Pixies Place Forums - I don't get Islam

Loulabelle

03-12-2006, 03:51 AM

I listened to a discussion on the radio the other day, where an expert on Islam, was making the point that Islam is not and has never perported to be a 'peaceful religion'. It is militant and always has been. While Jesus preached about turning the other cheek, rather than fighting for the right, much to the frustrations of many of the Jews he was preaching to, Mohammed had a far more militant approach, and Islam, therefore reflects this.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of Muslim people do feel that the violence, terrorism and torture we currently see is wrong, and certainly in Britain, they are far from silent about it. Maybe, in this country our generally more apathetic nature, is finally a good thing as it does allow Muslims who've been an intergral and accepted part of the British community for a long long time now, to be heard without fear of the consequences. It's impossible for me to say, though, since I've no experience of how Muslims fit into American society.

To extend your comparison with the Christianity of the 1500s, why do you think that that was allowed to continue. Why didn't the silent majority speak up? Well, because when people who are violent, torturous and unscrupulous are in charge, the peaceful majority are in considerable danger, as it is, without sticking their necks out even further.

Principles are all very well and good, but people with all the power, also have all the money, and the majority have to concentrate on feeding (not to mention protecting) their families, not changing the world.

Incidentally, though, you don't need to go as far as the 1500s to see Christians behaving in wholly un-Christian ways. In the UK we lived with the daily threat of horrendous terrorist attacks as a result of the conflict in Northern Ireland - Christians killing Christians for the sake of religion.

And what about the allegations of Allied troops abusing Iraqi soldiers in prison camps and on the streets? Not a very Christian way of behaving.

I'm afraid that religion will always lead SOME people to feel that they are right, and somehow better than other people....and this leads them to the misguided notion that it's right for them to harm people who do not share their religious views. Why this has to happen I don't know.

It's not Islam that I don't get, or Christianity, or even religion as a whole.....it's people. :o

mabelode

03-12-2006, 04:02 AM

The right to life supporters are, as I understand it, largely fundamentalist Christians, and show that religious extremism of any faith is very dangerous - don't single out Islam.

Islam is more than a religion - it is a way of life. Fellow muslims form part of a bigger fellowship and this is more important than ties of race, nationality, etc.

Loulabelle is right, as well. Islam is a crusading religion, originally intended to spread with conquest.

Personally, I would be happier if religion vanished off the face of the earth - it would be one fewer thing to fight about.

jbh3

03-12-2006, 11:08 AM

Personally, I would be happier if religion vanished off the face of the earth - it would be one fewer thing to fight about.

I agree mabelode as did Lennon:

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

osuche

03-12-2006, 12:39 PM

I've had Muslim friends I really liked, and there's an aspect to the religion I think is missing for most Christians....especially in America....which is a sense of community associated with being Muslim and sharing that set of beliefs and customs.

However, I've read quite a bit of the Qu'ran and I really dislike a lot of the things it has to say about women and their role in society, and about the crusading nature of the religion. There seems to be a lot of hate and many rules in Islam...and it's not a religion that speaks to me.

Most of the Muslims I know are good people, though. They don't believe everything the religion or religious leaders tell them....just like I don't like many portions of the Bible and don't always follow Christian tenets. (And I certainly avoid listening to our new Pope because IMHO he has some very backward views on the world).

I focus my time on getting to know the *people* around me -- regardless of religion. I like people who happen to be Muslim, or Christians, or Jews, or Scientologists, or Athiests. While religion certainly helps make them who they are, it has more to do with the mind and heart than where they go to worship.

Oldfart

03-12-2006, 01:16 PM

Problems we are labelling as "Muslim" and "Christian" are really more cultural than religious.

Iran and Iraq, two Islamic nations, fought for a decade and killed over 4 million of each other with bombs, gas and probably nerve agents.

Shi'ite and Sunni are at each others throats worse than the Orange and the Green ever were in Iran.

People are beheaded publically and have hands chopped off (sharia law) in Saudi Arabia.

The religious burning of Tudor times and the Salem Madness show that we are not far off the same. We like to think we are non-violent and civilised, but it's all just a veneer.

Loulabelle

03-12-2006, 01:50 PM

Well said Oldfart.

One thing I hate to hear people say is: 'Don't Muslims who behave badly realise they're making a bad name for the whole religion?' Yeah, right....whereas Christians/Westerners have never done that all over the ENTIRE FRICKIN' WORLD! LOL

Lilith

03-12-2006, 04:28 PM

I believe that people need belief systems and that the belief systems themselves are not the problem. The problem stems from the belief that your belief system should be imposed on everyone else.

mabelode

03-12-2006, 05:24 PM

I believe that people need belief systems and that the belief systems themselves are not the problem.

Need, or want? If we require moral guidance, then how about a humanist approach without a god, like in Star Trek, for example. Belief in a god is not a need. I, for one, have no need. I require no reward for being "good" and no comfort to face death. However, belief in a god can be used to justify questionable behaviour, and that is a problem.

The problem stems from the belief that your belief system should be imposed on everyone else.

That is the crux of the problem. The fundamental basis of religion is that it is the one true way. That's a problem when there is more than one religion....

PantyFanatic

03-12-2006, 06:36 PM

It’s not the specie, but the genus,...... or even the family. (family as in Hominid)

Lilith

03-12-2006, 07:11 PM

Need, or want? If we require moral guidance, then how about a humanist approach without a god, like in Star Trek, for example. Belief in a god is not a need. I, for one, have no need. I require no reward for being "good" and no comfort to face death. However, belief in a god can be used to justify questionable behaviour, and that is a problem.

Are you expressing your own beliefs and thinking that the world would be better if we all thought that way???

See we all do it.:D A belief system sans deity is still a belief :D

dicksbro

03-12-2006, 09:15 PM

In fact, it's called "secular humanism," if I'm not mistaken.

I think I agree with you, Lil, "The problem stems from the belief that your belief system should be imposed on everyone else."

PantyFanatic

03-12-2006, 09:21 PM

...."The problem stems from the belief that your belief system should be imposed on everyone else."
Exactly right. Just ask anybody of power. (They know because God told them so;) )

Lilith

03-12-2006, 10:08 PM

Exactly right. Just ask anybody of power. (They know because God told them so;) )

Funny, I thought the devil made me do it ;)

Oldfart

03-12-2006, 10:10 PM

I did not!!

PantyFanatic

03-12-2006, 10:11 PM

I didn't make you do anything. :rolleyes:

(I just keep sending the good thoughts ;) )

PantyFanatic

03-12-2006, 10:12 PM

I did not!!
You tell her Dad! :mad:

rofl

Oldfart

03-12-2006, 10:15 PM

Wait till I get you home, son.

Yer mother's going to clobber you something shocking!

(Lippy little bastard.)

Loulabelle

03-13-2006, 02:46 AM

The problem stems from the belief that your belief system should be imposed on everyone else.

I think this is exactly the problem, Lil......unfortunately the nature of belief is that we feel that certain things are THE TRUTH and therefore that other people should know and believe THE TRUTH too. It's human nature interferring with a 'higher plane' of thought - the two don't always sit well together, unfortunately.

LixyChick

03-13-2006, 06:04 AM

I think this is exactly the problem, Lil......unfortunately the nature of belief is that we feel that certain things are THE TRUTH and therefore that other people should know and believe THE TRUTH too. It's human nature interferring with a 'higher plane' of thought - the two don't always sit well together, unfortunately.
Religion described by the written holy word (which ever scribe you follow) is open to personal interpretation through parables so that "THE TRUTH" can be anything one makes it to suit himself.

That, to me, is where it ALL goes wrong.

^^^ Just my personal interpretation :D

Aqua

03-13-2006, 06:28 AM

Religion described by the written holy word (which ever scribe you follow) is open to personal interpretation through parables so that "THE TRUTH" can be anything one makes it to suit himself.

That, to me, is where it ALL goes wrong.

^^^ Just my personal interpretation :D
This does not just apply to religion. At one time it was "THE TRUTH" that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and everything thing else revolved around it.

PantyFanatic

03-13-2006, 08:29 AM

.....At one time it was "THE TRUTH" that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and everything thing else revolved around it.
And it was neither a barrister nor priest that brought a light. :rolleyes:

Casperr

03-13-2006, 08:44 AM

At one time it was "THE TRUTH" that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and everything thing else revolved around it.
You mean it's not??? Aww geez, now you've gone and spoiled it for me....

