else. I believe the challenge was to "name only one". Their internal stability was not a condition for the initial question, although I disagree with the notion that they all need to use force for a Muslim government to stay in power. (Their population is largely Muslim, remember?)

In answer to your return question, I can't find any evidence that the mainstream sects of modern Wicca advocate violence.

I can't find any evidence that the mainstream Islamic sects advocate violence, either. I think I posted a rather lengthy list of Muslim organizations and prominent scholars which specifically condemn terrorism and the killing of innocents. All the evidence I can dig up leads me to believe that violent Muslims are every bit as much of a minority as violent Christians.

But why let that get in the way of a good old-fashioned religious feud? The banners are hoisted, and it's Islam Versus Christianity, the sequel...

I haven't had time to look more thoughly at your list, but are any doing anything proactive to stop violent Muslims from continuing to practice jihad?

Yeah, I carry a gun. If I see someone plant a bomb, or shoot up a mall, or hijack a city bus, I'll shoot them as a proactive measure. I will not ascertain their religion first. Excuse me, jowever, if I don't join the nightly torch excursion to the Muslim neighbor's house, just because he shares a religion with the 9/11 hijackers.

Do a little research into Iran's relationship with all of its neighbors. Its been fighting with ALL of them.

I believe the question was "currently at war", and Iran is not at war with anyone right now. Technically, the only war Iran fought since the Muslim fundamentalists took over was the 1980-88 Gulf War...and that one was started by secular Iraq.

Also, Iran did not fight any neighboring country except Iraq, so it has most definitely *not* "fighting with all of them".

Iran and the Talenban were killing each other before the US was over there

Even if that was true, which it isn't, how would that make the Iranians the bad guys? I thought killing fundamentalists who sponsor terrorism was good?

Don't bend over backwards for the enemy.

My enemies are people who wipe their butts with the Constitution. My enemies are violent terrorists who kill innocent civilians for religious or political reasons. I do not care what religion or skin color these people have. I refuse to label "muslims" my enemy, unless they are, as individuals, proven to have homicidal intentions towards me or my fellow citizens. In the absence of harmful intent, I have no right to bear ill will towards any individual, regardless of their religion. Apparently, this is be an alien concept to some.

[Mike Irwin]

Here's a little factoid for everyone.

Otherwise rational people, and some truly irrational people, acting in the name of their God, have probably been responsible for more murder, carnage, and mayhem than any other singular reason.

No religion has the right to claim that it's free of the taint of blood spilled in its name.

The Muslim Turks massacred the Christian Armenians?

I see that and raise you several Christian military crusades over the span of about 3 centuries, all with the avowed purpose of ejecting the infidel invader from the Holy Land.

Oh, and by the way. Urban wasn't really being religious. He was an opportunist who called the crusade more as a way of solving some of his problems with local nobility than out of true religious belief. Have a problem? Send them on a holy war!

Thank you very much, Pope Urban, you *******.

Think that's too far in the distant past?

How about the quaint little episode of "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia a few years back?

A nice land grab and a way to get rid of your neighbors who don't share your same religious values.

Oh, and the Christian church? Slavery was A.O.K with it for several hundred years, as long as it was non-Christians who were being enslaved, and as long as those doing the enslaving paid lip service to "spreading the word of Christ."

Before anyone attempts to wrap themselves up in the conviction that their religion is somehow untainted, that it hasn't been used to justify the murder of members of other religious faiths, do a little research, and find out how goddamned bloody your particular God is.

[cuchulainn]

Let's see...

Are the lands it occupies still very violent -- actually known throughout the "civilized world" for unthinkable levels of violence? (I mean European Christian violence 800 years ago is one thing, but we're talking still violent in 2003.)
Check.

Can we find plenty of quotations in its founding books advocating war in its name?
Check.

Does its history contain a string of violence done in its name, some justified some not?
Check.

Does its history contain a lot of xenophobia and suppression/oppression of "others" which would seem to belie the supposedly beneficent tenets its adherents claim are behind it?
Check.

Do governments based upon it regularly execute citizens?
Check.

Do its adherents have a "mission" mentality, thinking its way is the best way for the world, if only the world would understand?
Check.

Does the world currently fear/dislike this mission mentality as a source of global violence? Indeed, are its adherents currently waging "war" to implant its beliefs to other parts of the world?
Check and check.

Yep, America's philosophy of individualistic self-determination is inherently violent and is the root cause of the violence both afflicting America and emanating from America (or so says Michael Moore).

;)

Cuchulainn, who supports this war and thinks the antiwar people including Mr. Moore can go to (well you know), but is making a point.

[hondo68]

Islam deserves the label of most violent as well as the most intolerant and evil religion. It's all about numbers. Most murderous maniacs out to kill infidels. Most infidels killed. Most atrocities. And most derserving of a Crusade against it.

[Angus MacDuff]

All religions have extremists who do not represent the majority. It holds true with Islam. Buddhism is the only religion not to have killed in the name of promoting their beliefs on others. But here to, extremists can be found, the difference being an extreme Buddhist follower would never hurt anyone.

[SodaPop]

hondo68- what are you trying to say with a signature like that?

[Mike Irwin]

"Islam deserves the label of most violent as well as the most intolerant and evil religion. It's all about numbers. Most murderous maniacs out to kill infidels. Most infidels killed. Most atrocities. And most derserving of a Crusade against it."

OK, pony up some facts to support those suppositions, Hondo.

"Most murderous maniacs out to kill infidels."

What, you mean the Christian Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? Bosnian ethnic cleansing? The Russian Pogroms? The 6 million Jews killed during WW II by Nazi Germany, which gave lip service to being a Christian nation?

"Most atrocities..."

Such as? The Holocaust? Russian Pogroms? Bosnian ethnic cleansing?

"Most intolerant and evil religion."

Based on what, its foundation in the Old Testament, and its belief that they're they're the Children of Abraham?

Wait, as second... Those are the Jews who are the Children of Abraham...

No, Christians are the Children of Abraham...

Oh, no, I know the REAL answer, its the followers of Islam who are the Children of Abraham!

Will the REAL Children of Abraham please stand up?

Guess what, members of all three religions are standing.

Congratulations, Hondo.

You win tonight's award for making the most narrow minded statements, but also the one whose statements are most bereft of actual facts.

Wear the award as a badge of shame.

[Mike Irwin]

Angus,

You need to acquaint yourself with some of the rebel movements in Sri Lanka if you believe that there hasn't been significant killing in the name of Buddha.

There have been some whoppers elsewhere in Asia, too, based on the belief that Buddha is the best.

[2dogs]

Let's see- how would all this hand wringing have gone on in WWII?

Um, most German's are peace loving folks. We can't attack all German's just because of the actions of some extremist Nazi's.

Look at what the German's have contributed- that Beethoven , now that's good music. German's aren't bad- they've just had their country hijacked by Hitler and those nasty SS. We don't want to paint them all with the same brush.

Ah, we just need some of the good, peaceful German's to speak up and show the rest of the world that all German's do not adhere to Nazi doctrine. That will solve the problem.

Yep, we'd have been in real good shape now, wouldn't we?

[Don Gwinn]

Just off hand, I'd say Hondo is against tyranny. Me, I'm against unemployment and for motherhood. I also have very strong beliefs on the subject of apple pie. ;)

[buzz_knox]

Mohammed himself was not a violent man. In fact he seemed to be quite against fighting and bloodshed. However, the Sunnah seems to be "reliably transcribed" by his holy interpreters. These are the writings you have to watch out for. They say that these are things that Mohammed did or approved of, yet I do not believe that he condoned any sort of Jihad, or Holy War, for any reason.

That's an interesting take on it, especially when, while reading through the links lendsringser provided, you'll see Islamic scholars say that Mohammed was a military leader who set out the specific rules for warfare. And historically, Mohammed was far from a pacifist. One of the links lends provided specifically states that Islam is not and never has been a pacifist religion, spread through many means, including warfare. Most religions have had their military expansionist phase, including Christianity, so this isn't a slam against Islam. But, to call Mohammend nonviolent isn't credible, at least based on the evidence.

[cuchulainn]

Let's see- how would all this hand wringing have gone on in WWII?

Um, most German's are peace loving folks. We can't attack all German's just because of the actions of some extremist Nazi's. GREAT point 2dogs.

My father's generation did not believe that the German people were inherently evil, yet they waged a war on them. In fact, my father (a WWII vet of the ETO) told me stories about people going to pains to distinguish between support for the war and anti-German bigotry (Oh, there were some instances of bigotry, don't get me wrong. He even spoke out against one).

As you so rightly point out, such "hand wringing" did not harm our ability to defeat the Germans, but good.

Then again, dad's generation did not do such a good job distinguishing between the need for war and bigotry against Japanese. Perhaps it is much easier to control our bigotries the more in common we have with our enemy.

War with England? No, the enemy is not inherently evil.
War among the states? No, the enemy is not inherently evil.
War with Germany? No, the enemy is not inherently evil.
War with Japan? Why, that uncivilized, dirty, low-down, inherently violent culture.
War with Iraq? Well, that's what this debate (broader than this thread) will determine.

[buzz_knox]

I think the difference in the treatment of Germany and Japan was due also to the difference in the way those countries treated us.

Germany declared war on us as part of their alliance with Japan. Although we'd been involved in combat operations against German U-boats while escorting British convoys, these actions weren't public knowledge. Germany also never committed an attack on what was perceived as the US proper (notwithstanding some espionage/sabotage activities) nor did Germany occupy American territory.

Japan, on the contrary, launched a "sneak attack" directly against American territory, prior to a declaration of war. Japan also treated both civilians and POWs rather . . . I suppose inappropriately would be an understatement. While Germany wasn't exactly saintly in this area, their activities in this regard didn't become known for some time as there simply weren't American POWs in German hands for a considerable length.

I think the different circumstances explains the difference in treatment of the two as easily as racism does. More likely, it was a dual motive, encompassing both. But to say that only racism was at play ignores the facts.

[p35]

Let's remember that in many if not most cases, religion is actually a shorthand for ethnic differences. The Protestants in NI were brought in from Scotland in the late 1600s by the Brits to keep the native Catholics down, and up to the 1970s (at least) treated the Catholics like blacks under apartheid. In fact, the current Troubles started when the Catholics took a page from Martin Luther King and started standing up for civil rights. It's not a theological battle that led to the Troubles.

Likewise, violence in the name of spreading Buddhism is absolutely nonsensical- Buddha himself told potential followers to think through his teachings for themselves before joining his followers. The first of the five precepts of the lay Buddhist is to refrain from destroying a living creature. The problems in South Asia where Buddhists have violated that teaching result more from populations of different religions competing for the same land/resources than from thelogical disputes.

[cuchulainn]

More likely, it was a dual motive, encompassing both. But to say that only racism was at play ignores the facts.

Did I say it was only racism? No. I suggested that bigotry made our actions easier, not that it was the only cause. :)

Do you honestly think that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack on, say, Norfolk Va., that we'd have rounded up citizens of German decent and put them in concentration camps?

[BigG]

I don't need a cleric to decide for me what is the best way to spend my life. That's one reason I love the good ol US of A. But I do not pretend NOT TO KNOW that a good portion of humanity does want somebody to bear the burden for them. That's where the clerics come in, in the US and many other countries beside. Just lucky for me they can't seize power and issue proclamations, bulls, or fatwas, etc.

Apologizing for Islam or any religion is disingenuous in the extreme in my book. They are political organizations - all about power and control. Their followers, well meaning or not, can be extremely dangerous.

[buzz_knox]

Do you honestly think that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack on, say, Norfolk Va., that we'd have rounded up citizens of German decent and put them in concentration camps?

Given the numbers of German descendents in this nation, no. But there again, the numbers would have made it impossible to achieve, so that would also argue against an interpretation of racism.

[cratz2]

I have and have had several Islamic friends. I guess like the racist joke goes, if I can coun't the number of Islamic friends I have, I'm a racist. I like to think that I'm not a racist but I do currently live in relatively sheltered Martinsville, Indiana so that my limit the number of my non-white, non-christian friends. Of the Islamic friends I've had, every single one was very peaceful and while they certainly don't condone terrorist actions, they would never say a bad thing about them or those that commit them.

I talked with a very wise Jewish man, the late Dr. Jack Kamholtz (sp?) of Dallas, Texas several times years ago and we finally got to talking about Islam. He suggested that many folks use religion as a cover to do their own evil actions. This in no way is a reflection of the religion. He pointed out how many died on the Crusades and how many have been killed by 'Christians' in the name of God. When we got to talking about Islam, he admitted that most Muslims that he had met were peaceful but if it ever got to the arguing stages, they almost all supported the actions that have been taken over the past several years. He also pointed out that Islam is the only religion where more mainstream organizations will not decry the actions of the more militant sect. He also suggested to me that I try to find out how many wars, including small ones, Muslims were involved in at any time and guaranteed me that I would never come up with an accurate number because there simply were too many.

I'm all for a religion collectively fighting for what it believes in, I really am. But when a religion as widespread as Islam fights as many wars as are currently being waged, it must make one wonder how peaceful it really is. Of course, the same can be said about most any religion at some point. Just most of the rest of the world has progessed into at least a 19th Century level of civility, but not Islam. And in this day in age, most religions and religiously led countries do not force their citizens into false poverty and then reward them for killing members of other religions, but Islam does. And most religions to not promise rewards in heaven to those that kill for their God, but Islam does.

[cuchulainn]

But there again, the numbers would have made it impossible to achieve, so that would also argue against an interpretation of racism. :) So you honestly believe that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack and the German population was smaller, we would have rounded up citizens of German descent?

[pax]

Let's see- how would all this hand wringing have gone on in WWII?
2dogs,

We are at war. No one on this thread has said that there is no need to defend ourselves from those who have attacked us.

But let's talk about WWII, shall we?

I've always wondered how Germany, a modern nation, could have fallen so disasterously for the cant and propaganda of the National Socialist Worker's Party. What were they thinking?

"The Jews are our affliction." That was one of the slogans they were teaching in the very popular young people's clubs. Why did people believe it?

Because it was, just barely, a plausible thing to say, that's why.