I think a lot of the problems we're having now, with regards to Islam, stem from not many westerners knowing much about it.

The religious similarities between Christianity and Islam are striking, I feel.
The basis of Islamic belief is "There is no god but The God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." Sounds familiar.
Muslims believe that God revealed his direct word for mankind to Muhammad and other prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. And WHO? Jesus? What the hell, he's one of ours!
Muslims hold that Islam is essentially the same belief as that of all the messengers sent by God to mankind since Adam, with the Qur'an codifying the final revelation of God.

See, as a religion, its more or less the same as Judaism or Christianity - hell they're all based on the same thing!

And just as we have fundamentalist Muslems, we have fundamentalist Christians and Jews. Anti-abortionists, the Irish and Israeli confilcts etc are all good examples of that.

I definitely think there needs to be much better education in schools about various religions. It's too easy, otherwise, to look at people wearing different clothes, or headgear, or doing things differently and assume (as happens so often) that something different is something to be afraid of.

How do we stop the Islam vs West problem from escalating? Look at their grievances. The terrorists aren't blowing us up because we believe in different gods. It's not a religious thing. They're blowing us up because we invade their countries, we let them starve while we grow rich, we exploit them.
There's no balance to this planet, the divide between rich and poor is a global one and it's rapidly growing. And it's not until we start addressing that problem that we'll see an easing of tensions. But it's got to be a huge correction - a sign from governments the world over that we're ready for peace.

Sigh. If only that were profitable.

CasperTG
Wow! Big rant! Awesome!

jbh3

03-13-2006, 08:58 AM

"They're blowing us up because we invade their countries, we let them starve while we grow rich, we exploit them.
There's no balance to this planet, the divide between rich and poor is a global one and it's rapidly growing"

Hey ,lets start an International Welfare Program.....it works so well here!!

PantyFanatic

03-13-2006, 09:56 AM

......How do we stop the Islam vs West problem from escalating? Look at their grievances. The terrorists aren't blowing us up because we believe in different gods. It's not a religious thing. They're blowing us up because we invade their countries, we let them starve while we grow rich, we exploit them.
There's no balance to this planet, the divide between rich and poor is a global one and it's rapidly growing. And it's not until we start addressing that problem that we'll see an easing of tensions. But it's got to be a huge correction - a sign from governments the world over that we're ready for peace.

Sigh. If only that were profitable.

CasperTG
Wow! Big rant! Awesome!
And a sound rant!
..the divide between rich and poor is a global one and it's rapidly growing..
It is growing on a shrinking planet in both size of the sides and the divide.
The situation is not a profitable one to address and even less profitable to ignore.

mabelode

03-13-2006, 02:20 PM

Are you expressing your own beliefs and thinking that the world would be better if we all thought that way???

No! I started with the words "how about...". As for the "need" comments - if I, as an ordinary and unremarkable person, do not need religion, then it is not a biological or psychological requirement for other humans :)

See we all do it.:D A belief system sans deity is still a belief :D

Hmm! That's stretching it a little in some circumstances. I "believe" that unicorns, faeries and trolls do not exist, but I would say I am on pretty safe ground by saying that this is more than a belief, it is a fact. It is a small step to extend that to a deity. Long-standing, traditional religious belief does not make it any more valid than belief in a unicorn.

Loulabelle

03-13-2006, 04:17 PM

No! I started with the words "how about...". As for the "need" comments - if I, as an ordinary and unremarkable person, do not need religion, then it is not a biological or psychological requirement for other humans :)

I'm afraid you can't say 'If I don't need it, nor does anyone else'...human beings are all different. We all have different psychological needs. Evidently we do, as a species need these beliefs or they wouldn't exist. I can't think of a culture on this planet that doesn't have some form of spiritual belief system - therefore evidently, humans feel the need to believe something.

I have never been Christened and do not subscribe to an awful lot of the Christian belief system, but to say that my life has not been influenced by it would be foolish of me. Therefore, to say I don't need it would also be foolish, as I haven't known life without the presence of religion. It shapes everything from our language, to our calendars, to our landscapes, to our laws - not to mention, art, music, popular culture. Many people would argue that it is our spirituality that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, so to wipe it all out as simply being 'bad' we do, I think most would agree to our folly.

I have chosen not to subscribe to any particular organised religion, but to say that religion should cease to exist would lead to the world into chaos. Each individual on their own search for truth...confusion, fear, despair. In order to banish religion, you'd have to banish the human need to search for truth, and to do that would be to banish humanity as we know it.

Bloody hell....only in writing this have I begun to fully appreciate the impact of religion on the world!

WildIrish

03-13-2006, 05:31 PM

I'm Catholic because I was raised a Catholic, but I prefer to think of myself as a man that just tries to be a good person.

One of my obligations as a Catholic is to speak about my religion to those that don't follow my faith because I have an obligation to mankind to help them.

I've never thought it was my place to "save" anyone. But then again, a few other aspects of my life don't exactly scream "good Catholic" either.

Scarecrow

03-13-2006, 06:59 PM

Religion is a lot like a government, it is a small group of poeple (priest, rabbi, minister ect) trying to change the lives and believes of others to their way of thinking.

P.S. Catholics are Chirstians believe it or not.

BruceandNan

03-13-2006, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=CasperTG]You mean it's not??? Aww geez, now you've gone and spoiled it for me....

The religious similarities between Christianity and Islam are striking, I feel.
The basis of Islamic belief is "There is no god but The God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." Sounds familiar.
Muslims believe that God revealed his direct word for mankind to Muhammad and other prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. And WHO? Jesus? What the hell, he's one of ours!
Muslims hold that Islam is essentially the same belief as that of all the messengers sent by God to mankind since Adam, with the Qur'an codifying the final revelation of God.

See, as a religion, its more or less the same as Judaism or Christianity - hell they're all based on the same thing!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason Judaism and Islam are so similar is because after Cain killed Able, Cain moved away from his birthplace. Cain is the man who started what is now known as the Muslim community. He was mad at God because God rejected his sacrifice and accepted his brothers sacrifice of fruits and vegtables.

If you look at what has happened in our own country of America with David Karesch, Jim Jones, The Hale Bop comminty, these people were following extremists in their own right. They were brainwashed into believing what there leader was saying was the truth.

If just one man has that much power to manipulate so many people into believing what he has to say is the truth and there is no one able to or are afraid to voice their opinion, you get people willing to do anything that is asked of them, no matter what the consquences are.

Most of the people that are targeted are the people who are poor and uneducated, not saying all, but most are, and when you throw in the martyr part of it, you have hooked them. They get their 15 minutes of fame, but don't get to share the glory of that fame.

Most of the leaders who lead these extremist groups are very rich and educated, look at bin Laden, heir to the Saudi throne, educated in the US, and yet you don't see him blowing himself up as a martyr, now do you? He has learned how to manipulate people to get them to do his bidding. How you may ask? He has the means and the education. He understands what his fellow muslims want and he tries to fullfill them, right or wrong.

At least this is my opinion.

Booger

03-14-2006, 12:30 AM

jseal

03-14-2006, 10:59 AM

There are many who do not get Islam… :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4805952.stm

WildIrish

03-14-2006, 12:23 PM

Most of the leaders who lead these extremist groups are very rich and educated, look at bin Laden, heir to the Saudi throne, educated in the US, and yet you don't see him blowing himself up as a martyr, now do you? He has learned how to manipulate people to get them to do his bidding. How you may ask? He has the means and the education. He understands what his fellow muslims want and he tries to fullfill them, right or wrong.

At least this is my opinion.

Replace bin Laden, heir to the Saudi throne with Bush, heir to the Bush family fortune...and replace Muslims with kronies, and it makes you think, huh?

mabelode

03-14-2006, 12:37 PM

I'm afraid you can't say 'If I don't need it, nor does anyone else'...human beings are all different. We all have different psychological needs. Evidently we do, as a species need these beliefs or they wouldn't exist. I can't think of a culture on this planet that doesn't have some form of spiritual belief system - therefore evidently, humans feel the need to believe something.

My definition of need is evidently different - without religion I do not immediately die, starve, go insane or suffer complete social rejection. so humans do not NEED religion. Individuals may derive some comfort or strength from it, but, still, not a need.

I have never been Christened and do not subscribe to an awful lot of the Christian belief system, but to say that my life has not been influenced by it would be foolish of me. Therefore, to say I don't need it would also be foolish, as I haven't known life without the presence of religion. It shapes everything from our language, to our calendars, to our landscapes, to our laws - not to mention, art, music, popular culture. Many people would argue that it is our spirituality that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, so to wipe it all out as simply being 'bad' we do, I think most would agree to our folly.

I have chosen not to subscribe to any particular organised religion, but to say that religion should cease to exist would lead to the world into chaos. Each individual on their own search for truth...confusion, fear, despair. In order to banish religion, you'd have to banish the human need to search for truth, and to do that would be to banish humanity as we know it.

Much of what you mention is history. In more primitive times when the world was scarcely understood, religion was useful to try to explain why humans were subject to both disaster and great natural benefits.

To say it has influenced our music, language, calendar, etc is true, but so what? We would still have (other versions of) these things, as do other cultures.

I agree that some sort of moral code is a requirement for civilised life, but why not divorce it from spirituality? Civilised cultures (but, note, not all inviduals) naturally default to basic laws like no theft, killing, etc, so this just needs codifying.

Sorry Jax, we are hijacking your thread.

scotzoidman

03-14-2006, 04:08 PM

The reason Judaism and Islam are so similar is because after Cain killed Able, Cain moved away from his birthplace. Cain is the man who started what is now known as the Muslim community. He was mad at God because God rejected his sacrifice and accepted his brothers sacrifice of fruits and vegtables..
Booger is correct (I can't believe I said that!), Cain & Abel had nothing to do with it...the division started with Israel & Ishmail, both children of Abraham...the geneology gets a little toocomplicated to recount here, but it does explain the long-standing feud between Hebrew & Arab...

Most of the leaders who lead these extremist groups are very rich and educated, look at bin Laden, heir to the Saudi throne, educated in the US, and yet you don't see him blowing himself up as a martyr, now do you? He has learned how to manipulate people to get them to do his bidding. How you may ask? He has the means and the education. He understands what his fellow muslims want and he tries to fullfill them, right or wrong.

At least this is my opinion.
Again, close but no banana...Bin Laden is not heir to the Saudi throne, but rather the illegitimate son of one of Saudi Arabia's richest most powerful industrialists...most of the bin Laden fortune is in construction (hence Osama's boast that he knew, as an engineer, that the planes would bring the Twin Towers down), but also a good portion comes from, guess what, OIL...I'll wait for the shock & awe to sink in now....

That's right, the Bin Laden family has been doing business with American oil companies for many years, including one owned by the Bush family...

Jax

03-14-2006, 06:45 PM

Hi Jack or not, I am glad to have generated discussion. Anytime thoughtful discussion is given to a topic that is a good thing. This is a touchy one, so kudos to everyone for respectfully handling their spin.

BruceandNan

03-14-2006, 06:52 PM

See how educated the pixies are here. You guys caught the bullshit and called me on it. Hurrah for you all. You won't be on the news showing the devastation you cause by being a human bomb.

People are going to believe what they were taught by their elders while growing up, whether we believe in the same cause or not. Is killing someone right, if you are in a war, or on the street when someone does something to piss you off? Depends on how you were raised. I have known people who don't seem to give two shits if they kill someone as long as they get their revenge, damn the consquences.

Everyone in some way or another has a belief system that they follow, whether you believe in a higher power or you believe in no god at all, it is still a belief. Just like if you were born in a Mormon home, before the state of Utah banned the practice of polygamy, men were encouraged to have more then one wife. Some men still do practice their right to more than one wife and they pay the price even though they feel they are right.

No matter what religion you follow or don't follow, killing is still wrong. In my opinion those muslims that are involved in this jihad are following a man and his words, not the words of the Quran, or the muslim teachers. Just like those people who followed Jim Jones, David Koresch and others.

To put it short and sweet, tell a man what he wants to hear and he will follow you to hell, if he believes what you say.

jseal

03-14-2006, 07:42 PM

bare4you

03-14-2006, 10:17 PM

Many a war has been fought in the name of religion - remember the Crusades?

BIBI

03-14-2006, 11:51 PM

jseal

03-15-2006, 08:42 AM

BIBI,

I presume that you are referring not to the various communist parties, which are political organizations, but rather to that quality in a society arising from its excellence (or at least active practice) in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, sports, etc. The United States is, on occasion, considered to have a Cowboy, or even a Gun culture, and France’s culture is associated, at least in my mind, with fine dining.

As religious practices preceded, were concurrent with, and remain following the downfall of that brand of communism practiced in the eastern portion of Europe in the last century, I think a case could be made that communism proved less attractive than religion to that population.

While it would be unfair to say the same for the variant of communism practiced in the PRC yet, it is true that the current Chinese Communist Party has changed quite a bit from the one which brought the joys of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution to that population. During that period, Chinese religious practices have not changed nearly as dramatically.

If these communist cultures are not examples, then which others would usefully serve industrialized nations such as yours, mine, or Loulabelle’s?

Booger

03-16-2006, 12:36 AM

Booger is correct (I can't believe I said that!), Cain & Abel had nothing to do with it...the division started with Israel & Ishmail, both children of Abraham...the geneology gets a little toocomplicated to recount here, but it does explain the long-standing feud between Hebrew & Arab...

I hate to correct you when you are agreeing with me Scotz but wasn't it Isaac & Ishmael?

Loulabelle

03-16-2006, 01:10 AM

PantyFanatic

03-16-2006, 01:29 AM

ROFL :D

I don't think the issues here are spelling lol............... at least not to me.

(I guess you already know spelling isn't an issue to me) lmao

BIBI

03-16-2006, 07:07 AM

ROFL :D

I don't think the issues here are spelling lol............... at least not to me.

(I guess you already know spelling isn't an issue to me) lmao

Now ain't THAT the truth! :D

scotzoidman

03-16-2006, 11:19 AM

I hate to correct you when you are agreeing with me Scotz but wasn't it Isaac & Ishmael?
Whoops...I was working from memory, & didn't didn't do my fact check first, but I hope everybody got the idea anyway...

WildIrish

03-16-2006, 12:09 PM

What does Islam have to do with white whales? :confused:

mabelode

03-16-2006, 02:10 PM

mabelode,

I’m unfamiliar with cultures which are free of religious practices. I don’t mean to suggest that there are none, only that I don’t know of any. Even if not entirely devoid of religious practices, which cultures would serve as useful models?

There are none I know of either.

As BruceandNan stated, everyone believes what they were taught by their elders while growing up. This means that it is extremely difficult to get away from religion completely, because we are taught religion as truth. As the Jesuits said, "Give us a boy, and we shall return you a man, a citizen of his country and a child of God”.

Some of us ask more questions as we grow up, and of those, there are some who care enough to think about what we have been taught and draw our own conclusions (at both ends of the argument). Unfortunately, probably a large majority do not give it enough thought and (passively) adopt the famous agnostic approach (and I paraphrase) "it is best to believe as, if there is a god, you get into paradise, and if not, nothing is lost".

With that attitude it is difficult to break the cycle.

Would an atheist society work? I don't know, but society is not perfect now, and it would remove a number of problems....

WildIrish

03-16-2006, 02:50 PM

It's not any individual society that "doesn't work", per se. It's the interaction between different societies and the inability to accept or negotiate common ground that is at the root of the problems occuring globally. And that boils down to respect for those that one does not understand.

In my opinion, an all Atheist world would be no different from a world inhabited by all Christians/Muslims/Hindus or members of the Church of Fire and Brimstone and God's Almighty Baptizing Wind. It's not without problems, but generally much easier to get along if all think alike.

Booger

03-16-2006, 05:38 PM

Booger, I've always thought spelling is irrelevant when the name has been translated from another language which has a different alphabet....the only right way to spell it is surely in the original alphabet it was written in......just my take on it, anyway. :p

Loulabelle it wasn't how he spelled Ishmael that I was questioning it was that he had Israel insted of Isaac. Trust my I have no room to throw stones in the spelling department as many here can tell you.