No, I'm not an anti-Semite -- but hear me out. The Germans noticed that Jewish people actually did control almost the entire financial market during the Great Depression. The Depression was bad here, but worse overseas. And, since many Jews were bankers, many Jews got rich while their neighbors were losing land, jobs, houses, and lives.

So Hitler marched into power, on a platform of ending the depression by returning to the traditional German values of hard work and Christian nationalism. And, oh yeah, getting rid of the Jews because they were dangerous neighbors and bad for the country.

So how does that apply to us today? Well, I've always wondered how folks could have fallen for such an obvious lie, but I see it all around me now. I hear people saying things that sound just like the rhetoric heard in Nazi Germany right before the Final Solution was put into practice. And it scares me.

Am I saying this country is just like Hitler's Germany? By no means.

I am saying that some of the underlying rhetoric sounds frighteningly similar, and some of the same cultural pressures apply to us as applied to them.

Yes, there were Muslims who attacked our country. And yes, we surely need to deal with the perpetrators and deal pre-emptively with those who would repeat the attack.

But while we are doing that, I think we as a culture need to be very, very careful that we don't set up the same conditions and cultural forces that put a man like Hitler into power.

And that is why discussions like this one really set me on edge. I am not a Muslim, and apart from my online friends I don't even know any Muslims. What I do know, however, is that when large groups of people start believing all possible ill of smaller groups of people in their midst, bad things happen.

pax

Love, friendship, respect, will never unite people as much as a common hatred for something. -- Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

[buzz_knox]

So you honestly believe that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack and the German population was smaller, we would have rounded up citizens of German descent?

You're changing the conditions to get the answer you're hoping for. In the real world, it was impossible. But if the population had been smaller, I'd have fully anticipated loyalty tests, such as the Nisei battalions that served in Italy. And quite possibly, requirements for all German descendents (such as my family) to establish how long they'd been in the country, etc.

[cratz2]

And on the topic of how [editorial] we handled Japanese-American citizens differently than German-American citizens during WWII, in addition to dramatically larger numbers of folks that claimed some German descent, the historic German way of life is much more similar to the American way of life than comparing Japan to America. Most folks fear that which is different from themselves. We Germans have a violent history but, excepting a few horrible individuals, nothing on par with the Japanese invasion and torture of China.

And most folks American POWs in Germany, at least those that I've talked with, have relatively positive things to say about most of their treatment while in captivity. Again, excluding a few individuals. Can't say the same for those in Japanese captivity.

By the way, I'm really suprised this thread has remaind this relatively civil as long as it has.

[Dannyboy]

The Irish nationalists didn't start the sectarian war in Northern Ireland. It just happened that their targets, soldiers, police and governmant officials, for the mostpart, were Protestant. Not to mention British. It was the Loyalists who started killing people because they were Catholic, like old ladies on buses when they crossed themselves as they passed a Catholic church. The Loyalists are the ones that throw bottles of urine at and spit on little Catholic kids going to school. I'm not defending the IRA here but as far as religion goes, the Loyalists are the real terrorists in Northern Ireland.

[stevelyn]

What the majority of those who practice one denomination or sect of the Big Three fail to admit, is that Judiaism, Islam, and Christianity have all decended from a common begining (Abraham in Judeo-Christian lingo, and Ibrihim in Muslim parlaence same guy different spelling) with Christianity being more of an evolution of Judaism. All worship the same God. Due to these common beginings, at least for religious reason is why there is so much contention with Jews and Muslims in Israel when comes to laying claims on holy sites there.
Religion is, or should be a personal matter between one and their Creator. What is happening is everyone wishes to impose their views or beliefs on others.
So lets see what we really have here. Jews shooting and killing Muslim Palistinians. Muslim Palistinians returning the favor via suicide bombers. Christian fundamentalists killing doctors, and bombing family planning clinics. Christian fundamentalists teaching hate and intolerance for others beliefs while not even teaching any beliefs of their own religion/denomiation/doctrine. Muslims slamming jets into buildings killing large numbers of people. Muslims bombing other targets of oportunity. Muslims teaching hate and intolerance for others beliefs. Christians can be proud of the crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, persecution of fellow Christians (Mormons, lets not forget that period of history where Christians were run from east to west and slaughtered) So called Christians bilking millions of dollars from followers to maintain business/broadcasting empires (Don't make me name names, Robertson, Roberts, Swaggert, Bakker, Falwell) then get caught up in scandals and even wind up in jail. These are the same people who if given a chance would impose upon us a fundamentalist Christian theocratic government which in practice would rate right up there with the Taliban, and life under the Ayatolla in Iran.
Then there was Jim Jones who ordered the murder of Congressman Larry MacDonald and his entourage, and then the mass suicide of his followers.
The bottom line is that any religion is only as violent as it's followers twist it's teachings to be. All religions are supossed to guide us into being better people. Don't seem to be working very well though.

Personally, I see no difference between the Christian fundamentalist who wants whack you upside the head with The Bible, the Islamic fundamentalist who wants to whack you by detonating The Quran, and the Orthodox Jew who let you have it with a bayonet on the end of The Torah. All are in it to control and impose their beliefs on other folks.
Religion keeps it's followers in line with fear. That fear being the realization that we are not on this earth forever and that we continue elsewhere when we die. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. No one has come back to tell us about it yet. That's why they call it "faith".

I think George Carlin stated it best when he proposed the addition of a new commandment: Treat other as you would like to be treated and keep thine religion to thy self.

Makes me hope the Raylians are right. Given what I've seen, I would prefer to be decended from an alien species.

[cuchulainn]

buzz_knox: You're changing the conditions to get the answer you're hoping for. No, I was attempting to clarify what you were saying -- that's what it seemed like you were saying. You said the large population of the Germans precluded rounding them up, and I asked if that meant you think it would have happened if the population were smaller. :)

But again, just clarifying, do you really think that we were equally bigoted against the Germans as the Japanese (regardless of what population size allowed us to do about it)?

cratz2: the historic German way of life is much more similar to the American way of life than comparing Japan to America. Most folks fear that which is different from themselves. Yes, that's my point.

cratz2: We Germans have a violent history but, excepting a few horrible individuals, nothing on par with the Japanese invasion and torture of China. 1) We Germans (I'm half German half Irish) most certainly do have a violent history on par with the violent histories of all peoples. We are neither more or less violent.

2) You are comparing the whole history of Germans with a single portion of Japanese history. That's like comparing the Holochaust to all of Japanese history and saying the Japanese have nothing on par with the Germans. You define the Japanse by one segment of their history, but the Germans by all of theirs :)

pax: And that is why discussions like this one really set me on edge. I am not a Muslim, and apart from my online friends I don't even know any Muslims. What I do know, however, is that when large groups of people start believing all possible ill of smaller groups of people in their midst, bad things happen. Amen

[cratz2]

cuchulainn said:

2) You are comparing the whole history of Germans with a single portion of Japanese history. That's like comparing the Holochaust to all of Japanese history and saying the Japanese have nothing on par with the Germans. You define the Japanse by one segment of their history, but the Germans by all of theirs.

No... I'm, comparing the actions of the Germans against the actions of the Japanese in the last 100 (maybe 110) years which should be the height of each nations civility if they are both progessing as a civilized nations should.

[longeyes]

Perhaps it's the attempt to be "morally better" that is, paradoxically, the root of the problem. Enlightened self-interest, under the rule of law, with reasonable economic fair play, produces a more morally advanced society than religions, which tend to be exclusionary and built on unreason. Isn't that what we have finally learned about a few millennia of killing each other and imposing our wills on others? If you want to see the "earthly paradise," as it really is, go hang out at Costco, my friends. You'll see happy consumers and kids stuffing themselves with bargain-priced pizza, hot dogs, and chicken bakes. Add a Coke and it doesn't get any better than this. As for the next life I can't say, but I'll let ya know, God willing.:D

[Tamara]

Let's see- how would all this hand wringing have gone on in WWII?

Um, most German's are peace loving folks. We can't attack all German's just because of the actions of some extremist Nazi's.

...

Yep, we'd have been in real good shape now, wouldn't we?

:rolleyes:

I assume you think "Eisenhower" is an Irish name? :scrutiny:

[cuchulainn]

No... I'm, comparing the actions of the Germans against the actions of the Japanese in the last 100 (maybe 110) years which should be the height of each nations civility if they are both progessing as a civilized nations should.

Are you saying that in 1941, Americans had the occupation of China to look at but nothing similar to look at in then-recent German history from 1831 to 1941 (the 110 years prior to the period we are discussing ... both have been downright pacifist from 1945 to 2003, but obviously that could not affect the attitudes of Americans in 1941)? :)

Or more to the point, are you saying that the occupation of China was the reason Americans rounded up Japanese? :)

+++++++
And just for laughs:

"The German culture is one which tells you to send your son to kill the Jews.
The American culture is one which gives your son liberty."
Bobo, Attorney General John Ashcroft's cat

[2dogs]

Do you honestly think that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack on, say, Norfolk Va., that we'd have rounded up citizens of German decent and put them in concentration camps?

Uh, well yes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CRT

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2001

(202) 514-2008

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TDD (202) 514-1888



JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE TREATMENT OF

ITALIAN AMERICANS DURING WORLD WAR II



WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department is seeking information concerning the treatment of Italian Americans by the United States during World War II.

The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act of 2000 directs the Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive review of the treatment of Italian Americans by the federal government, and to report to Congress no later than November 7, 2001. This report will document actions taken by the United States against Italian Americans including arrests, roundups, internments, raids on private homes, confiscation and seizure of property, exclusion orders, and other restrictions. The Justice Department report will cover the period between September 1939 and December 1945.

In the Act, Congress found that the United States restricted the freedom of more than 600,000 Italian-born immigrants during World War II. More than 10,000 Italian Americans living in the West Coast were forced to leave their homes and were prohibited from entering and fishing in coastal zones, while more than 50,000 were subject to curfews. In some cases, the United States confiscated the boats of Italian-American fishermen, and prohibited Italian Americans from working on railroads in certain zones.

"The story of the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II needs to be told, to remember those whose freedoms were violated and to prevent such injustice in the future," said William Yeomans, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division.

The report will include information such as the names of Italian Americans who were arrested following the attack on Pearl Harbor, a list of ports from which Italian Americans were restricted, and documentation of federal raids on the homes of Italian Americans.

Individuals who have specific knowledge of incidents affecting Italian Americans during World War II should contact the Civil Rights Division by email at itr.report@usdoj.gov, or by writing to:

Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties


Civil Rights Division

Unites States Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/124cr.htm



Or this:

German- and Italian-American Internment during WWll
Two New York representatives and a senator introduce bills that call for the declassification of documents on the wartime internment and for a government study "detailing injustices suffered by Italian-Americans during World War II and a formal acknowledgment of such injustices by the president."
This raises the question: "When will German-Americans also act?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11, 1997


After Silence, Italians Recall the Internment
Missoula, Mont.
By JAMES BROOKE

MISSOULA, Mont. -- For decades, Italian immigrant families who lived through World War II in the United States did not want to talk about the curfews, confiscations of fishing boats, forced moves from seacoast towns, police searches of their homes and internments here at Fort Missoula. But researchers are fleshing out this obscure footnote to American history: the treatment of 600,000 Italian citizens in the United States who were classified as "enemy aliens" after World War II began. And that is stirring memories among those who lived through it.

In 1942, when this old frontier Army post served as one of the nation's largest internment camps, the most widely spoken language at the post was not Japanese or English, but Italian. One of the internees was Alfredo Cipolato, a native Venetian who went from a job as a waiter at the Italian Pavilion of the 1939 World's Fair in New York to a barracks bunk in this once-remote town in western Montana.

"One day I come home," said Cipolato, now an American citizen living here, "the FBI are there, and they just put me in jail."

In the recent past, fading family memories have been jogged by a documentary film, "Bella Vista," a book, "An Alien Place," by Carol Bulger Van Valkenburg, and an exhibit that has toured 21 American cities and is expected to go to Washington in September.

According to the latest research, dozens of Italians lost their fishing boats and hundreds more -- largely bakers, restaurant workers and garbage men -- had to give up jobs because of curfews. About 1,600 Italian citizens were interned, all of them here, and about 10,000 Italian-Americans were forced to move from their houses in California coastal communities to inland homes.

And the 600,000 legal Italian immigrants who had not become U.S. citizens were put under travel restrictions. Dozens of American citizens of Italian origin who had shown sympathy for Mussolini were temporarily banished from California.

"The majority of Italian-Americans still don't know that this happened," said Lawrence DiStasi, director of the traveling exhibit, "Storia Segreta," or Secret History. "There are people who come to our exhibit who suddenly remember that it happened in their families, too.

The Italian immigrants were caught up, to a milder degree, in the hysteria that swept the West Coast after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. While all the interned Italians were citizens of Italy, about two-thirds of the interned Japanese were American citizens. The anti-Japanese measures lasted the length of the war, while the anti-Italian restrictions mostly ended after less than a year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About 110,000 Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans were interned in a network of camps, including Fort Missoula. In this sweep of people suspected of sympathy with enemies of the United States, 10,905 Germans and German-Americans as well as a few Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians were interned.

The U.S. government apologized in 1988 to the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and started paying reparations of $20,000 each to survivors.

"My government has apologized to the Japanese nationals. Where is the apology to me?" asked Art Jacobs, a Brooklyn native who at the age of 12 was interned with his father, a legal resident from Germany, at a camp in Crystal City, Texas. Jacobs, a retired U.S. Air Force major, said that German-American associations were generally silent about the internment for fear of dredging up old emotions linking Germans and Nazis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Growing interest among the nation's Italian-Americans, now estimated at 15 million, prompted two New York representatives and a senator to introduce bills last month that call for the declassification of documents on the wartime internment and for a government study "detailing injustices suffered by Italian- Americans during World War II and a formal acknowledgment of such injustices by the president."

The chief sponsor of the House bill is Rep. Rick Lazio, a Republican of New York. On the Senate side, the chief sponsor is Alfonse D'Amato, also a Republican of New York.

At the start of the war, Italian-Americans represented this nation's largest group of foreign-born residents. There were five million of them, and all but the 600,000 had become citizens. Curfews and confiscations were imposed on members of this group within hours after Pearl Harbor, even before war was declared on Italy.