BruceandNan

03-16-2006, 06:06 PM

[QUOTE=WildIrish]It's not any individual society that "doesn't work", per se. It's the interaction between different societies and the inability to accept or negotiate common ground that is at the root of the problems occuring globally. And that boils down to respect for those that one does not understand.

I completely agree with what WI said. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If people would just respect the beliefs of others this world would be better off, everyone is entittled to the own opinions.

PantyFanatic

03-16-2006, 11:05 PM

..... Trust my I have no room to throw stones in the spelling department as many here can tell you.
My comrade in keys. ;)

Loulabelle

03-16-2006, 11:14 PM

Loulabelle it wasn't how he spelled Ishmael that I was questioning it was that he had Israel insted of Isaac. Trust my I have no room to throw stones in the spelling department as many here can tell you.

Oops sorry Booger! That'll teach me to check what I've read first! LOL

Just ignore the pregnant lady.... :p

lizzardbits

03-17-2006, 12:59 AM

how about if we hug the pregnant lady instead!

Loulabelle

03-17-2006, 02:05 AM

Hehehehe - er...I'm sure that would be fine. :D

Bonjour Jacques!

lizzardbits

03-17-2006, 02:59 AM

oui oui

calihotguy

03-17-2006, 03:28 AM

I think it is important that we remember those with the guns unfortunately become the visible representation of the people.

One person with a loud voice can influence 20 people, one person with a machine gun can generally control 100.

This is seen through the minority of extremist/violent muslims which we tend to stereotype as the whole. This is seen through a President in George Bush or other visible/powerful republicans like Pat Robertson (I only say republicans because they currently lead all three branches of gour overnment, this is not to promote either democrats or republicans). Through Republican abuses and hypocritical uses of power, they ensure that the world as a whole stereoptypes America and American Christianity for what the present administration represents instead of what its constituency (the vast majority) truly represents. I wonder if as a result of this pressure from our leaders (those with the "guns") and the world, many American's are increasingly changing their perspectives to become what the world thinks we are. Its the same with much of America who sees the gang violence in Ghetto's and stereotypes all people who live in Ghettos to be the same uneducated and grossly violent people simply because of how they speak or dress being influenced, again, by those they fear just like everyone else (the ones with the guns).

Then don't even mention the press and how they reinforce these stereotypes. How often do you seek an African American on TV being applauded instead of denagrated. The Black Muslim community does a lot of good work for this country, yet all we hear about them through the media are how they are militant and anti-semetic. 100 out of 100 times the media will report the bad over the good, to the extent it looks for the bad in the smallest shadows and steps right over the good in the brightest light of day. Unfortunately, it is a psychological truth that when you are told you are something enough, you not only believe you are that thing, but you become it and act like it.

Lastly, I am not saying there is justification or extremists are in the right, but I think anyone who feels that they are in a corner will choose an extremist point of view. It is always much easier to choose black or white then the grey. In every culture group there are fanatics, moderates, and apathetics. There are some who all they have ever know is fanaticsm. There are some who were moderates and became extremists because they got tired of not seeing results, didn't want to become apathetics and just take it, and needed some way to make their voices heard. Then there are apathetics who becomes extremists because of experiencing great trauma (such as losing a loved one or seeing war first hand, a common occurence in the middle east these days). I am not saying there is an excuse for becoming an extremist, because I believe there is always another way. However, at least you can see how it might happen, particularly when all you see around you is black and white, and grey is heracy (as it is in the Koran and in American politics).

The problem right now is there is the "we hit you, so you hit us back and vice-versa" mentality in the world right now. So the world is in a merry-go-round constantly pushing each other in a corner forcing the other to choose the opposing side of black or white. The more we fight, the more engrained in those corners we become and the more adamant we believe that our corner (or our choice of black or white) is the correct one. I don't believe I have ever seen this country more polarized except when we were fanatical about communism (resulting in the attrocity of the McCarthy hearings) and the Muslim world has never been this fanaticized (because they didn't have the common enemy, didn't have martars, and didn't have leadership prior to Western politics).

That's my (long) take anyways.

WildIrish

03-17-2006, 07:58 AM

(resulting in the attrocity of the McCarthy hearings)

Which were almost as attrocious as the McCarthy movies! :D

/me hugs the pregnant lady

Bonjour Jacques!

PantyFanatic

03-17-2006, 08:58 AM

Which were almost as attrocious as the McCarthy movies! :D....
I remember that movie. :D

( I saw Edger’s lips move. ;) )

WildIrish

03-17-2006, 09:36 AM

I remember that movie. :D

( I saw Edger’s lips move. ;) )

I only wish they were Jenny's lips we saw moving. :hot:

mabelode

03-17-2006, 05:49 PM

There is a lot of sense in what you say, Calihotguy.

And WI, I am in no way suggesting that an atheist world would be perfect. I quite simply believe that we would be rid of religious hatred, which is a single step forward. We would then be able to concentrate on race, sexuality and economics, which are probably bigger issues.

It's not any individual society that "doesn't work", per se. It's the interaction between different societies and the inability to accept or negotiate common ground that is at the root of the problems occuring globally. And that boils down to respect for those that one does not understand.

That's right. The problem with religion is that each thinks they are right, but that not all can be, hence the Islam vs fundamentalist Christian "debate". How can there be respect if each thinks they are "the one true way"? There is a lot more likelihood of common ground with non-religious issues.

BruceandNan

03-17-2006, 09:22 PM

That's right. The problem with religion is that each thinks they are right, but that not all can be, hence the Islam vs fundamentalist Christian "debate". How can there be respect if each thinks they are "the one true way"? There is a lot more likelihood of common ground with non-religious issues.

But, is there any real common ground between a democratic state, like the US, a communist state, like China, a dictator held state, like any number of African countries? Each one of those feel like they are right, but not any one of those governments is right. They all have problems, because you have a higher class of people and a lower class of people. There is no middle class, because those of us, myself included, who do not have the means to buy the world, are paying for those who can buy the world. No matter which type of government you live in, and isn't that the real reason why we have conflicts so the rich can get richer. It happened in Vietnam and it is happening now in Iraq.

Those who have power (or guns), are always looking for more power and money. Look at Germany before and during World War ll. Whomever is in power always wants more then he can have.

So, basically, what I am trying to say is religion is not the root cause of an uprising, or unrest, but the people who are supposed to be levelheaded and keep our countries out of these squirmishes. The actions of a country come from those who think they are doing what the people they represent want them to do. I, myself, didn't ask my leaders to invade Iraq, but to get bin Laden, and put him on trial for his actions of 9-11.

Hopefully my ramblings made some sort of sense.

jseal

03-18-2006, 07:48 AM

BruceandNan,

I would suggest that ideas, or ideals, rather than greed or guns motivate conflict. The young men and women who have lately served as suicide bombers were persuaded to act, not bribed or coerced.

Conflicts between ideas, such as exist between liberal, secular democracies and autocratic theocracies, can be very difficult to manage – and then only after the other is understood. The West has only lately given substantial consideration to the Arab Middle East; for the prior four decades, their efforts were correctly focused on containing the Soviet Union.

Scarecrow

03-18-2006, 10:07 AM

It is not greed and guns nor ideas and ideals, but the plain and simple truth is Power creates power, the true leaders of the world, be they political or religious, want more power over others. Everything else is a way to a means.

Jax

03-18-2006, 10:21 AM

I don't know if "True Leaders" want power. There are plenty of people who are leaders in spite of themselves - that is actually the premise of Moses...or even Jesus about not wanting to die on the cross. There are probably some parallels there to Islam. And as a result these people become leaders out of neccessity rather than desire. I would suspect that this is true across businesses and civil life. Perhaps MLK became a leader because "some one had to do it". Rosa Parks is another example. Anyway, you have the general idea.

That being said, I think that there are plenty of leaders who want power selfishly. And to by the same token it does not matter what venue they choose. The Church or Religion in highly religious areas, or Military or Civil in other areas. And in that respect, Power itself is the aphrodiasic. The bad part here is that these type of leaders also consider their role as for "the good of all", when it is for the good of a few.

mabelode

03-18-2006, 06:28 PM

But, is there any real common ground between a democratic state, like the US, a communist state, like China, a dictator held state, like any number of African countries? Each one of those feel like they are right, but not any one of those governments is right. They all have problems, because you have a higher class of people and a lower class of people. There is no middle class, because those of us, myself included, who do not have the means to buy the world, are paying for those who can buy the world. No matter which type of government you live in, and isn't that the real reason why we have conflicts so the rich can get richer. It happened in Vietnam and it is happening now in Iraq.

I can only refer you to my second paragraph above.

So, basically, what I am trying to say is religion is not the root cause of an uprising, or unrest, but the people who are supposed to be levelheaded and keep our countries out of these squirmishes. The actions of a country come from those who think they are doing what the people they represent want them to do. I, myself, didn't ask my leaders to invade Iraq, but to get bin Laden, and put him on trial for his actions of 9-11.

Religion is not the root cause of all uprisings or unrest, but it would be naive to suggest that it has had no part (or been the cause) in many. Again, I can only say that removing religion is only removing one element of conflict, not sorting all of society's problems. Worthwhile, IMHO, but not a cure-all.

I would add that politics tends to be more pragmatic than religion. Compromises are made for financial, practical, necessary, and (above all) electoral reasons. Religion is a little more hardline :)

mabelode

03-18-2006, 06:32 PM

I would suggest that ideas, or ideals, rather than greed or guns motivate conflict. The young men and women who have lately served as suicide bombers were persuaded to act, not bribed or coerced.

I would agree. I could, of course, suggest a likely source for these ideas :D

BruceandNan

03-18-2006, 08:57 PM

I'm not saying that religion isn't a cause, but is a thread, just like different types of governments and also those who lead, whether left or right wing or straight down the middle.

Back to the point at hand, will we ever know what started the jihad movement, probably not, because no one is alive who was actually around when the jihad started way back in the 1700-1800's. The only thing we know is that everything that has happened lately just adds fuel to the fire. As an example, the unrest in Northern Ireland. Every time the English brought down a safe house or someone in the hieracrchy (sp), the IRA would retaliate. The same applies to present day day Iraq and the whole Middle East.

We may never know how or why this jihad started. I know that the Barbery (sp) Wars were and still are a part of it.

jseal

03-19-2006, 06:34 AM

mabelode,

True, but that accounts for only a fraction of idea driven conflict. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian, and Chinese Revolutions are more easily described as being driven by ideals than by religious zeal. It seems that much of the 20th century was spent examining the differences between Capitalism and Communism. Sometimes the contrasts involved violence, and sometimes not.

dicksbro

03-19-2006, 09:06 PM

A friend of mine just sent me this URL and it a very interesting discussion/debate between an lady and an Islamic cleric. Turn the sound down (it's subtitled) as that can be distracting.

It is interesting.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

Loulabelle

03-20-2006, 02:27 AM

She had some very interesting points to make.

Unfortunately, the cleric did not have much opportunity to speak, and was clearly not the best person to put across the point of view of the Muslim people. I can't help thinking that a discussion with a female Muslim academic would have created a fairer playing field and may have made the debate a little less one sided.

Admiral

03-20-2006, 06:24 AM

Bring from Sweden we usaly seem to have a rather laid back opinion on religon we dont have alot of fanatics like Pat in the US and alot of peopel i know look at these peopel whit a slight chuckel as if it was a joke, or shake their head woundering when the guy from candid camra will walk out.

This is a tendensy that is pretty simpel, we all 'know' cristianity even if we dont belive in jesus or god in waht ever shape or facion we all know the line "turn the other check" and we all see it as cristian benevolence and we have hard to understand how Islamic as a religon look so Hatefull towards us...

But the explenation is pretty simpel... one word, Interpretation... did i spell that right?

Any way, a person like Bin Laden reads the Coran like Pat Robertson read the Bibel he finds what he NEED and he use it...

You can justefy anything you want by reading the Bible Or the Koran it's taht simpel... now, that dont make either of them invalid only that one need to take in to acount that these where written LONG ago, by peopel wrighting a messige that reflected their time, when it's being read there are things that as a human of sound mind there are things that we have to look at and say... this dont go whit the the developed sence of morality and etics that we have today, and some things simply make no sence in modern day.

If you belive that the cristian messige is love and understanding, and peacefull coexsitance whit your fellow man, that messige can be found in the Bible...

If you belive in the bigot View of homofobes and rasists who belive in the purety of the blood and the right of a few over the masses and your right to assert your ideas in a way that end in murder and massaker, you can find that to...

The same have to be in the Koran, this is why Bin Laden can justefy what he is doing...

Sadly...

Cristianity have been just as bad as islam, we just tend to disregard it, i belive everyone know about Rowanda? but do you know that the massecers was orcesrated by peopel using the Cristian messige? these groups where backed by many of the cristian comuneties in Europe and USA (i'm not saying they backed the massaker but they game them founding for many years leading up to the massacer and where the peopel who when we started seeing how wrong things was going in that country that argued that everything was fine... as we know it today it was not...

Religon is not bad, peopels bad interpretations of a religon is...

I have friends who belive, both cristian and islamic... who's view and council and respec, and know peopel both cristian and islamic who's view have almost ended me in jail, a Muslim for coments on 911 and a Cristian on coments about a Lesbian freind of mine...

This all boil down to Hate... and Interpretations...

Bin Laden Hates USA, He hates the western world... as do many peopel in the Arab Countires... it ahve noting to do whit religon when you get it down to the basic...

And i will stop my preatching... and my horrid spelling

Admiral

Loulabelle

03-20-2006, 07:37 AM

Admiral, well said, and thank-you so much for your input.

I love to hear from other nationalities on the board here...it makes me cringe when people post on this site using 'we' to mean the one particular country they happen to come from.

It makes us seem so unfriendly to others, I always think.

I hope you continue to post often, as I often think this site needs a more truly international feel.

jseal

03-20-2006, 01:35 PM

Yes indeed. The more people there are talking sensibly about a complex issue, the more likely it is that progress will be made towards resolving it.

mabelode

03-20-2006, 02:50 PM

Yes indeed. The more people there are talking sensibly about a complex issue, the more likely it is that progress will be made towards resolving it.

So true. I think we are doing our bit, here. No-one has fallen out over this thread, but we have had a sensible discussion. It's a shame the rest of the world cannot always do the same.

WildIrish

03-20-2006, 03:46 PM

So true. I think we are doing our bit, here. No-one has fallen out over this thread, but we have had a sensible discussion. It's a shame the rest of the world cannot always do the same.

It helps that we've seen each other naked. :D

denny

03-20-2006, 03:51 PM

Okay, so first we ban all clothing and then we uncover other differences, right?

WildIrish

03-20-2006, 03:52 PM

Okay, so first we ban all clothing and then we uncover other differences, right?

First we ban all clothing.

Then I pleasure myself looking at all the sexy people.

Then...we uncover other differences. :D

Let's be honest...can you take anyone seriously when they have a boner?

Scarecrow

03-20-2006, 06:43 PM

... and my horrid spelling Admiral

Your spelling was not all that bad, I could read it :D

And I did enjoy hearing your veiws on the subject, please continue to post.

calihotguy

03-20-2006, 10:46 PM

I don't get people who don't embrace their fellow human beings and the uniqueness that each human represents..... just seems that we are a world full of misery and those miserable oh so love some company.

jseal

03-21-2006, 08:13 PM

Gentlefolk,

I’m uncertain if anyone else might find this interesting, but Tony Blair recently gave a rather extended speech, if not precisely on this topic, then on one rather close to it. Well worth the time to listen to it.

The text of the speech can be found Foreign Policy Speech I (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9224.asp)

For a video of this speech on Britain's foreign policy (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page308.asp) (21 March 2006)

While not everyone will agree with him, I do find most of his points consistent with my experience in the Middle East of a few years ago.

dicksbro

03-22-2006, 05:12 AM

It is an interesting speech. I've always liked Tony Blair and, like you said, I may not always agree with him, but he is very eloquent in stating his position. Thanks for sharing that, jseal.

mabelode

03-22-2006, 12:08 PM

It is an interesting speech. I've always liked Tony Blair and, like you said, I may not always agree with him, but he is very eloquent in stating his position.

Please take him! No, really! Please take him! :D

dicksbro

03-22-2006, 12:31 PM

I'll trade you ... two Clinton's and one Joe Biden! Please. :D

(Oh yeah, one Gore as a bonus gift.)

Loulabelle

03-22-2006, 01:10 PM

Please take him! No, really! Please take him! :D

Woo hoo! Another Blair-hater! Never voted for him, never will!