With no evidence of Italian sabotage or spying, the measures came to be seen as counterproductive because President Franklin D. Roosevelt was seeking the full support of Italian-Americans for the invasion of Italy. The curfews were lifted in October 1942, on Columbus Day. The invasion of Italy took place in July 1943.

Although fishing was considered a national priority for the war effort, security restrictions required dozens of Italian-American fishermen, about 90 percent of San Francisco's fleet, to surrender their boats to the Coast Guard.

Umberto Benedetti, 74, a Missoula resident who was interned here in May 1941 after the Italian cruise ship that he was working on was impounded in then Panama Canal, said: "The fishermen lost a lot of money. They should get something."

The police swept through Italian-American neighborhoods in many cities, seizing from Italian citizens firearms, radios, cameras and flashlights that could be used as signaling devices. For much of 1942, most of the 600,000 Italians were not allowed to travel five miles from their homes without police permission. That restriction kept a San Francisco man, Giuseppe DiMaggio, from visiting a wharf restaurant owned by his son, Joe, the baseball legend.

About 2,000 Italians were forced to move from Pittsburg, a town on San Francisco Bay. Joe Aiello, a resident of the United States for 56 years but an Italian citizen, left his home in a wheelchair. Another, Placido Abono, 97, was moved out on a stretcher.

Relocation orders or detention orders frequently hit people whose sons were in the U.S. military. In World War II, about 500,000 Italian-Americans served in the Armed Forces.

Rosina Trovato, classified as an enemy alien and living in Monterey, Calif., received a notice to evacuate her home on the same day that she learned that her son and a nephew had gone down with the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor. Jerre Mangione, a 75-year-old Italian citizen, was released from detention on the day that officials learned that his son had been killed in a bombing run over Italy.

In the hunt for Fascists, Italian language schools and newspapers were closed in northern California.

"There hasn't been any indication that any of these enemy aliens were engaged in any treasonous activities whatsoever," said Rep. Eliot L. Engel, a New York Democrat who is a cosponsor of the legislation to declassify documents.

Of the roughly 2,000 Italians living in the United States who were detained for questioning after Pearl Harbor, only 300 were deemed to be sufficient security risks for confinement in Fort Missoula. About 1,300 sailors and other Italian visitors had been detained before Pearl Harbor.

Once at Missoula, the Italians divided along generational lines. The older men, generally long-term residents of the United States, were bitter about being torn away from their families.

But the younger men, largely sailors from 28 Italian ships impounded in American ports in the spring of 1941, largely saw "Campo Missoula" as a pleasant and safe place to sit out the war, said the two former internees interviewed here.

"Bella Vista," or "Beautiful View," was the nickname given to this post, sitting at a bend on the Bitterroot River, where wildflowers carpet meadows that stretch toward snow-capped mountains. The center- piece was a new recreation hall designed by the architects of Yellowstone Park's Old Faithful Inn.

About 100 internees were entertainers -- largely musicians, singers, dancers and choreographers from the luxury cruise ship that was caught in the Panama Canal.

"We had a regular theater -- a comedy one week, an opera the next," said Alfredo Cipolato, who met his future wife, Ann D'Orazi, while singing in a church choir in Missoula.

While beef, sugar and butter were rationed in Missoula, these staples were plentiful at the camp, Cipolato recalled. Food, not politics, sparked one of the few disturbances among detainees, the "olive oil riot."

Presented with beef fat for frying, an outraged Italian cook smacked the American supplier across the face. A patrol car raced to the scene, but one of the occupants accidentally set off a smoke grenade inside the car. In the excitement, a guard in a watchtower shot himself in the foot.

Next year, the Historical Museum at Fort Missoula plans to open a recently restored wooden barracks here with permanent exhibits about the Japanese and Italian internment here.

Memories are largely benign for the half-dozen former Italian seamen who stayed on in Montana, Idaho and the State of Washington.

"I lost three years of my life," said Cipolato, who at 84 enjoys the company here of his five children and seven grandchildren. "But if they had sent me back to Italy, I might be dead. I could have ended up in the Italian Army."

http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/itintern.htm

[2dogs]

By the way, I am not now seeking, nor have I ever sought "reparations".:rolleyes::)

[Tamara]

Respectfully, you should re-read your article if you intend to use it as "proof".

The question stated: "...rounded up citizens of German decent and put them in concentration camps?", not "...subject non-citizen German immigrants to curfews".

Who d'you think would round up "Citizens of German decent", anyway? Where would you put the entire populations of Wisconsin, northern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and western Pennsylvania? :confused:


BTW: My favorite line from the article is ""There are people who come to our exhibit who suddenly remember that it happened in their families, too." (Italics mine...) With visions of lawsuits dancing in their heads, no doubt. God, what a friggin' culture of victimhood we've created.

[2dogs]

This report will document actions taken by the United States against Italian Americans including arrests, roundups, internments, raids on private homes, confiscation and seizure of property, exclusion orders

Sorry, somehow I thought "Italian Americans" meant that they were "Italian Americans". I'll try to be more careful.:rolleyes:

Anyway, Italian Americans, German Americans- or immigrants- I think most folks will get the point.:)

[Mike Irwin]

Great big bit of difference, 2Dogs.

Germany was a state that was actively invading the territories rightfully belonging to its neighbors.

Your analogy doesn't hold true.

[hops]

Relatively civil thread considering we're all playing the ultimate issue of issues.

I'm religious (catholic, at least that's the brand of holy water they tried to drown me in as a baby), but more in a private manner.

In my view Religion is a TOOL. Longeyes hit upon this in an earlier posting on this thread. It is neither evil or good. It leans perhaps more to good than evil at best.

The primary purpose of religion - a set of rules for a society to live by - from which we derive our common law from.

If we look at Jewish Kosher laws - it's a lot about safe food handling - before modern science expanded our capabilities in this field.

Some inherently evil people see religion as a TOOL to spread their twisted view of the world - to dominate others. Other inherently good people see religion as a TOOL to spread their twisted view of the world in helping others (some times to help themselves, to help others while not helping themselves). Even good religion can be used to dominate people.

Even within the TOOL of a single Religion there are different views. All three major Judeo-Christian-Islamic branches are sects that even branch down further and have killed each other over the centuries. Christians broken down in to Catholic and Protestant have killed each other for centuries. Look at Islam which has 2 major branches itself that kill each other. Seems to me they can be equally violent depending upon the drivers.

And I have not even touch on Hindusim which almost 1 Billion people follow. They have done to the Muslims what we accuse Muslim doing to Jews.

So, no, Islam is not any more or less violent a religion than the other religions in the world.

[Mike Irwin]

"Likewise, violence in the name of spreading Buddhism is absolutely nonsensical- Buddha himself told potential
followers to think through his teachings for themselves before joining his followers. The first of the five precepts of
the lay Buddhist is to refrain from destroying a living creature. The problems in South Asia where Buddhists have
violated that teaching result more from populations of different religions competing for the same land/resources
than from thelogical disputes."

Very perceptive, P35, and spot on.

Religion is often the convenient crutch used to justify very corporeal desires.

The so-called religious problems between the Jews and Muslims? Nothing more than a war for land.

[2dogs]

Germany was a state that was actively invading the territories rightfully belonging to its neighbors.

That's true- I guess just going into other countries and killing the people and destroying the infrastructure and economy doesn't count- it's a bit, oh friendlier.

Or maybe it depends on your definition of invasion.

[Tamara]

Here's the line from your own source:

this obscure footnote to American history: the treatment of 600,000 Italian citizens in the United States who were classified as "enemy aliens" after World War II began.

Non-citizen immigrants from another country who we are at war with are referred to as "enemy aliens".

We rounded up or followed citizens of the nation of Germany here in the US. We made a German-American the commanding general of SHAEF (and later elected him president), so obviously there's kind of a difference.

[Mike Irwin]

Do you honestly think that if the Germans had launched a sneak attack on, say, Norfolk Va., that we'd have rounded up citizens of German decent and put them in concentration camps?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the numbers of German descendents in this nation, no. But there again, the numbers would have made it impossible to achieve, so that would also argue against an interpretation of racism."


Actually, such plans were floated, for the internment of recently emigrated (I believe since 1900 or 1920, can't remember which) Germans and Italians, even those Germans and Italians who had become citizens of the United States.

They were knocked down fairly quickly, but the internment of Japanese Americans allowed to go forward.

No matter how you cut it, though, internment had a LOT to do with racism.

Viewing some of the war-time cartoons coming out of Warner Brothers is a good indication of how many in the United States felt at the time.

[Lancel]

To summarize:
People can be violent.
People united by a common faith can be more violent.
People united by common politics can be more violent.
Conclusion:
Separation of faith and politics helps counterbalance the violence.

Solution:
The genius behind the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment (freedom of speech AND religion) defended by the Second (right to keep and bear arms.)

God bless America. (Because I can say that but don't have to.)

Larry

[MrAcheson]

Exactly Tamara, something like a third of the soldiers who fought for the US in WWII were of german descent. It was not unheard of for some US soldiers to speak fluent german because their parents were german immigrants.

Back to Islam:

Superficially Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have the same god and similar systems, but it is superficial. The character of the Allah is very different from the character of Yahweh or Christ, and the theology is remarkably different.

Even in the Old Testament, Yahweh is not a god of works. Yahweh wants people to freely conform their souls to his, Allah wants them to conform their actions to his desires. A paraphrase of the prophets in the Old Testament: "Your hands and lips do what is right, but your hearts are far from me."

Islam has 5 commandments all of which are actions, Judeo-Christianity has 2 "love god" and "love your neighbor".

Yahweh is definitely right and just. He is the true embodiment of these qualities. Allah simply does these things because it is his wish. Allah does good, but has the potential for evil. Yahweh is good.

As for peace...

Those that say Mohammed was a fundamentally peaceful guy need to read some Islamic History. Mohammed lead the first jihad against Mecca. He has people assassinated out of expedience.

The passages in the Koran are roughly chronological. The early passages are peaceful and tolerant because at the time Mohammed was peaceful and tolerant. The later passages are not because the deal with when Mohammed was expanding Islam by sword. The moderate muslims accentuate the early parts. Hardline muslims accentuate the later parts.

Mohammed was also ruler in a way that Christ rejected. This set a precedence for religious political rulers which is still being followed today in Iran. On the other hand the Sunnis do have a cultural basis for moderation of this because they basically elected the Caliph instead of passing the position down hereditarily.

[Mike Irwin]

2Dogs,

Your analogy is still incredibly flawed.

Germany is a specific state, with well recognized national boundaries. It's a tangible, specific, place.

Islam is a religion, practiced in nations that are hostile to the United States, nations that are ambivilent to the US, and those that are openly friendly towards the United States.

Germany in World War II acted not out of religious convictions, but out of nationalistic convictions.

In the same sense, the Gulf War in 1991 was not a war against Islam, even though Iraq is virtually 100% Muslim. It was a war to eject the forces of one nation from another.

Attempting to equate the nationalism of Germany in 1941 with the situation with Islam as it exists today doesn't work.

[2dogs]

About 110,000 Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans were interned in a network of camps, including Fort Missoula. In this sweep of people suspected of sympathy with enemies of the United States, 10,905 Germans and German-Americans as well as a few Bulgarians, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians were interned.

Tamara

I'll try to do a bit more research- but it looks to me like the article makes a distinction between :

Japanese immigrants vs Japanese Americans

German immigrants vs German Americans

And (I assume ) Italian Immigrants and Italian Americans

and states that members of both groups were interred (at least in the paragraph above both Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans and German immigrants and German Americans).

Still, I'm workin real hard to brush up those reading skills.:)

[Mike Irwin]

Tams...


Germans weren't concentrated in western Pennsylvania, but througout the entire state.

Western Pennsylvania, because of the steel mills, even at that time, had more people descended from Eastern European roots -- mainly Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the like -- than Germany.

In my high school in 1982 we did a geneology project for the junior class.

Of 162 students in the class, 148 listed Germanic ancestry as the predominant group of origin.

That's almost 92%. Italians were about 5%, and the rest were eastern European.

I grew up just outside of Harrisburg, but in my class there were no blacks, no Jews, no Asians, and precious few Catholics.


If you have any interest in it, there's an INCREDIBLE book called "Out of this Furnace," which traces the history of a family of Hungarians who emigrate to the United States and settle in Western Pennsylvania to work in the steel mills.

It was assigned as reading for a college history course, and it was one of those few books that I read the entire way through, and read again later.

[cratz2]

(cuchulainn, this is the last I will say on the German/Japanese subject since this is a thread on Islam...) I'm not saying anything close to what you are typing. I spoke quite clearly. I said people fear that which is different from them. The Japanese culture is more unlike America than Germany is unlike America. The folks in charge at the time made a decision based on limited facts and fear. Germans were not well known to be involved in suicide bombings or attacks, the Japanese were. The Germans declared war on us instead of an arguable surpise bombing attack such as what terrorists do, the Japanese did not declare war prior to Pearl Harbor. There were smaller numbers of Japanese immigrants than German immigrants/decendants and I'm sure that played a part in the decision. And probably just as important as any other reason I listed, the Japanese look less like the Average Eurpoean decended American than Germans. It's that simple.

Now, please back to Islam. I'm amazed how well this thread is going.:)

[longeyes]

THR is the best free extension course on the Internet.
:)

[Tamara]

About 1,600 Italian citizens were interned, all of them here, and about 10,000 Italian-Americans were forced to move from their houses in California coastal communities to inland homes.

And the 600,000 legal Italian immigrants who had not become U.S. citizens were put under travel restrictions. Dozens of American citizens of Italian origin who had shown sympathy for Mussolini were temporarily banished from California.

Besides, none of this makes it right; these people had their rights violated in the worst possible way.

And if you don't think any of the fuss about Italian-American immigrants had to do with racism, well:

"Italians, bad at war, are well-suited for milder competition... Although he learned Italian first, Joe, now 24, speaks English without an accent, and is otherwise well adapted to most U.S. mores. Instead of olive oil or smelly bear grease he keeps his hair slick with water. He never reeks of garlic and prefers chicken chow mein to spaghetti." -Life magazine, 1939.

The "Joe" in question is, of course, Joe DiMaggio...