Admiral

03-22-2006, 08:07 PM

I just dont get Blair, wheater you like him or not he is a very inteligent man what the hell is he doing hanging out whit a man like Bush? i dont get it.

I respected Blair when he first took office i though he had alot of views that was right for europe ate the time but now he is starting to look more and more like a whipping Boy for Amerikan warmongers (See bush and others)

I will enjoy the day i read about bush in my childrens history books 20 years from now, or even my gandchildren.

He is going to get butcherd.

Admiral

Jax

03-24-2006, 08:31 PM

Just as an aside. In the local paper today were two articles that I thought were an interesting contrast to how the West sees religion.

Article 1 was that the City of St. Paul (near where I live) banned Easter references from the city offices. Not real sure why, but I can only speculate "Church and State"

Article 2 was a report that the in Afghanistan some moderate to hardcore Clerics were demanding death for a former Islam believer who had converted to Christianity.

Is it any wonder that Westerners feel persecuted by Political Correctness gone horribly astray and that we get such a bad read on Islam? These types of examples are sadly too easy to find.

scotzoidman

03-24-2006, 09:51 PM

Jax

03-24-2006, 11:00 PM

Is removing Easter bunnies really separation of Church and State or over PC? I say over PC. Christianity is no more represented by the Easter Bunny than it is by the Christmas Tree. The Christmas Tree is left around and accepted (and to that point, a Menorah is okay, but sure as heck don't show a babe in a manger).

I understand the need for boundaries and choices, but to that end get rid of 25 December as a day off too or loosen up in areas like Easter Bunnies.

Lilith

03-24-2006, 11:11 PM

"Easter references" doesn't just mean bunnies. It's just as easy to say Spring or Winter holidays. People who are not Christian may not see the references to Easter as common place as Christians do. If I am a Jewish American the holiday means no more to me than Chinese New Year. Why should it be the focus of anything at my workplace? When a person comes to an issue with only their own vantage and makes no attempt to look at an issue from another's vantage point they miss out on a great deal of the view.

mabelode

03-25-2006, 03:22 AM

I'm with Jax on this. Lilith, I'm looking at this from a non-Christian point of view, and, while Easter has no significance for me, I don't mind that others wish to celebrate it (I am assuming here that we are talking only about banning references to Easter, not banning some major celebration at work, in which case I may have a different attitude). Surely your hypothetical Jewish American would adopt a similar attitude? If not, where is the tolerance?

There seem to a lot of stories over here in the UK about similar PC bans (Father Christmas could not visit a nursery because he might scare the kids, springs to mind).

Multiculturalism is all about compromise and tolerance. We cannot ban everything (although Tony Blair is trying his hardest) because someone, somewhere doesn't like it. I am saying this as a hardline atheist. I have made my views plain earlier, but even I do not advocate banning religious ceremony and celebration.

dicksbro

03-25-2006, 07:39 AM

I don't see this as "PC gone astray"...rather, it's more like upholding the part of the Bill of Rights that says Congress shall make no law favoring any church or religion, that keeps us from turning into a Theocracy that burns people for not following the Official State religion...

Actually, what the Bill of Rights says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Lilith

03-25-2006, 08:54 AM

I certainly do not advocate banning religious celebrations. But I do think there are ways to make specific times of the year that are filled with a variety of observances more inclusive of all the celebrations at that time.

jseal

03-25-2006, 10:59 AM

Perhaps it is only my perspective, but filling specific times of the year with a variety of observances implies a particular point of view – that of equivalence - on those religions celebrations.

mabelode

03-25-2006, 06:47 PM

Perhaps it is only my perspective, but filling specific times of the year with a variety of observances implies a particular point of view – that of equivalence - on those religions celebrations.

Agreed! Easter is a Christian observance. Like it or not, it does not matter if it is of no consequence to Muslim, Jew or Hindu (or, indeed, atheist). Let the Christians celebrate as they see fit. We do not need to make it an all-inclusive event in a (failed) attempt to keep everyone happy.

scotzoidman

03-26-2006, 01:20 AM

Actually, what the Bill of Rights says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
I knew I was not making a direct quote of the Constitution, but I stand by my contention that we allow any one group official recognition, we have to allow the same for all...as it is, I see this country already skating dangerously close to the thin ice of religious zealotry...

Aqua

03-27-2006, 01:33 PM

On the topic of Easter ask yourself this question...

When you hear the word Easter, what do you think of first... a bunny or a cross?

I would be willing to bet the majority of people in this country would say bunny. Probably chocolate.

osuche

03-27-2006, 01:36 PM

On the topic of Easter ask yourself this question...

When you hear the word Easter, what do you think of first....

I think about my ass getting bigger (thanks to eating the chocolate). But that's just me. :D

Aqua

03-27-2006, 01:37 PM

I think about my ass :D
Funny... I think about your ass too. Wait.. did you say something else besides that? :confused:

:p

Loulabelle

03-27-2006, 02:33 PM

There seem to a lot of stories over here in the UK about similar PC bans (Father Christmas could not visit a nursery because he might scare the kids, springs to mind).

I don't see how that is a PC thing. Personally I was shit scared of Father Christmas impersonators and the like when I was a child. Kids get scared of adults dressed up in costumes and they're always told 'don't talk to strangers' until one is dressed up in a mask and make-up.....fucking terrifying if you ask me!

Oh and what the hell is Father Christmas to do with religion....I bet the same nursery were probably allowed to stage a nativity play. ;)

jseal

03-27-2006, 05:05 PM

Father Christmas (http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/Xmas/santa.html)

Lilith

03-27-2006, 05:08 PM

As a kid I was terrified of dressed up Santa Clauses and clowns. Despite a family friend always being the one to dress up as Santa for my dad's work Xmas party I would promptly proceed to vomit every year at his arrival at the party :D

jseal

03-27-2006, 05:15 PM

Lilith,

One of my nieces was also scared of costumed characters. Only overcame that behavior recently. Must not be that infrequent a response.

dicksbro

03-27-2006, 05:57 PM

...as it is, I see this country already skating dangerously close to the thin ice of religious zealotry...

... or secular zealotry. I don't see those of faith ... Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or others) ... saying that people who do not have faith must give up that point of view or that they must celebrate those holidays. I think secular zealotry is a far greater risk.

Jax

03-27-2006, 07:55 PM

I like that. Secular Zealotry. I think that is a better way to say what I was going after. That is a huge problem.

jseal

03-27-2006, 08:32 PM

sharper

03-28-2006, 12:41 AM

I don't see how that is a PC thing. Personally I was shit scared of Father Christmas impersonators and the like when I was a child. Kids get scared of adults dressed up in costumes and they're always told 'don't talk to strangers' until one is dressed up in a mask and make-up.....fucking terrifying if you ask me!

Oh and what the hell is Father Christmas to do with religion....I bet the same nursery were probably allowed to stage a nativity play. ;)

I've deliberately stayed out of this debate so far, but...

Strange you should say that - last Christmas some schools in Britain did ban nativity plays on poltically-correct grounds.

Oldfart

03-28-2006, 01:52 AM

Fed by the same madness which caused a shopping centre (mall for the yanks) chain to ban the charity Xmas tree

because someone could put a bomb in a package and leave it there.

They couldn't just walk in with a bomb belt and go bang, they have to wrap it in Xmas paper and hide it at the

charity tree.

There is a tree frog in my garden makes more sense than that.

sharper

03-28-2006, 09:55 AM

I've deliberately stayed out of this debate so far, but...

Strange you should say that - last Christmas some schools in Britain did ban nativity plays on poltically-correct grounds.

Ooops :o

I've been checking the news - I got a bit mixed up. Several schools in Britain banned cameras at nativity plays in case paedophiles got hold of the pictures/videos, and the Red Cross charity shops banned nativity scenes in their shop windows. Still PC madness.

Carry on without me :o :)

mabelode

03-28-2006, 11:18 AM

I don't see how that is a PC thing. Personally I was shit scared of Father Christmas impersonators and the like when I was a child. Kids get scared of adults dressed up in costumes and they're always told 'don't talk to strangers' until one is dressed up in a mask and make-up.....fucking terrifying if you ask me!

Oh and what the hell is Father Christmas to do with religion....I bet the same nursery were probably allowed to stage a nativity play. ;)

OK, so not the best example, although it was an example of PC gone mad, not religion. I'll happily go with Sharper's Red Cross example.

mabelode

03-28-2006, 11:33 AM

So the Christians fight back :D Bring it on!

... or secular zealotry. I don't see those of faith ... Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or others) ... saying that people who do not have faith must give up that point of view or that they must celebrate those holidays. I think secular zealotry is a far greater risk.

That must be the comedy post of the thread! Now, where should we start?

1. There is a Muslim-turned-Christian in Afghanistan who wishes that what you are saying was true
2. In post-Reformation England (1530s) the Protestants and Catholics burned each other for not believing in the same version of the same basic beliefs
3. The Algerian parliament has just approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam (in person and by any sort of publication).
4. The Spanish Inquisition
5. Neither I, nor my parents, were offered a choice of me attending religious education and worship at school. I was not given an alternative viewpoint that God may not exist either. I suspect most of you were in the same position.

I could make a really long list but I am sure you can see the point :)

mabelode

03-28-2006, 11:36 AM

Gentlefolk,

Intolerance comes in many guises, and is not native to any land or sect. Consider, if you will, the French State’s ban on the Islamic headscarf and (nominally) all other overt religious symbols from state schools.

When people who wield power - be they religious, or in this case secular – feel threatened, they feel obligated to protect their domain. That their behavior may be as damaging to what they claim to be defending as the actions of their supposed foe is of no consequence. They must not be seen to be weak.

This does lead, from time to time, to peculiar behavior.

The trouble is, that as a Christian, you see this as the thin end of the wedge and worry when something similar will affect you. I, as an atheist, can see the French government's point. It's quite draconian, but fairly applied, so no-one should complain.

dicksbro

03-28-2006, 11:58 AM

So the Christians fight back :D Bring it on!

That must be the comedy post of the thread! Now, where should we start?

1. There is a Muslim-turned-Christian in Afghanistan who wishes that what you are saying was true
2. In post-Reformation England (1530s) the Protestants and Catholics burned each other for not believing in the same version of the same basic beliefs
3. The Algerian parliament has just approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam (in person and by any sort of publication).
4. The Spanish Inquisition
5. Neither I, nor my parents, were offered a choice of me attending religious education and worship at school. I was not given an alternative viewpoint that God may not exist either. I suspect most of you were in the same position.

I could make a really long list but I am sure you can see the point :)

Gee, I didn't know Afghanistan was insisting on Spring Bunnies at their Walmarts?

I thought we were talking about what was happening in the US and other western countries today. Maybe we need more precision in what the topic is.

It's not even clear what your 5th point had to do with.

Lilith

03-28-2006, 04:06 PM

just taking notes ;) :D

jseal

03-28-2006, 07:06 PM

mabelode,

Rather than characterize the situation as one favoring a theist or an atheist point of view, I think it may be more useful viewing intolerance as favoring or suppressing personal liberties.

To that end, I am minded of a poem attributed to Martin Niemöller (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm) about the quiescence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power. There are various versions, this is the one I favor:

Original......................................Translation

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,.........When they came for the communists,
habe ich geschwiegen;.........................I remained silent;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.....................I was not a communist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,.....When they locked up the social democrats,
habe ich geschwiegen; ........................I remained silent;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat................I was not a social democrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,............When they came for the trade unionists,
habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter................I was not a trade unionist.

Als sie die Juden holten,.....................When they came for the Jews,
habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out;
ich war ja kein Jude..........................I was not a Jew.

Als sie mich holten,..........................When they came for me,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte...there was no one left to speak out.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I favor personal liberty, particularly as realized in a liberal democracy. It was not too long ago that Germany descended from a civilized nation to one which burnt and gassed its own citizens. How far into the common weal must the wedge be driven the next time before someone cries “Halt!”?

On a lighter note, wasn’t it President Chirac who said “Aprés moi, le Shari'a.”?

mabelode

03-29-2006, 05:03 PM

Gee, I didn't know Afghanistan was insisting on Spring Bunnies at their Walmarts?

I, as an atheist, seem to have far more concern for the plight of a Christian than you, as a Christian, judging solely by that statement.

I thought we were talking about what was happening in the US and other western countries today. Maybe we need more precision in what the topic is.

It's not even clear what your 5th point had to do with.

It's too late to complain at the direction we are now going - you were steering at the time! The original question was:

The question in my mind is, is the Islamic religion that violent, or is it just dominated by a vocal minority that is giving the religion - and arguebly a race of people - a bad name. I will also anticipate one answer, if it is just a band of a few, or a few small bands (vocal minority) why is the majority so silent?

We have expanded the scope a little since then. For example, you said:

I don't see those of faith ... Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or others) ... saying that people who do not have faith must give up that point of view

That's exactly what religions do - enforce conformity of belief and control what the followers do. See my examples above. That may be OK for enforcing morals if done moderately (but you don't need the god aspect for that) but it gets abused. My examples show what happens when religious belief is enforced on those who don't want to believe the same as you.

Point 5 was simple. On a more personal level I am illustrating that faith was pushed onto us at an impressionable age - we didn't choose to embrace it as adults (and, no, continuing with what was forced on you as a child is not the same as freely embracing the same belief as an adult).

mabelode

03-29-2006, 05:17 PM

Rather than characterize the situation as one favoring a theist or an atheist point of view, I think it may be more useful viewing intolerance as favoring or suppressing personal liberties.

A very reasonable request. We could say, however, that religious education almost everywhere suppresses those rights (until too late in one's school career). Each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, with no balancing view that it may be made up. This maintains the myth and the status quo. More enlightened countries allow individuals to make their own minds up later in life (but too late), and many do not. I simply suggest that we teach atheism, and, again, allow individuals to make their own minds up later. I point out, once more, the Jesuit approach - the first years in a child's education are highly influential (I might even say indoctrinating).

Note that I have not suggested anywhere that religion should be banned - the way forward is through education. Religion will then wither naturally.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I favor personal liberty, particularly as realized in a liberal democracy.

Not at all - a view I share. I am not a "banning" type of person, which may be why I have a problem with Tony Blair's style of government.

jseal

03-29-2006, 10:13 PM

mabelode,

As silence implies assent, I take it that you have reconsidered your position on “the thin edge of the wedge” whether assessed as a communist, social democrat, trade unionist, theist, or atheist. I must admit that I do have difficulty reconciling your stated position on personal liberty and liberal democracy with your acquiescence to the French State’s suppression of individual liberties – down to such details as what type of head covering one may and may not wear to class. Rather intolerant I’d say, but then, I’m not French. As a bad law remains a bad law even if applied consistently, I am curious why a law which is described as draconian is one about which no-one should complain.

While it is true that there are countries that do teach its dominant/official religion as fact, it is decidedly not true for all countries. It is not the case that each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, unless you are referring to the citizens of a country being inculcated in that country’s culture, a different process than being “taught”. If it is true that there is no country without a culture, and I would argue that case, then it is unreasonable to expect its citizens to grow up within it without absorbing their cultural norms.

Perhaps I can call upon some local expertise; how many of our American Pixies were offered, much less had forced upon them, religious education in state funded schools? For that matter, how many Australian, Canadian or English Pixies were compelled in their state funded educational careers to pass exams on Christian, Muslim, or Hindu theology? I am under the impression that, at least here in the States, very few religious education classes are funded by Federal, State, or Municipal governments.

As for teaching atheism, I don’t think that would be wise at all. Atheism asserts the absence of God, just as theism asserts the presence of God. Are you suggesting that there exists a proof that there is no God? Unless the claim can be objectively substantiated by repeatable tests, such a claim must reside in the realm of other faiths.

Many people, I among them, consider that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Additionally, if one wished to take a scientific approach, one must keep in mind that a hypothesis can only be falsified, not proved. Frankly, given the metaphysical properties of both theism and atheism, I believe both are clearly outside the domain of science. Finally, Kurt Gödel’s paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems (http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/)" contains a proof that there exist truths which cannot be proved. Replace “truths” with “God” and the sentence remains logically unchanged. We both know that the proof exists only within the limits of formal systems, so I cannot offer it as a proof, but it is persuasive, even if not convincing.