[cuchulainn]

Germany vs. Islam.

In WWII, Germany was a culture that had a very bad problem with xenophobic violence. But it would have been narrow minded to say, "The German culture is inherently more xenophobic and violent than other cultures; it is the German culture itself which is the root of this problem."

Similarly, Islam is a religion/culture in 2003 with a very bad problem with xenophobic violence. But it is narrow minded to say "The Islamic religion is inherently more xenophobic and violent than others; it is the Islamic religion itself which is the root of this problem."

One assumes the culture cannot be healed; the other assumes it can be healed. If Islam itself is the problem, then are we arguing that it should be eradicated along the lines that we (mostly) eradicated National Socialism?

Or is our war about purging from Islam the problem in its culture the way we purged from Germany the problem in its culture?

There is a difference between the culture and a problem within the culture.

Statements like, "Islam is a religion that tells you to send your son to die for God, while Christianity is a religion in which God sends his son to die for you," assumes that the religion is a problem and is beyond cure.

+++++

Yahweh of the Old Testament can be (mis)interpreted to justify genocide of unbelievers, especially Exodus. And that stuff in Revelations could be (mis)used to justify all kinds of horrible "final" battles.

Could it be that religions are not whichever part of a holy book that adherents emphasize, but the whole of what it does and believes?

+++++

I missed the part in history class about the Italian sneak attack. ;)

[2dogs]

the fuss about Italian-American immigrants had to do with racism

Must have- lord knows they weren't very dangerous militarily; now la Cosa Nostra- that's a whole different animal.


P.S. Before anyone gets their undies in a wad- I'm proud to claim Italian heritage.






Edit: P.S.

[cuchulainn]

I said people fear that which is different from them. The Japanese culture is more unlike America than Germany is unlike America. The folks in charge at the time made a decision based on limited facts and fear. We agree then ;)

[spacemanspiff]

okay, i fail to see how comparing the efforts of germany to that of muslim nations is even made. germany wasnt relgiously motivated in WWII. they had the backing of the catholic church, but only because organized religion tends to jump on whatever bandwagon their government is riding on.

muslim nations declare 'holy wars' for the sole purpose of fulfilling their religious beliefs. muslim extremists dont sit around wondering 'gee, is there really an allah who would allow such atrocities and horrors to be commited against other humans'?

[Bahadur]

A comment on Japanese-American internment during WWII:

The singular justification for interning Americans of Japanese descent was suspicion of treason and sabotage. Yet, the Japanese-Americans of Hawaii were not mass-interned like those on the mainland.

Why - even though those on Hawaii would have been in an excellent position to wreak havoc on the myriad of crucial military facilities on Hawaii?

Simple - because without the Japanese-Americans on Hawaii, the economic-military functioning of the latter would've been nearly impossible.

Meaning, it was an illogical decision one way or another. That is, if the justification of the fear of sabotage were really true, then the Hawaiian Japanese should've been interned too. If the justfication did not hold, then the mainland Japanese-Americans should not have been interned. There IS no middle ground.

Yet, the political-military authorities of the time chose that "mixed" solution, because their prejudice was tempered by practical considerations (military necessity of needing people for Hawaii's functioning).

[Bahadur]

Another comment on Islam and violence:

It seems to me that some people are falling for a rather easy fallacy: confusing correlation with causation.

Example: A higher percentage of blacks commit crime than whites. Therefore, blacks are more criminal than whites (or worse, if you are black, you are more likely to be a criminal; or worse still, being black CAUSES you to be a criminal).

Here we have a correlation between blacks and a high incidence of crime. There is, however, no established causation - that being blacks causes criminality.

There could be a perfectly reasonable alternative to that fallacious generalization, for example, that extreme poverty combined with bad or non-existent parenting causes crime, and the statistics demonstrate that indeed such elements may correlate better with crime than "black."

Now, let's look at the observation that "A lot of violent terrorists are Muslims" which, even if true, is only a correlation. Some people now seem to draw the fallacious conclusion from that, that "Therefore, Islam causes violence."

Did they consider a perfectly plausible alternative that negates that faulty causation - that, for example, countries with poverty, instability, low literacy and ethnic tension "breed" more terrorists and that many Muslims happen to live in countries with such conditions. In that case, the causal factor (that element which causes violence) is not the religion, Islam, but the social conditions of the particular countries. Meaning, Islam is not a "necessary condition" nor a "sufficient condition" for violence, because one can find a failed (largely) Christian society (say, Columbia) that is racked by violence, instability and narco-terrorism that spills beyond its borders. In such a case, the causal factor of the violence is the social-economic-political condition of the country, not the religion (of course, that does not stop the religion from being - not a cause - but a vehicle of the violence).

In addition, one can make a further argument that, because Islam happens to be a very egalitarianism-oriented (among men any way) religion in theory, it appeals to downtrodden people in such nations.

If that were to be the case, the elements that cause violence may also cause people to become adherents of Islam in such a society. In that case, Islam and violence co-occur, but Islam does not cause violence (the same set factors cause both).

In either case, Islam is not the condition which CAUSES violence, which can be translated to contradict the statement that "Islam is inherently violent" (or "Islam makes its adherent violent").

[BigG]

Proving causation is almost impossible. That's why scientists nearly always say ____ is linked to ____ . No way to prove causation.

[cuchulainn]

Proving causation is almost impossible. That's why scientists nearly always say ____ is linked to ____ . No way to prove causation.

Yeah, scientists have merely shown that sex is linked to pregnancy. ;) :)

[buzz_knox]

While Bahadur makes some good points, there is one aspect of Islam that I do believe lends itself to terrorism. That is, the idea that a person can gain instant salvation and eternal happiness by becoming a martyr. That is easily perverted into becoming a martyr by killing the "infidel." I'm not aware of any major religion which such a tenet, although some fanatical Christian sects have adopted a similar view towards the killing of abortion doctors (i.e. taking a life to save thousands).

[RON in PA]

I have the following problems with Islam: Since its founding by Mohammad it has been spread by the sword, Jews and Christians while "people of the book" are still second class citizens (Dhemmi), countries conquered by Islam have their national cultures destroyed or converted to an Arab or Turkic, Muslim one and once a land is conquered by Islam it is anathema to Moslems that the land revert to its original culture and religion ( and that's what the Israeli conflict is all about)..

Islam by its very nature is peaceful only to Muslems, everyone else watch out.

[cuchulainn]

buzz_knox,

There is a difference between aspects that lend themselves to terrorism (read "can be perverted") and the entire religion being inherently violent, indeed the root cause of violence. :)

RON in PA,

You just described my own religion, Christianity, for the majority of its history. :)

[Mike Irwin]

You've also just described Western Culture to a T, Ron.

Spread by the Sword -- check.

Other people of the book are second class citizens -- Check

Conquored nations have national identity destroyed -- Check

Return to national or cultural identity is anathma -- Check

Good primer for Christianity 101.

[longeyes]

"You've also just described Western Culture to a T, Ron.

Spread by the Sword -- check.

Other people of the book are second class citizens -- Check

Conquored nations have national identity destroyed -- Check

Return to national or cultural identity is anathma -- Check

Good primer for Christianity 101."

Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points. We really are brutes here in the West, you're right, sir, and we have created a nightmare for everyone. I had thought, looking around me, that maybe we'd done something right along the way. You learn something every day.

[ahenry]

I am not the slightest bit interested in entering this debate, other than to argue a side issue, so check yourself before you look for your high-horse.

Bahadur,
It seems to me that some people are falling for a rather easy fallacy: confusing correlation with causation. Not necessarily. Remember I am not coming down on any side in this debate, so take this as its intended. The greater the number of incidences that show a correlation increase the likelihood of causation. Allow me to provide a true illustration. If every time walk out into bright sunlight from more subdued lighting, I sneeze, I can begin to suspect there is causation from the sunlight*. Not necessarily something I can prove, but when it happens with such regularity and such certainty that I can reliably predict it, there is a good chance there is causation there. So while it is true that one cannot necessarily say that two events equal causation, repetition of those two events over and over and over again can reliably indicate that there is actually causation. It seems to me that you are falling for a rather easy fallacy: that unless explicitly proven, correlation can never indicate causation.



*It is called Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst, or ACHOO Syndrome. For those not aware of somebody with this, its pretty funny...but I digress.

[longeyes]

"Did they consider a perfectly plausible alternative that negates that faulty
causation - that, for example, countries with poverty, instability, low literacy and
ethnic tension "breed" more terrorists and that many Muslims happen to live in
countries with such conditions. In that case, the causal factor (that element
which causes violence) is not the religion, Islam, but the social conditions of the
particular countries."

Where did these social conditions come from? Interesting how a society suffused with a certain mind-set that affects all aspects of its behavior, by its own choice and design, is not to be implicated in that society's problems.

Some cultures are more adaptive than others.

[Marko Kloos]

longeyes,

the advances of Western civilization are not the point of contention here. Mike was pointing out that Christianity has been spread by exactly the same methods, which is a historic fact beyond contention. The near extermination of the American Indians, and their cultural treatment afterwards, are just one example.

Is Western culture superior? Sure. Are our achievenemts more impressive? Sure! But don't kid yourself into thinking that Christianity was mostly spread by friendly missionaries with flowers, who would politely persuade the natives.

Besides, Western advances have only been made by science after throwing off the shackles of medieval theocracies, after the Renaissance. Western wealth and knowledge is the fruit of reason and science, not religion. We are where we are because we've had a Renaissance where the influence of religion was greatly curbed. Without our Renaissance, the church would still burn people at the stake for promoting the idea of a heliocentric universe.

Islam hasn't had its renaissance yet, and it's badly overdue for one.

[cuchulainn]

Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points. Edited to read: What lendsringer said (except the "superior" part ;) and the failure to mention that a big portion of our science and technology is rooted in medieval Islamic nations.) Where did these social conditions come from? Interesting how a society suffused with a certain mind-set that affects all aspects of its behavior, by its own choice and design, is not to be implicated in that society's problems. What about the abject poverty in Christian South America?

[longeyes]

I wasn't defending religion, I was defending Reason. Our best hopes lie not in utopian brotherhoods but in the self-interested mediocrities of mass capitalism. People who can buy cheap at Costco are less likely to pursue messianic, even suicidal, agendas out of desperation. If that means endless tract houses and bad tv, hey, don't blame me, I didn't design the human animal.

My view is that Islam requires the same "Reformation" that other faiths have undergone, becoming "kinder and gentler" as it becomes more secularized.

[longeyes]

My point was that certain ways of seeing the world conduce to less than ideal social and economic and political outcomes. Of course that is not unique to any one faith. The West has certainly had its benighted periods and even the so-called modern scientific period seems to have often sacrificed its rational achievements for irrational ambitions.

[cuchulainn]

longeyes,

Religion not as the opiate of the people, but the speedball of the people? :)

[Mike Irwin]

"Interesting that you have to use aggressive, repressive, and racist Western inventions like the computer, the modem, and the Internet to make your points. We really are brutes here in the West, you're right, sir, and we have created a nightmare for everyone. I had thought, looking around me, that maybe we'd done something right along the way. You learn something every day."


Yes, you certainly do learn something every day.

I just learned that you've missed the point entirely.

But, since you desire to take it down to this level, let's step back to the mathematical foundations that make the computer, modem, and internet possible...

Developed in Islamic lands at a time when western civilization was remarkably similar to to what some people are claiming about Islam today.

Algebra? Developed by Muslim mathematicians, most specifically by Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi in the early 800s. Interestingly, he lived in Baghdad.

Concept of the zero as it appears in western mathematics? Muslim. It was unknown in Europe until the Crusaders actually brought back some Arabic texts, instead of just burning them.

Trigonometry? The principles of modern trig were largely codified by one Abul Wefa between 980 and 990 a.d.

Physical sciences? Largely based on the work done in the Muslim world, and transplanted to the West.


The history lesson aside, you miss the point of this entire discussion, that Islam is in reality no more or less violent, than most other religions, and is as equally prone to corruption in its name as any other.

[cratz2]

I still don't think that any religion itself is to blame. Moreso the fact that it seems to be part of human nature to want to conquer. If you can conquer for yourself, great. If you can conquer for your political leader, great. If you can conqeur for your religion in the name of your God, that's even better.

Islam does teach violence and hatred of other religions, but not dramatically more than natives can learn hatred of rich white men in South Africa and no more than any group can be taught to hate any or all other groups. Just the fact that those that do the hating and violence are rewarded for acting on that hatred for all eternity.

I'm not excusing the atrocities committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity or under the thin veil of Christianity, but can anyone quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self? This is why I believe Islam is more violent, at it's core, than any other religion with which I'm familiar. As I said and as other here have said, I know many peaceful Muslims but if you discuss terrorist activities with them, eventually when tempers flare, an exceptionally high number of them will not speak poorly of them. They may say that the people that flew the planes into the WTC were not talking for them, but few will decry them and say that they are going to rot in hell forever for those actions because Islam teaches that they did this for Allah and against infidels and they are to be rewarded for their actions.

There are many fine people that are Islamic and most would probably never think of acting against thousands of innocents, non-involved, humans like the cowards that attack embassies or the cowards that destroyed the World Trade Center. But there are many that are more than willing to do these things. There are leaders than create false levels of poverty for the sole purpose of having a pool of people that they can offer money to in order to kill those that do not follow Islam. There are bad leaders the world over, most of them I suspect, but most are not so blatant about the 'society' they willingly create for the seeming sole purpose of destroying believers of other religions.

Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone of reasonable intelligence can honesty believe that any just God would reward them for knowingly and intentionally killing childred under the age of 13. It just completely escapes me. Either side... Jews, Christians or Moslims. It is funny that the three religions that are the most closely related are the ones that fight the most, isn't it? That probably says something about all three.

[Mike Irwin]

"quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self?"

You don't need to quote passages as the concept of being a martyr for one's faith is well established in the Christian religion, as well.

The example of St. Menas is a good one.

Also, Pope Urban, in addressing members of the First Crusade, told them that were they to die in their effort to purge the Holy Land of Muslims that they would be "martyrs of Chrisendom, beloved of true God." (that's paraphrasing, my history of the Crusades is at home).

That one is particularly interesting, as Urban states that dying in combat while fighting for one's religion is a good thing...

[pax]

I'm not excusing the atrocities committed by Christians or in the name of Christianity or under the thin veil of Christianity, but can anyone quote passages of religions other than Islam that specifically rewards believers for martyrizing one's self?
*sigh* I don't have to answer this, but I believe in honesty. So here goes.

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
blessed is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks. -- Psalm 137:8-9 in the Bible

Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD , come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." -- Exodus 32: 25-29 in the Bible
I specifically chose passages that are common to both Jews and Christians.

My point? Just that Christians who live in glass houses shouldn't stone people.

pax

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. -- William Shakespeare

[Mike Irwin]

FOUND IT!

Nothing like a little Christian martyrdom in the time of war...

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.

"When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!..."

"We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."

"If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor. If you, likewise, consider that the abode of the holy apostles and any other saints should be striven for with such effort, why do you refuse to rescue the Cross, the Blood, the Tomb? Why do you refuse to visit them, to spend the price of your lives in rescuing them?"

From five contemporary accounts of Pope Urban II's address at the Council of Clermont in 1095.


There are others, but you get the idea.

[RON in PA]

To those who posted that my post applies to Christianity as well as Islam I agree 100%, but this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago. Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should.

The posters who state that Islam needs a Reformation have hit the nail right on the head.

Mike Irwin: It's very true that in its Golden Age Islam was miles ahead of Europe, but something happened and it ossified. Same can be said of China.

And speaking of China, several years ago I spent a lot of time with fellow researchers that were Chinese . These gentlemen, who were not very religious at all, could not understand the fanaticism and intolerance of Western religion.

[Mike Irwin]

"To those who posted that my post applies to Christianity as well as Islam I agree 100%, but this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago. Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should."

You're right, two wrongs don't make a right.

But to condemn Islam without understanding the history of Christianity is equally wrong. It reminds me of the stridently anti-smoker who used to smoke. Great, you quit. Stop being so :cuss:ing righteous about it.

To broadly paint Islam as a religion of violence and give it no further thought is wrong.

To categorize all Muslim faithful as murderous savages who have nothing but killing infidels on the mind is wrong.

To fail (or worse, to not care) to understand how religious tenets can be hijacked by fanatics who twist the religion to their own perverse ends is wrong.

Those 4 wrongs don't make ignorance, narrow mindedness, or bigotry right, either.


"could not understand the fanaticism and intolerance of Western religion."

I share that position with your Chinese friends.

[cuchulainn]

this discussion isn't about the sins of the Christians, it's about the contemporary Moslems who are doing the same crap as the Christians did centuries ago. No, it's about whether Islam is a violent religion. You just described adherents of a religion who are violent. There is a big difference between the two. :)Two wrongs don't make a right and just because the other kids do it doesn't mean you should. No one suggested otherwise.The posters who state that Islam needs a Reformation have hit the nail right on the head. Perhaps. I'll give them this: by seeing Islam as capable of reform, at least they are not in the "inherently violent" camp.

[MeekandMild]

Mike was pointing out that Christianity has been spread by exactly the same methods, which is a historic fact beyond contention. I wonder if anyone here has bothered to look at the chronology of this phenomenom. My old college medieval history professor used to nearly foam at the mouth when he discussed the crusades, but he couldn't argue when it came to admitting they were a reaction to Islamic expansionism.

Basically the West learned genocidal warfare from the Pagan Romans, nearly forgot it for a time when the Empire was christianized then resurrected it, relearning it from the medieval Moslems.

(Christianity was the religion of the slaves and when paganism failed it was either luck or Divine providence that christianity won out over the competing Mithraism of the soldier class. There is some pretty solid evidence that much of the evil attributed to Chistianity was actually due to residual Mithran elements in society, but that isn't the topic of discussion today.)

We see the same misconceptions about Israel and Zionism today. They are defamed at every quarter but nobody ever mentions that Zionism was a reaction to Moslem attempts to wipe out Palistinian Jews in the 1900's.

For all the talk about Christian and Jewish intolerance we see the Moslem minorities in the US and Israel much better treated than the minorities in any Islamic theocracy. Chistians and Jews are accused of being intolerant toward Islam. Of course it is a common "liberal" techique to beat the sh*t out of someone then shout them down, saying they are intolerent.

My 2 cents worth.

[BigG]

Pax, with all due respect, more than supporting martyrdom on behalf of God, your selected Bible passages seem more to support killing others on God's behalf. Like Gen. Patton said, "making the other poor ******* die for his country." :)

[Tamara]

...your selected Bible passages seem more to support killing others on God's behalf.

And the 9/11 hijackers would have been so much more noble if they'd only bailed out before the planes hit the towers, since then they'd have only been "killing others on God's behalf", rather than buying into that whole "martyr thing". "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Bzzzt!, BigG, thank you for playing; please try again. ;)

[cuchulainn]

Basically the West learned genocidal warfare from the Pagan Romans, nearly forgot it for a time when the Empire was christianized then resurrected it, relearning it from the medieval Moslems.

I'd be interested in learning more about how Islam is to blame for Christian violence.

[longeyes]

Mike Irwin:

Believe it or not I am aware of the contributions of Moslem scholars and their contribution to the Renaissance, etc. Indeed, they did have a Golden Age. The genius is there, no question. Too bad that was rather long ago and the Islamic culture appears to have taken some wrong turns since. For some reason the Islamic world was more open-minded then--or perhaps we are reading history through the achievements of a small number of mavericks. Even the benighted Middle Ages in the West had its freethinkers. The reality is that today Islam appears to be rather sclerotic and repressive, in fact outright hostile to change and cultural difference. As I said earlier, it looks here as if they are in need of a "reformation." Certainly if they attempt a mass conversion, and/or destruction, of non-Moslems they are likely to wind up with a deformation rather than a reformation. I'd rather not see that, and I am sure you don't want that either.

Is Islam intrinsically violent? This seems academic. What counts is how they are behaving and how we respond to it.

[BigG]

Tamara, with all due respect, Pax was trying to support the position that Christianity calls on people to be martyrs like the wackos who blew up the WTC. Not in any Bible I've ever read.

The passages were about making OTHERS die, not the person dying for his religious beliefs.

You must be trying to get in shape, jumping to conclusions like that. :D

[Tamara]

I must've missed the whole bit about "...to die is gain".

From St. Stephen on down, "martyr" is not a Muslim word.

[BigG]

Well shucks, guess not. At the time of Stephen's death, Mohammed was not to be born for at least 600 years . The concept must nonetheless be taught in Islam because where are they getting the stuff about 72 virgins as a reward for doing all this holy stuff like blowing up infidel buildings? :confused:

[Tamara]

So, the whole martyrdom thing in Christianity has changed since the days of the New Testament? I can bulk delete all those "Gunmen walk into your church on Wednesday night and say "all who believe in Christ, stand up"" emails that clog my inbox, then?

[BigG]

Gee. Your life must be a whole lot more interesting than mine. ;) The martyrs listed in the New Testament were killed usually by the civil authorities but often instigated by the Jews for preaching that Jesus is Lord or equal to God. A big offense to Caesar who was worshipped as a god and did not like the competition.

How this martyrdom (being killed for your beliefs) squares with the killing of infidels by radical Islamicists I still do not understand.

[Tamara]

How this martyrdom (being killed for your beliefs) squares with the killing of infidels by radical Islamicists I still do not understand.

Wow!

We've apparently flipped views 180 degrees!

May I direct you to your previous post:

Pax, with all due respect, more than supporting martyrdom on behalf of God, your selected Bible passages seem more to support killing others on God's behalf. Like Gen. Patton said, "making the other poor ******* die for his country."

Apparently the Islamists are conforming more closely with the Old Tesatament Judaic tradition and General Patton. ;)

Or have I misread you? :scrutiny:

[BigG]

Yup. At the first one where I questioned Pax.

[Mike Irwin]

Being a martyr means that you're either willing to, or do, die for your beliefs.

It can mean that you either refuse to renounce your religion in the face of grave danger or, as I noted in the attributed quotes to Pope Urban, whether you're willing to be a religious warrior.

There's no doubt that many of the so-called "suicide bombers" believe that they are being martyrs for their religion, and in that sense of the word they likely are.

Islam, like Christianity, doesn't believe in one taking one's own life for no cause.

Being willing to lay down one's life in service of God, however, is different. It's not taking your own life for no purpose or cause.

That's obviously how groups like the Al Aksha Martyr's Brigade bait the hook -- that the act is not suicide, but service to God.


Here's a link to a VERY interesting discussion on the concept of martyrs in Islam. It's well worth reading.

Martyrdom in Islam (http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4050)


Head to the bottom and read the links, too, especially Jihad, Not a Holy War.

[cratz2]

This will be my last post on the subject as it is just too frustrating to even type about... I will continue to read, but will not contribute as the word that are coming to mind are stronger than I wish to share and that is a sure sign to stop posting.

I believe that of all religions on the earth right now, of the people that follow different religions [/i]right now[/i], in my opinion, followers of Islam appear to be the most needlessly violent. Sure, the US and Great Britain are doing some violence, and Israelis as well but throughout the world, there seem to be lots of Muslims doing violent things.

One member PMd me and suggested that the American taxpayers are paying soldiers to go over and risk their lives to kill people of a different religion than America collectively and that this is somehow akin to Saddam compensating the families of those that kill Jews or Christians in suicide bombings... Maybe the wool is firmly over my eyes but I just do not see these as moral parallels.

I stand by my statement that no religion, Islam included, is violent in it's own right. Many religions make a call to its adherants to try to convert others and to not be supressed by other religions but today, right now, Islam seems to be the religions followed by many many people doing violence for their leaders in the name of its God and that stands my answer to the original question in the thread.

I think I may convert to Bahai but the whole unified religion thing kind of scares the Hell out of me... A little too much like Relevations. Any followers of Bahai on the forum?

[Mike Irwin]

"I believe that of all religions on the earth right now, of the people that follow different religions [/i]right now[/i], in my opinion, followers of Islam appear to be the most needlessly violent."

I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.

It just goes to show what can happen to the teachings of any religion when it is hijacked by those who have agendas that are radically different from what is taught in the sacred texts.

[cuchulainn]

One member PMd me and suggested that the American taxpayers are paying soldiers to go over and risk their lives to kill people of a different religion than America collectively and that this is somehow akin to Saddam compensating the families of those that kill Jews or Christians in suicide bombings

That member is wrong, and you are right to be offended at the comparison There is no comparing between such acts by Saddam and our war effort. There is a huge difference between "USA is as bad as Saddam" and "Islam is not inherently evil"

And I know it's been touched on before in this thread, but most of us arguing against the "Islam is inherently evil" line nonetheless support the war -- in fact, that's pretty much our point: support for war against a primarily Muslim nation (Iraq) is no excuse for painting Muslims with a broad brush.

[Zander]

Here we have a correlation between blacks and a high incidence of crime. There is, however, no established causation - that being blacks causes criminality. -- BahadurIs this supposed to be some semblance of a conclusion reached by the scientific method?!? You skipped a step trying to make your point.

Statistics [real, violent-crime ones] show that the average black in our society is much more likely to commit a violent crime than any other racial/ethnic/blah-blah-blah individual we can list.

In spite of your prostestations, correlations become causations...conclusions drawn from them are entirely valid; and no amount of PC-driven meandering will change it.

That just proves that religion in general has a tendency to bring out the worst in some people. -- lendringserReally?!? As compared to what...the tendency of some atheistic regimes to "bring out" the worst in the totalitarians who brutally and demonically repress any thought other than that which supports the religion of the state?

Name one religion that hasn't seen its share of bloodshed committed in the name of its deity.Name one state-as-religion that hasn't murdered its subjects by an order of magnitude greater. Or are we to forget the entire last century and the beginning of this one?

Shortly, we'll see the complaints from those who insist that drawing honest conclusions from the facts at hand means that some of us are obsessed with putting the bad guys in the other camp. So be it...

Mohammed himself was not a violent man.Hmmm...since we insist on proscribing behaviors a milliennum ago with today's "morality", would it be fair to describe him as a child-molester who "took" adolescent girls as his "brides"?

Otherwise rational people, and some truly irrational people, acting in the name of their God, have probably been responsible for more murder, carnage, and mayhem than any other singular reason. -- Mike IrwinCompletely, demonstrably false. Unless you claim that atheistic/state-as-god regimes are driven by religion. No matter how many times this worthy-of-Goebbels lie is repeated, it is still a lie. Why the inane reference to Nazi Germany? Aren't you aware that Hitler ordered the extermination of Christians [as he did anyone who opposed him], too?

I assume you think "Eisenhower" is an Irish name? --TamaraNope, it's an Americanized German name. If you're looking for an Irish name, how 'bout Clinton? :cool:

[Mike Irwin]

"Otherwise rational people, and some truly irrational people, acting in the name of their God, have probably been responsible for more murder, carnage, and mayhem than any other singular reason. -- Mike Irwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Completely, demonstrably false. Unless you claim that atheistic/state-as-god regimes are driven by religion. No matter how many times this worthy-of-Goebbels lie is repeated, it is still a lie. Why the inane reference to Nazi Germany? Aren't you aware that Hitler ordered the extermination of Christians [as he did anyone who opposed him], too?"

You'll note that I said PROBABLY, Zander.

There's a world of possibility in that word. I'm also not limiting that statement to the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islam triad, either, nor am I omitting sectarian violence in which proponents of the same religion take after each other on basically trivial grounds (the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars comes immediately to mind).

Quite frankly, we simply can't know how many people have been killed in the name of religion, all religions, over the span of recorded time.

But, since you said demonstrably, please demonstrate with hard figures.

"Unless you claim that atheistic/state-as-god regimes are driven by religion."

I don't know whether I've mentioned it here, but I've mentioned it elsewhere, that yes, I do believe that statocracies, that strive to replace an ethereal God with the state, are in their own form, religions.

"Why the inane reference to Nazi Germany? Aren't you aware that Hitler ordered the extermination of Christians [as he did anyone who opposed him], too?"

Jesus, dude, read my statement, and perhaps you'll get the reference.

Yes, the Nazi Germany that Hitler tried to develope was more stateocracy-based than theocracy-based, but the Nazis had absolutely NO compunctions about motivating Germans to act out against the Jews by using the trappings of Christian religion.

Yes, Hitler did kill Christians, but he didn't make a point of singling out Christians specifically because they were Christian, but because they opposed him on other grounds. He did, however, use traditional Christian animosity toward Jews to fan the flames of the Holocaust, especially in the 1930s, when his anti-Jewish policies were still fighting to gain credibility. The Lutheran Church, for example, was largely untouched by the Nazis as long as its ministers didn't start acting out and questioning the actions of the Nazis. Perhaps the most famous of the anti-Nazi Lutherans was the Rev. Martin Niemoller, whose name comes up here occasionally. Unfortunately, though, the Nazi party found others who used the pulpit to justify the actions of the Nazis in Germany.

After the war, Niemoller helped author the Declaration of Stuttgart, a very interesting document that outlined the complicity of the organized religions in assisting the Nazis in Germany.

[cuchulainn]

correlations become causations...conclusions drawn from them are entirely valid; and no amount of PC-driven meandering will change it.

That's exactly the logic that leads people to believe guns cause murder and suicide. After all, guns are the primary mechanism by far in both (backed up by real violent-crime statistics). There is an undeniable correlation. Using your logic, correlation becomes causation (how?) and the grabbers' conclusions are valid.

[Tamara]

That just proves that religion in general has a tendency to bring out the worst in some people. -- lendringserReally?!? As compared to what...the tendency of some atheistic regimes to "bring out" the worst in the totalitarians who brutally and demonically repress any thought other than that which supports the religion of the state?

Funny that lendringser should say "religion in general", and in trying to refute him, you wind up using the phrase "religion of the state". ;) I'd submit that communism or fascism or national socialism or what-have-you are, for all practical purposes, religions.

[longeyes]

I'm of the view that genocide, in which I include ethnic and relgious extermination, comes with the human animal's desire for survival and prevalence. It can be inflamed by religious mania (including secular "religions" like Marxism) and, alas, made more efficient by modern weapons and especially autocratic and hierachical social organization.

This thread is a good argument for enlightened anarchism. Unfortunately, the world seems to be going in the opposite direction, with the potential for ever larger disasters. We may, however, get our form of anarchism yet, however, if global conflagration engenders the kind of "Mad Max" scenario it's capable of. Nature has a way of dealing with bad ideas and maladaptive cultures.

[CZ-75]

No.

My opinion is that it is cultural (this could be an oblique criticism of Islam). I'd say that most Muslim countries are backward and the mindset is the same as it was 4-500 years ago, with a few modifications.

Could the Islam be responsible for that? Yes, but not inherently so. If Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts took over this country, I'd venture to say that our outlook would deteriorate as well.

So I believe it is with Islam and it's religious thinkers of the past few centuries. Sharia and the interpretations of the Qur'an were once more progressive in outlook, but I believe Imams in the past several hundred years have changed that and they have sealed off dissent by claiming these interpretations to be inerrant. Time stands still.

The West was once every bit as brutal as what we would consider Islamic countries to be now, if not even more so. The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment were steps that advanced us to a more humane outlook on the world. Islam, instead of a Renaissance (theirs was around the 10th-12th centuries), has experienced a regression over the same period.

So now we are confronted with folks whose mindset is, with some exceptions, stuck in the 13th century. Even those who get an education in the West can't escape their attitudes. You can take the man out of the 13th C. but you can't take the 13th c. out of the man, so to speak. Not a recipe for peace, especially when these attitudes are coupled with modern weapons and technology.

[Black Dragon]

1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An Analysis By Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.
Mr. Csaplar, a member of the Regent University Board of Trustees, writes in response to a recent article on the Crusades in U.S. News & World Report.

CBN.com - I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it evenworse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.
The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in
error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been
fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars
came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through
the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging
Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the
Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empirefell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of
Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They areused because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

Colonialist

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.

Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to
which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could; Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could; Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not; Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not; Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could; Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their
own religious or secular law.

In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became
second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through
invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which
continues to this day.

In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.

The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle,the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslimshad subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined. But let us return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "…most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streetsof Jerusalem; etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is
a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no
first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers
being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "…the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word…" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.
2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.
3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian
and pagan population.
4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.
5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.
6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.
7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.
8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.
9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.
10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.
11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.
12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.
13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.
14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

[Black Dragon]

Continued................


Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred
Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the
Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But
in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:

1844 -- 33%
1896 -- 19%
1910 -- 13%
1922 -- 22%
1931 -- 22%
1948 -- 24%
1967 -- 21%
1972 -- 23%
1992 -- 25%
:rolleyes:

[cuchulainn]

Black Dragon:

No one disputes that the East has been aggressive towards the West. But it certainly has not been one sided. The author is correct to reject the PC notion of "Christian aggression" being at fault, but he is wrong to take that as a cue to blame Islam.

Indeed, the problem behind all this debate is this desire to assign blame to one religion or the other for a pattern of recurring conflict that predates both religions.

As the article you post mentions but conveniently glosses over, east-vs-west violence predates Islam by centuries, going back at least to the Greeks and Persians (I'd argue even farther FWIW) -- while Islam has been around about 1,500 years, the east-vs-west enmity and wars have been around at least twice as long, 3,000 years.

Thus, Islam logically cannot be the cause -- the cause cannot come after the effect. Arguing that Islam is the source of a pattern of violence that predated its existence is as logical as arguing The USA caused the Crusades.

Those who argue that one side or the other has been the aggressor while the other has been the defender argue that a pendulum swings in one direction.

[SodaPop]

Can we all please just all acknowledge that the entire human race is just screwed up? Human nature gives up bad people whether its Pope Urban III or Clinton.

My issues are this lumping of the Bible and Koran verses together. Both have different writing and ways of interpreting. Muhammed and Jesus had different teaching methods. Taking what one says "word for word" compared to the other would give you an F in history class. This "sword" that Jesus refers to is sometimes translated as "fire" "division" or a "sword" depending on which bible you're holding in your hand.


It's been inaccurately quoted all too often in this forum and on TFL by the Libertarian sect.;)

[Zander]

Quite frankly, we simply can't know how many people have been killed in the name of religion, all religions, over the span of recorded time. -- Mike IrwinBut it was your contention, "Otherwise rational people, and some truly irrational people, acting in the name of their God, have probably been responsible for more murder, carnage, and mayhem than any other singular reason.", to which I responded. I'm curious as to whether you actually believe it or not. Your contention gets tossed rather casually into discussions like this. There is only one problem with that...it just isn't true.

But, since you said demonstrably, please demonstrate with hard figures.In our discussions on gun control, we commonly estimate that more than 100 million people were murdered by the tyrants, dictators and totalitarians of socialist and communist regimes in the last century alone. As late as 1800, there were less than one billion people on this planet. My point should be pretty clear, but I'll put detail to my estimates if you will.

Funny that lendringser should say "religion in general", and in trying to refute him, you wind up using the phrase "religion of the state". -- TamaraYou're plenty smart enough to know a figure of speech when you see one.

I'd submit that communism or fascism or national socialism or what-have-you are, for all practical purposes, religions.Of course, you are free to submit anything you like...including a tortured definition. ;)

[buzz_knox]

This thread has had over 150 posts in it (counting this one) and still remains thoughtful and relatively courteous, despite being on one of the most contentious subjects. Congrats, folks.

[Marko Kloos]

In our discussions on gun control, we commonly estimate that more than 100 million people were murdered by the tyrants, dictators and totalitarians of socialist and communist regimes in the last century alone.

Look, Zander, I know the point you're trying to make, because these discussions have come up on TFL before. You're basically alluding that a declared "secular" government, by the fact that it explicitly rejects religion as a guiding factor in matters of State, tends to be ruthless and violent because it lacks the values and behavioral restrictions of religion.

That argument, however, loses a lot of steam when you consider that the corollary is not automatically true. Governments which implicitly identify themselves with a religion do not, and historically haven't automatically refrained from killing people en masse. Since history has many incidents of theocracies, Christian or otherwise, which have killed people by the score, your argument against secular regimes loses its point.

Now you can at best try to argue that

a.) secular regimes are more prone to genocide than religious ones, or

b.) only certain religions have violent theocracies in their history, or

c.) theocratic tendencies for mass murder are a thing of the past, or

d.) secular governments are worse than theocracies becausse they rack up a higher body count.

What you cannot argue, however, is that theocracies, or declared religiously affiliated governments, have never engaged in mass killings of any kind, whether on their own citizenry or others.

Furthermore, secular regimes are hardly ever truly and explicitly anti-religion, with the possible exception of the old Soviet Union. Hitler secured the cooperation of the church in Germany, and many historians think that the silent accompliceship of the Lutheran and Catholic churches was partially caused by their anti-semitism...in other words, they weren't sad to see the Jews being persecuted. Individual priests who spoke out against the Nazis, like Niemoller and Von Galen, were the exception. Fascism was unique in that it co-opted religious and mythical themes, and the Nazis always paid lip service to religion, which is why they sought the cooperation of the church instead of disbanding it.
Secular tyrannies always replaced religion with a mysticism of their own. For Hitler, it was a strange amalgamate of nationalism and Norse mythology. The Soviets merely replaced "the will of God" with "the good of the State". Both National Socialism and Stalinist Communism took advantage of the natural human gravitation to mysticism by sharing many characteristics with religion: infallible and unquestionable doctrines, ritualism, mass gatherings, hierarchical and patriarchal structure, and repression of dissent.

The point here is that secular tyrannies have racked up massive body counts thanks to Joe Stalin et. al., but they never went out and killed for the explicit sake of secularism, whereas the majority of theocratic warfare has been for the explicit sake of religion.

George Carlin says that the wrong answer to the God question has been the leading cause of death in history. Even if you disagree and start counting bodies between religious and secular warfare, the fact remains that there has been a *lot* of religious warfare in human history specifically over who has the right religion.

The main question of the thread starter was "Is Islam inherently violent?". All religions, Islam included, have bred violence for the explicit sake of either advancing their own faith or eradicating another. To pretend otherwise, or to chant "My religion breeds less violent loonies than yours", is a pointless contest. All mainstream religions disassociate themselves from killing innocents, including Islam. Trying to pretend that the lunatic fringe somehow speaks for the entire religion is a pointless exercise, because that tactic can be used against any religion...and even secularism. Arguing in that fashion only ends in a monotone exchange of "Did too!/Did not!", as everybody scours the Holy Book of the other religion (of which they rarely have any in-depth knowledge) for evidence that "proves" the inherent violence of that religion. When the tactic is then reversed, they say, "You're taking that out of context!"

Unless we have an Imam and an ordained minister debating the issue of "What the Bible/Qu'ran really says", it's pointless to debate holy texts based on their cursory and superficial knowledge, whether you're talking Bible or Qu'ran.

[Bahadur]

ahenry:
Not necessarily. Remember I am not coming down on any side in this debate, so take this as its intended. The greater the number of incidences that show a correlation increase the likelihood of causation. Allow me to provide a true illustration. If every time walk out into bright sunlight from more subdued lighting, I sneeze, I can begin to suspect there is causation from the sunlight*. Not necessarily something I can prove, but when it happens with such regularity and such certainty that I can reliably predict it, there is a good chance there is causation there.
So while it is true that one cannot necessarily say that two events equal causation, repetition of those two events over and over and over again can reliably indicate that there is actually causation.Not so. First of all, even if A and B have high correlations, if you can come up with yet another element - C - that has higher correlations to B than A does, than (by your logic) C causes B is more likely than B causes A.

So, for example, if there is a high correlations between radical Islam and violence, you could assume that maybe radical Islam causes violence. But if you find, for example, that high poverty (or severe repression by government or whatever else) has higher correlations to violence, then by your logic, high poverty is more likely to cause violence than Islam.

Furthermore, you leave out the possibility that A and B might have a high correlations, not because there is a causal relationship, but because another factor - say, D - may be causing BOTH, thus creating the correlations between the first two.

For example, let's assume that radical Islam and violence has a high correlations. But if it turns out that, say, being located in the Middle East and having a repressive government CAUSES both radical Islam and violence, then we can have a situation in which there might be perfect correlations between radical Islam and violence (because both are caused by another set of factors), yet not have a causal relationship.

In the instance, it would be correct to state that radical Islam and violence are both symptoms of another causal factor (Middle East, rather than South America, repressive government, poverty, etc.), but it would be wrong to cite radical Islam as the causal factor for violence.

You can disprove the notion that Islam "causes" terrorism by disproving 1) necessity (that Islam is necessary for terrorism) and 2) sufficiency (that Islam is enough to cause terrorism).

So, for 1), we find a Christian society with lots of terrorism. Columbia. For 2) we find a Muslim society without terrorism (or no more than any non-Muslim society) Malaysia.

In fact, when we do a study of terrorism, we often find correlational conditions that has nothing to do with the specific factor of Islam: poverty, government repression, no or little history of legal mechanisms of dissent, low literacy rate, religious/spiritual extremism (not just Islam, but Jewish, Christian, pagan, or whatever) and so forth that perhaps show much greater correlational strength than "Islam."

lendringser:
Islam hasn't had its renaissance yet, and it's badly overdue for one.Yes! More specifically, what made the Renaissance possible was the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent secularization of society (not that people are less religious, but rather the divorce between the religious and government authorities). What Islam badly needs is a kind of Reformation.

That is not to suggest that some Muslim sects do not believe in that seperation of "Church and State." Some do. However, because of specific historical-social conditions, they have not been able to "impose" that view on many Muslim socities.

cuchulain:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did these social conditions come from? Interesting how a society suffused with a certain mind-set that affects all aspects of its behavior, by its own choice and design, is not to be implicated in that society's problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about the abject poverty in Christian South America?Exactly. Ever notice how nation-states with unstable borders, poverty, low literacy, rapacious government, ethnic tensions are often those that had been colonized by another power for a long period of time?

Zander:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have a correlation between blacks and a high incidence of crime. There is, however, no established causation - that being blacks causes criminality. -- Bahadur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this supposed to be some semblance of a conclusion reached by the scientific method?!? You skipped a step trying to make your point.

Statistics [real, violent-crime ones] show that the average black in our society is much more likely to commit a violent crime than any other racial/ethnic/blah-blah-blah individual we can list.Nope. That's NOT what the statistics show (what's an "average black" anyway). The stats do not determine the likelihood of a particular individual's actions. What the statistics show, however, is that there is a greater likelihood of a random group of (say) 1,000 blacks having more criminals than a similar group of 1,000 whites. Again, correlations!

Now, what happens if we find out that the correlations between "low income people living in concentrations (meaning "ghettos") and crime is substantially higher than "black" and crime?

Here is a thought: if we find that blacks, Hispanics, Asians and whites all have different crime rates in general, but that these groups living in "ghettos" have similar or identical crime rates, what does that say about which is more likely to be merely correlational and which more likely to be causal?
In spite of your prostestations, correlations become causations...conclusions drawn from them are entirely valid; and no amount of PC-driven meandering will change it."PC-driven meander" is merely a personal attack, and you know it.

Equating correlations with causation is a fallacy - and has been recognized as such LONG before political-correctness was ever conceived.

Let me give you yet another example.

Let's say that EVERYTIME *you* see a bird dropping from the sky to hide under a tree, you get soaked with water (by rain). Meaning, there is a PERFECT correlations between the bird's action and you getting wet. Does that mean the bird's action CAUSES the phenomenon of you getting wet?

Or is the causal factor (rain) actually making both happen, in which case the two might correlate perfectly, yet one is not causal to the other (rain is the causal factor)?

[Zander]

There is an undeniable correlation. -- cuchulainnBut not sufficient to prove causation.

How do you think causation is proven?

[Tamara]

Equivocate all you wish.

The only reason that Arnald-Amalric didn't bag as many as Schickelgruber or Dzugashvili is because he didn't have machine guns or gas chambers and had to slaughter his religious foes the old-fashioned way, one at a time.

As for, say, Russkie communism or German national socialism not being religions, well: they had a doctrine to answer all their questions, they had a man in a funny hat to tell them what to do, they could gather in throngs at symbolism-laden ceremonies to feel the spirit of the nation/god flow through them. They largely filled the same societal functions.

[Tamara]

George Carlin says that the wrong answer to the God question has been the leading cause of death in history. Even if you disagree and start counting bodies between religious and secular warfare,

Heck, if you want to look at it through the lens of strict biblical interpretation, the worst mass-murderer in history wiped out 25% of the Earth's population due to the wrong answer to the "God question". ;)

[Mike Irwin]

"it just isn't true."

I'll ask you AGAIN, Zander.

Please PROVE that it's not true.

You can only SPECULATE that it's not true.

So, 100 million killed by tyrants, socialists, etc., in the past 100 years. How many before that? Who knows.

Now, compare and contrast that with what, nearly 6,000 years of recorded human history. In light of that....

Please provide for us the number of Hittites massacred by Pharonic Egyptians in their religious wars.

Please tell us how many were killed in the expansion of the Persian empire where the Persian religion was brutally forced on those who didn't follow it?

Please provide for us the number of Egyptians massacred during the upheavals surrounding Akhenaten's repression of polythiesm in Egypt, and the similar civil unrest following Akhenaten's death and the return to the old ways.

Please provide for us the number of daily sacrifices made up to the Incan, Aztec, Olmec, etc. gods in the New World prior to the Spanish stamping those practices out.

Please gives us the total number of New World natives killed by the Spanish while they were engaged in "spreading the Christian faith."

Please provide a tally of people who died as the result of the Crusades. On both sides.

Please provide a tally of the people who died during the Germanic-Christian invasions of Russia and the Baltic States.

Tally for us the total number of individuals killed over the past 3,000 years as the result of religiously-motivated violence in Asia. Don't think there has been much? Think again.

You also automatically assume that totaliarian regimes are secular. Once again, as I noted, I, and some others, hold that even supposedly "secular" states are religions unto themselves.

When you replace the concept of the omnipotent God with the omnipotent state, just how different is it? It's not.

Since you're contesting a statement that I've already stipulated is difficult, if not impossible, to prove and open to interpretation, but at the same time stating unequivocally that YOUR position is, in fact, true, it's up to you to prove your position beyond reasonable doubt.

But, simply because we don't know how many people died in the situations I've noted above, or the literally thousands of other similar incidents over what, nearly 6,000 years of recorded human history, we'll never know which one of us is correct.

You may be correct, I may be correct.

But at least I'm allowing for the possibility that I may be wrong, not screeching absolutes with absolute no way to prove them.

As for the defintion of religion, you need to expand your horizons beyond the etherial.

Let's take, for example, Confucianism. A recognized religion in the world spectrum. Unlike most religions it has no overt etherial Gods.

Yet, it fulfills all of the qualities of a religion, namely that it is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

In that sense, please tell me how Nazis or Communism is any different than a religion? They are both causes, principles, and/or systems of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. As with many other forms of religion, they attempted to supplant the dominate religions (Christianity in both cases) with a new set of values, that of the omnipotence of the state. Marx himself said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and yet sought to replace religion with a set of beliefs that was, in fact, little different that what he despised. Interesting connundrum.

Let’s take it from the other direction, then... Would states run under religious principles be, in fact, non-religious simply because the foundation of the government is based in religion?

[Mike Irwin]

Funny, this is a first...

Tamara and I agreeing on a point... :D

[Marko Kloos]

Marx himself said that religion is the opiate of the masses...

It's pretty clear that Marx' statement precedes the invention of television. :D

[Tamara]

There's the oddities of an internet discussion forum for you; I've always thought that we agreed more often than not... ;)

[ahenry]

Said by ahenry:
The greater the number of incidences that show a correlation increase the likelihood of causation.
Said by Bahadur:
Not so.

Oh come off it. You can live in whatever academia bubble you wish, but in the real world where decisions actually have to be made, the greater the instances of correlation between two issues, the higher the likelihood of causation between those two. Period. I appreciate your nifty little instruction on statistical analysis but the fact of the matter remains that what I said is true. To use your A, B, C example, the more often A and B occur the less often C is always taking place. For instance you might have A and B and C (as you mentioned), then you have A and B and G, soon followed by A and B and D, afterwards followed up with A and B and K, and so on and so forth. Statistically, variables other than A and B become less and less significant as the number of instances of A and B go up. I‘m sure you can see what I am saying here, that the more often two incidences occur the less often a third (or fourth or whatever) variable will turn out to be the actual cause of those two incidences. For you to argue this point sorta makes you look foolish. Think carefully and I know you will understand. You have aptly demonstrated your intelligence in the past. Don’t let your inability to be incorrect about something cloud your thinking.

[Mike Irwin]

"There's the oddities of an internet discussion forum for you; I've always thought that we agreed more often than not..."

NO! NOT TRUE NOT TRUE! LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! :p

[SodaPop]

Unless we have an Imam and an ordained minister debating the issue of "What the Bible/Qu'ran really says", it's pointless to debate holy texts based on their cursory and superficial knowledge, whether you're talking Bible or Qu'ran.

That's pretty ignorant. You're the one that keeps referring to the verse as promoting violence. You've been referring to the same verse for the last couple years on TFL and now THR.


Nobody knows the Bible except an ordained minister? Nobody knows the Koran except an Imam? I think History teachers know more about religious texts than most religious leaders. Religious leaders rarely know the history of their religions. That's half the fun of watching Tamara beat up on all the bible beaters.


I guess your an ordained minister....... I never would have guessed.:what: :confused:

[cuchulainn]

Zander: But not sufficient to prove causation.

How do you think causation is proven?

You don't, actually. You gather all the possible causes (all the things correlated) and demonstrate one by one that each is not the cause. What’s left has a high probability of being the cause, but even that might not be certain.

However, untested correlation never proves causation. Never. Period. Even 100% correlation does not prove causation. As Badahur pointed out, the two correlated things can both be caused by something else (rain causes the birds’ flight and your wet hair). Sometimes the observed correlation is simply associated somehow (If you have 10 kids all born 9 months after you and your wife went on camping trips, the camping correlates 100% with your wife's pregnancies, but camping is neither the cause nor a second effect).

Then, after isolating the probable cause, to reach further certainty, you must repeat the experiment and typically get others to repeat the experiment.

For example, using Badahur's example of birds and getting wet. You'd remove the birds. Most likely, you'd find the effect (getting wet) still existed without the birds, so you'd determine the birds were not the cause and move onto something else. However, it is possible that you might unknowingly remove the birds during a drought -- that's where the repeatability comes in. Over time with repeated bird experiments, it would become apparent that the bird removal worked sometimes but usually did not, and that too would be an indication that the birds were not the cause.

To even further eliminate the birds as cause, you might try the opposite experiment -- you'd force the birds to fly under the trees or at least observe them. Over time you'd find that sometimes the birds fly under the trees but you don't get wet.

Of course, there is always the possibility that there is more than one cause -- perhaps, after years of experimentation, you find that you get wet when A) those ugly grey clouds are in the sky, B) the law sprinklers are on and C) the neighbor's prankster son is holding a hose. ;)

And then there is the possibility that you wrongly removed the cause. Perhaps your experiment sets off a chain of causes that negate the cause you were trying to find.

ahenry: in the real world where decisions actually have to be made, the greater the instances of correlation between two issues, the higher the likelihood of causation between those two. Period.

Not exactly. What you are getting at is that it is reasonable to test the highly-correlative things first. But no matter how much bird flight correlates to your wet hair, it will never be the likely cause. 100% correlation between bird flight and your wet hair does not increase the likelihood of birds as cause. You are confusing your reasonably heightened suspicion with likelihood.

[Marko Kloos]

That's pretty ignorant. Your the one that keeps referring to the verse as promoting violence. You've been referring to the same verse for the last couple years on TFL and now THR.


I don't use the Bible to strengthen my argument (how could I, since I don't believe in its infallibility or divine origin?), only to refute someone else's statement. Every time I quote Bible verse, it is to contradict someone who states that no such command or statement exists in the Bible. Invariably, such a quote will be followed up by someone who attempts to put the quote "in context". This is especially evident with Bible verses that are prima facie contradictory to the claimed nature of Christian belief. For example, I'd use the bible quote:

"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

to refute someone who says that killing unborn children is always against God's will, since this quote indicates that God did, at times, command the killing of unborn children. Invariably, someone will come along who will explain to me that I am taking the quote out of context, and they will attempt to properly interpret it for me.

This is what I mean by "learned scholars"...anyone using the Qu'ran to bolster the argument that certain passages support the inherent violent nature of Islam needs to ask an Imam about the excerpt in question and make sure it is not "taken out of context". Bible or Qu'ran quotes, due to their interpretative nature, make very poor bases for arguments. Anyone can read the Bible or the Qu'ran, but Christians point out to me constantly that I lack the proper spiritual insight into the Bible, and therefore cannot interpret the quotes in their proper context. I would assume that any learned Islamic cleric will tell you exactly the same about the Qu'ran if you quote willy-nilly from it without having the proper spiritual insight. I am merely making the case that if a Christian disputes the prima facie meaning of Bible verses based on improper interpretation, they cannot turn around and attempt to bolster their argument with Qu'ran excerpts.

[Drjones]

EVERYONE:

A warm, heartfelt "THANK YOU" for keeping this civil and keeping it on The High Road for THREE long pages so far!!!

Wow.

So many great points here, so much information...

You have given me (and hopefully everyone else here) MUCH to ponder.

Lots of food for thought.

Yum!


Thank you!!!

Drjones

[ahenry]

100% correlation between bird flight and your wet hair does not increase the likelihood of birds as cause. It increases the reasonableness of supposing that there is causation. Which is what I have said from the beginning, your attempt to say I said otherwise notwithstanding. I did not say it proved causation, only that the likelihood there is causation there is increased.

[cuchulainn]

I did not say it proved causation, And I did not say you said that.only that the likelihood there is causation there is increased. rather I was pointing out to you that you are confusing your reasonable suspicion with likelihood.

The birds are 100% correlated, so your suspicion is reasonable. Nonetheless, the likelihood of the birds being the cause remains zero.

[SodaPop]

I am merely making the case that if a Christian disputes the prima facie meaning of Bible verses based on improper interpretation, they cannot turn around and attempt to bolster their argument with Qu'ran excerpts.

You mean Pat Robertson?:D

but Christians point out to me constantly that I lack the proper spiritual insight into the Bible, and therefore cannot interpret the quotes in their proper context. I would assume that any learned Islamic cleric will tell you exactly the same about the Qu'ran if you quote willy-nilly from it without having the proper spiritual insight.


Right, and I'm sure you kow the Bible has gone threw more translations than the Qu'ran. The New Testament has gone threw four (I think). The Bible "IS" harder to understand from from just text, which blows holes in so many Christian denominations in this Country.

I know the type your talking about......

[BigG]

Well this certainly is the HIGH road. What are you guys smoking? :neener:

[MeekandMild]

lendringser, Even without Hitler (though Nazism was a secular movement) I think that if you crunch the numbers and count the Red Chinese, Soviet, Khymer Rouge victims they easily exceed all the theistic victims in modern history.

[cuchulainn]

Meek,

I'm still interested in hearing about your theory that the medieval Christians "relearned genocidal warfar" from medieval Islam -- in other words, that the atrocities committed by Christians were the fault of Islam.

[MeekandMild]

Hound of Ulster: You're on my ignore list after that series of abusive PMs. I don't read your messages.

[Bahadur]

ahenry:
Oh come off it. You can live in whatever academia bubble you wish...That sounds surprisingly like a personal attack...
, but in the real world where decisions actually have to be made,Are you suggesting that somehow laws of logic or the method of scientific inquiry is not applicable to "the real world"?
the greater the instances of correlation between two issues, the higher the likelihood of causation between those two. Period.No, not period. If you think that, you are grossly mistaken. See below.
I appreciate your nifty little instruction on statistical analysis but the fact of the matter remains that what I said is true.You can repeat yourself in circular fashion umpteen times, but unless you demonstrate it in a logical fashion, you are not going to get others to just "accept it" because you say so (repeatedly).
For you to argue this point sorta makes you look foolish.To you, maybe. You look pretty damn foolish to me for claiming "the greater the instances of correlation between two issues, the higher the likelihood of causation between those two" which is not always true (in my bird-wet example, the correlations is 100%, but the casuality is ZERO, because another factor is causing both - and that third factor has 100% casuality with both). But I repeat what someone else already explained to you rather kindly.
Think carefully and I know you will understand.I think YOU need to UNDERSTAND the difference between "a reasonable suspicion" and "likelihood" as someone else pointed out. This isn't just semantics - there is a very specific and scientifically relevant difference.
You have aptly demonstrated your intelligence in the past. Don’t let your inability to be incorrect about something cloud your thinking.What's with the authoritative-sounding condescension? I let my arguments speak for me. I don't purport to evaluate your intelligence or how you demonstrate it - you demonstrate it (or lack thereof) just fine on your own with the strength or weakness of YOUR arguments.

[Bahadur]

MeekandMild:
lendringser, Even without Hitler (though Nazism was a secular movement) I think that if you crunch the numbers and count the Red Chinese, Soviet, Khymer Rouge victims they easily exceed all the theistic victims in modern history.First of all, Nazism was most certainly not "a secular movement." It certainly incorporated many elements that can be described as religous, spiritual or cultish.

Furthermore, let's assume for the moment that "Godless communism" did cause more absolute number of deaths than religious conflicts (which might not be the case). Even if that were the case, you cannot make the statement that the "secular evil" was a greater than the "religious evil." Why? Because much of the religious violence took place in the pre-modern times whereas the secular violence took during the modern times. Meaning, the population bases were very different (MUCH larger in the modern times). So there were "more to kill" in the modern era. Furthermore, the methods of destruction increased tremendously in the modern times. Hitler could kill 6 million deliberately in only a handful of years. It took Jenghiz Khan decades of campaigning to kill an estimated 2 million.

So, sheer numbers of death alone do not demonstrate that one force was "more evil" than the other.
I'm still interested in hearing about your theory that the medieval Christians "relearned genocidal warfar" from medieval Islam -- in other words, that the atrocities committed by Christians were the fault of Islam.I would like the answer to this too. I consider it to be patently false.

[SodaPop]

First of all, Nazism was most certainly not "a secular movement." It certainly incorporated many elements that can be described as religous, spiritual or cultish.

I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows this. I almost fell off my rocker after watching the "The history of the Nazi occult."

Incredible scarey stuff.:uhoh:

When I lived in India, I use to buy bags of rice that had Swastikas on it. My dad later explained that the people that sold it weren't Nazis. "The history of the Nazi occult" got into the twisted occult beliefs taken out of the Middle-east and Asia.

P.S. Can anyone tell me the person that Arafat is related to that was collaborater with the Nazis? I believe it was a grandfather or uncle?

[longeyes]

Dang, all hell's broken loose in the faculty lounge! While you guys slash each other to pieces with Occam's Razor some of us are just relying on our sense of smell. Is Islam intrinsically violent or does it just have a funny way of being at the scene of the crime, again and again and again... Let me get back to you on that, okay? You'll pardon me if when I see an eighteen-wheeler bearing down on me I don't ask if it's got two flat tires or Mr. Toad's taken the wheel.

[ahenry]

Cuchulainn,

rather I was pointing out to you that you are confusing your reasonable suspicion with likelihood. The birds are 100% correlated, so your suspicion is reasonable. Nonetheless, the likelihood of the birds being the cause remains zero. First lets understand this inane example of 100% correlation between birds and rain. Its a made up example and anybody can make up anything that appears to support their point. The fact of the matter is you would never have 100% correlation between birds flying under a tree and rain falling because there is no causation there. So by using a faulty example to try and prove your point you do your argument a disservice. Let me go back to my actual example to illustrate what I am trying to say (because I think we are not communicating).

In my example, I went for a good number of years noticing the phenomenon that when I went from inside lighting into outside sunlight, I would sneeze. I have only a small biology background now and even less as a kid, so the concept that sunlight might actually be the cause of my sneezes was pretty ridiculous. An opinion agreed on by most those that saw me. Most tried to tell me that surely it wasn’t the sun, but perhaps the atmosphere, or some other possibility. However, as time went by and I noticed the regularity with which I would sneeze when walking out into bright sunlight, I began to come to the realization that the most reasonable explanation was that sunlight did make me sneeze. It was only years later that I discovered science caught up to my practical understanding of my situation and proved me right. In other words, as the correlation was shown over and over and over again, with consistency and regularity, the likelihood (or probability if you prefer) that the sunlight was the cause increased. Years ago a doctor would have laughed at somebody trying to say sunlight made people sneeze, now we know that it does (in some people). Was I ever able to actually prove causation (prior to seeing doctors studies later in life)? Absolutely not. Was I able to say with greater and greater assurance and accuracy that sunlight was causing the sneezing? Absolutely. Now you can call that whatever you want, me I call it “greater instances of correlation between two issues, indicate greater likelihood of causation between those two issues”.

[Boudicca]

Longeyes, you've gone to the heart of it. I couldn't agree more.

[MeekandMild]

Bahadur, OK, if you won't accept the idea of the great socialists of the 20th century as being secular, would you accept socialism as a non-theistic religion?

On the subject of dark age and medieval christianity, we should divide it into two separate areas, the Holy Roman Empire to the west and the Byzantine Empire to the east. I will leave discussion of the east for another day.

In a nutshell, the west was involved in a series of wars of succession as the ending anarchy of the fall of Rome evolved into the Carolingian society which consolidated the middle ages. It also spent much energy in defence from the Germanic nations and the Scandanavians, with a style of warfare which must be considered primitive and disorganized. These invasions were more like family squabbles than anything else, I suppose where the word 'feudal' came from. ;)

As the Western empire degenerated from a huge Pagan beaurocracy to early Feudalism all that was left of government was a large number of very weak city-states. While Rome was the titular heir to the empire it was in fact one of these weak states. Warfare was more on the level of jockying for position with the bulk of the population pretty much left intact, until invading Islam threatened to overwhelm the west.

I will leave it to you to look up the history of this first invasion, with a good search string being "Charles + Martel +Tours + Saracen". The Battle of Tours was the pivotal point of European history from the fall of Rome to the defeat of the Nazis. This invasion and battle are so important in the total cultural change of the west that one could spend a hundred pages discussing it and never really explore it all.

Once you understand the history of the eighth century then you can understand what I said, otherwise you just don't have the knowledge base and end up howling like the poor dog I mentioned above. The Saracen invasion of the 700's and the Battle of Tours was where Western Christianity and the Roman Church learned genocidal warfare from the Moslems.

A couple of links about early Islam:

From Frank Smitha's comprehensive World History pages, a brief history of early Islam, including its early genocidal actions. (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h03is.htm)

J. J. Saunders. A History of Medieval Islamm, from Chaper IX The Turkish Irruption (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/saunders.html) (Saunder's book is available via amazon.com)

[Zander]

***I'll ask you AGAIN, Zander. Please PROVE that it's not true. -- Mike Irwin***

The burden lies on you to prove your contention, Mike.

***You can only SPECULATE that it's not true. So, 100 million killed by tyrants, socialists, etc., in the past 100 years. How many before that? Who knows.***

That's my point. Your contention is based on speculation, not mine. My numbers are quite accurate; what are yours?

***Now, compare and contrast that with what, nearly 6,000 years of recorded human history. In light of that....***

In light of that, what?!?

A little research on population numbers in recorded history gives an answer to those inclined to logic. I'm willing to accept that the world's entire population was approximately 5 million people in 5,000 BC; 200 million in Jesus Christ's lifetime; 300 million by 1,000 AD; 400 million by 1500 AD; 1,500 million by 1900. Straightforward arithmetical progression, given the nature of human behavior.

Please make your case. I don't think you can.

***You don't, actually. -- cuchulainn***

Sorry, this defies the use and logic of the scientific method.

***lendringser, Even without Hitler (though Nazism was a secular movement) I think that if you crunch the numbers and count the Red Chinese, Soviet, Khymer Rouge victims they easily exceed all the theistic victims in modern history. -- MeekandMild***

Seem entirely logical to me. :cool:

***Furthermore, let's assume for the moment that "Godless communism" did cause more absolute number of deaths than religious conflicts (which might not be the case). (actually, it is fact) Even if that were the case, you cannot make the statement that the "secular evil" was a greater than the "religious evil." -- bahadur***

Then this is a tacit agreement that the number of human beings murdered by "secular" governments in the last century is accurate.

***So, sheer numbers of death alone do not demonstrate that one force was "more evil" than the other.***

Dissembling at its finest...

***...some of us are just relying on our sense of smell.***

Some of us seem to have retained inherent senses. :cool:

***Since history has many incidents of theocracies, Christian or otherwise, which have killed people by the score, your argument against secular regimes loses its point. -- lendringser***

How?

***a.) secular regimes are more prone to genocide than religious ones, ***

Correct.

***b.) only certain religions have violent theocracies in their history, ...***

Without question, some more than others.

***c.) theocratic tendencies for mass murder are a thing of the past, ... ***

Don't recall anyone making that assertion. You can provide some modern-day exceptions, can't you?

***d.) secular governments are worse than theocracies becausse they rack up a higher body count.***

Indisputable.

***What you cannot argue, however, is that theocracies, or declared religiously affiliated governments, have never engaged in mass killings of any kind, whether on their own citizenry or others. ***

Where did I make that assertion?

***George Carlin says that the wrong answer to the God question has been the leading cause of death in history.***

Better to rely on the logic of Thomas Sowell, a brilliant thinker, than the musings of a fried-brain comedian.

*** All religions, Islam included [especially?], have bred violence for the explicit sake of either advancing their own faith or eradicating another.***

Then we should ignore matters of scale?

***That's NOT what the statistics show (what's an "average black" anyway). The stats do not determine the likelihood of a particular individual's actions. -- bahadur***

You deny historical fact. It is without contradiction that blacks commit violent crimes completely out of proportion to their percentage of the population.

That's what the statistics show...and your PC-based rationalizations are, at best, counter-productive. They represent nothing more than enabling such criminal behavior.

***"PC-driven meander" is merely a personal attack, and you know it.***

No; rather it is a factual refutation. I doubt your conclusions, not your integrity. In point of fact, just recently I acknowledged that I learn from your posts. A sincere sentiment, by the way.

***Equivocate all you wish. -- Tamara***

There is no equivocation unless we are forced to accept your convenient melding of religion, "religion", and state-as-religion. Spare me the sophistry.

***lendringser, Even without Hitler (though Nazism was a secular movement) I think that if you crunch the numbers and count the Red Chinese, Soviet, Khymer Rouge victims they easily exceed all the theistic victims in modern history.***

Shock and dismay...fact intrudes upon the discussion! LOL!

[Marko Kloos]

Zander, the original premise of this thread was the question whether Islam is inherently violent. We've established that all religions have had mass murder committed in their name, which renders the premise invalid, unless you measure "inherent violence" by the number of deaths caused by followers of a religion.

Now you're implying that Christianity is less violent than either Islam or secularism, and you base it on the relatively lower body count over the centuries. Don't you think that's a weak justification for the superiority of a religious system? "We're better, because less people have burned at the stake in our name?"

I don't care whether I get bombed by Christian, Muslim or secular zealots. A bomb in a clinic, or a plane flown into a building both constitute mass murder, and they both have their contingent of believers trying to justify them via Scripture or warped political philosophy. Any group of people that either justifies or condones the use of violence against innocents to further a theological or political point is neither righteous, nor morally justified...can we agree on that premise at least?

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Zander. I will say it outright, as I do believe it. Religion, in one form or another and of all types has been responsible for more mayhem and carnage than any other single reason in history.

Exercise of religion, repression of religion, contrasting and conflicting religions, you name it.

Why do I say this?

Because religion, its exercise or repression, has been at the root of most, but not all, of the most horrific excesses that man can conjure, from the Crusades to the attempts to exterminate the Jews.

Can I lay every single body at your door step to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No more than historians can factually say that 100 million people died in the last 100 years due to non-religious strife. Could be 75 million, could be 130 million. Those numbers are NOT "quite accurate." They're best guesses, Zander. No one can conclusively say that World War II was responsible for 20 million Soviet dead, because the Soviets can't be trusted in their counting.

With the destruction of records inherent in times of drastic upheval, the loss of records, the separation of families, mass migration of people, you can only make best guess estimates. Nothing more.

You want to quibble about which is more horrible? About which constitues the greater loss of life? About how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with corpses for partners?

Quibble away, because the numbers you quote are as open to speculation as my statement.

Ultimately, though, in your incessant desire to quibble a single statement to death, for a purpose I still can't quite comprehend, you still miss the point of the entire conversation. Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to count history's corpse piles?

I've already stated that I'm not 100% certain that my statement would hold absolute water, but you're not willing to accept that, preferring some dogged pursuit of your own absolute statements.

Quite frankly, unless you're able to count the corpses, you're no more certain of your statement's factual proof than I am of mine, yet you continue to hold and do yourself what you accuse me of? You've no more absolute proof of your numbers than I have, so get off your high horse, Zander.

The population estimates of the world over time are just that, ESTIMATES. They no more prove your case than they do disprove mine.

Why? Because even scientists can't agree on those historic population numbers. Populations don't grow at linear rates. They spike, they stagnate, the flow. The population "absolutes" that you cite are actually variable by as much as 100 to 200 percent, according to some scientists, who claim that the world's population has been a lot larger, and a lot more stagnant pre-1600, than it has been since then.

So whose scientists are more right? Do people procreate and die in linear patterns? Do people kill each other at specified rates based on religious and non-religious criteria?

Beats the hell out of me.

But I still come back to the same statement.

Religion, and its practices, have been at the heart of the worst of man's strife.



Lendsringer...

Yep. A single murder committed in the name of a particular God or religious believe cheapens it just as much as 100,000 murders committed for the same purpose.

I'm starting to think that Churchs should have signs out front, like McDonald's...

Only they shouldn't say "Over XX served..."

They should say "Over umptyteenthoumiland killed in our God's name."

[LawDog]

Enough.

Eight pages and nobody's mind has been changed.

Birds and rain.

Condescension, veiled insults, and digital knee-biting.

The horse is well and truly deceased; trust me, it is now time to stop with the flogging.

Lights out.

LawDog