Not, I hasten to conclude, that there is a God, only that those who make blanket assertions that there is no God do so with neither evidence to support their position nor iron clad logic to support their arguments.

Admiral

04-02-2006, 11:39 AM

I'm to impressed not to post, out of al the boards i have been on any religus matter tend to get out of hand, peopel have so strong feelings either way that they tend to get angry and loos self controle.

Obviesly a board full of peopel who enjoy sex alot is alot more civalised.

Religion is not the root of problems in it self, the problem usaly arise when someone deside that their religon shold be the only religon whit usaly come from a personal desier to be the only one how rule the world.

I dont think that there have been many major war in history that have been soley based on the idea of religon, most of the time it's just been a realy good reason to use.

Someone one's mde the outragus statement that 99% of the worlds belive in a higher power, and that many peopel cant be wrong.

The thing about belifes (and i'm not diminiching any one who belive) is that it's very very personal and inpresise there are no two belifes that can be exactly alike unlike sience that is very very inpersonal and presise.

If you ask two houndrar peopel to draw a face of god, you will get two hundrad very difrent pictures atleast NON will be exactly alike that is the beuty of it if YOU belive it's realy your belife.

Sience is the other way around, if you ask two houndrad peopel to wright the forumula for water you would get alot of H2O... simpel but very impersonal it's the way sience work

The problem today is that sme peopel want to make these two incompatibul IE Creatisem/Evolotion.

This so explisitly explains the problem we have today where peopel want to force belifes in to a system of education based on fact and sience and you can't be scientific about Delifes you just have to belive you cant teach someone to belive.

but you can teach about religon, but not just about one about all the major religons today.

And to break up the tedium of a bread and butter religon like Cristianity and Muslim throw in Greek religon or norse religon come on a little hammer weilding giant smaching God can hurt every ones in a while... or why not a god how ocationaly go horney climbed down olympis and got freaky whit the lockal humans.

Today as i see it we have peopel who say NO religon in school, and peopel that say only religon in shool.

myself i think we need to meet in the middel, pray in school... probobly not so much learn about cristianity and islam probobly a good idea.

I troly belive thow that part of the matter and problem is for religon to start to admmit that proven science need to be acsepted, it cant be ignored or fought any longer, this go for both muslim and Cristians.

Muslims must change it's veiws on matters of women, or we need a race of amazon women to kick there ass either way will do... ( i prefer the Amazon would love to see that... noting would be more fun... hehe tie him to the bed in that burka)

An catholics will you PLEASE tell the Pope to stop fearing the condom PLEASE we are alittle to over populated right now as it is... not to mention Aids... it's out there.. and it's bad.

Oh and... um... all of the above... can you leave gay's alone... trust me they wont turn you gay if you do... they promise.

The problem whit religon today is Fear, fear that if what is true (science) realy turn out to be... TRUE and they admit it... they will loose peopel beliving in god and on the same coin i think some of them actuly do belive that if peopel pray in school... they will start to belive in god.

Got to stop...

Belive what you want, or what you dont want... it's ok realy.

And i hope it stay that way

jseal

04-02-2006, 11:59 AM

Admiral,

Yessir! The idea of a course on comparative religions has been mentioned in other threads here. An interesting idea, I think. Still, here in the States there is a fine line one must tread when seeking to teach in publicly funded schools about religious matters. It would need to be crafted carefully so as to not favor one over the others. Another difficult might be when to offer such a course. Primary or secondary school? Early or late?

It could be quite difficult to get the right balance.

Admiral

04-02-2006, 08:41 PM

Personaly i belive religon should go tandem whit history while i dont belive that Religon should be considerd history they pretty much go together.

Teach about them during the apropriate time and place in history, weight should probobly be on the subject at around 6-7-8's grade when children start to express understanding and start to excsert there own identety.

Children's influence of religon do not and will never come from school good or bad, it will be from Parental guidens, in a perfect world i would not think that children should be introdused to organiced religon untill they are atleast teen's so they can for there own opinion whit out the guidence from parents.

This is ofcourse imposibul, and i would never asume to sugest the enforcment of this thing.

From waht i see over here it's not religon in itself that is a problem, it's right wing exstreamist Cristian groups that want cristian teachings in school, they probobly would not like is islam and Hindu was given as much attention as cristianity, as now nighter is given any attention.

Myself i belive that Religon is an important lesson learnd in socialogy, history, etics and morality it's not everything... but it's something very interesting that learn, and for peopel who might find the ideas of budda, Jesus or Muhamed should be given the chance to know what they where talking about and find out if it belong in their world.

I do NOT belive that Private schools that are based on a religus fait is a good idea... that is plain stupid, i do not mean to offend any one but putting a child in school that teach only relion is dumb in any part of the world, Arab, Amerikan or Swedich and we found out that the bad way a fea years ago where muslim privat schools proved to be ignoring swedich child laws and teaching laws, not to mention that a school based on a religon would not be able to be objectiv of things that when aginest the religus practis.

I would LOVE to hear a devoted teacher who belived in the word of the bible or Koran teach about Evolotion and the age of the earth.

Children need to have a place where they can think free, on EVERY subject whit out teachers hampering their ideas, but still guided to learn what we know to be true, they need to learn about both the physical work of science, as well as the basics of the metaphysical work or religon, they need to learn why the Hindu belive in so many difrent gods, they could probobly do good in learning how closly related Islam and Cristianity is, learn alittle more about judisem.

And contrary to what cristians belive you can find peopel who do NOT belive that LOVE religon who can teach religon on an inbias level, becase you need someone who can teach... not preach a religon.

Just becase i dont belive, peopel who do tend to belive i think they are stupid, and sadly most of the time that work in revers as well.

Religon is a state of mind, beliving in something, we all belive in things religon is just an organasation of peopel beliving in the same thing,

just becase i do not belive in the same things, that dont meen that i activly belive that they are wrong, simply that i dont belive.

Religon is a dificult complex, my personal belife is that true religon can not excist is it's forced, if it's forced it's more enforced culture then belife... how can a person truely belife in something if he have never been given teh chanc e to belive in something ells?

Thins leadds us back to the problem whit Islam, becase today large populus of Islam is in a 'forced' belife system... you can belive either in islam and Allah... or be stoned to death... not a to big a choice i do belive.

These peopel do not 'belive' becase they 'BELIVE' but becase beliving is the only thing they have ever known, it's there culture to belive.

This mirrors the dark age of europ, you belived or you where burnt.

Today we are alittle more open, but it's important that we grab and hold on to the freedom to belive, but freedom to belive do not give teh freedom to force other to belive like they do.

I'm sure noting of that made much sence but hey i'm swedich... what do we know? ;)

scotzoidman

04-03-2006, 12:57 PM

I'm sure noting of that made much sence but hey i'm swedich... what do we know? ;)Actually, you make as good or better sense to me than some folks for whom English is a first language :D

I do find myself wishing for sub-titles on your posts, ;) but anyway...I like the way you think...I think...

jseal

04-03-2006, 06:31 PM

Admiral,

I wouldn’t get too worked up about non-public education in the U.S. if I were you. The overwhelming majority, 85% or so, of primary and secondary schoolchildren attend publicly funded schools. Of the 13% (approx.) who attend non-public schools, only three quarters of that are “faith based”. They may make a lot of noise and grab many headlines, but there just aren’t that many to get excited about (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/schools/onpefacts.html).

One of the best things about non-public schools is that they offer a choice. Depending upon your child’s strengths and weaknesses, you can select a school which seems most suitable. The public schools are getting in on that act with “anchor” schools, but they are limited in what they can offer. Non-public schools also offer an alternative to shockingly poor public schools. Here in Baltimore City, the public school system is abysmal – unbelievably bad. Rather than cripple my children, my wife and I sent them to parochial schools.

I’m sure that everyone agrees with you about how silly it would be to put a child in a school that teaches only religion. I just don’t know of any. Both of my children went to Archbishop Borders School (http://www.msde.state.md.us/nonpublic/church_exempt/DisplayLocationsByCounty.asp?County=Baltimore%20City) for their primary education. My son went to Archbishop Curley High School (http://www.archbishopcurley.org/index.asp), my daughter to the Institute of Notre Dame (http://www.indofmd.org/School%20Office/Mission.htm) – both pretty standard Catholic high schools. They all offered unexceptional curricula: English, Phys Ed, Mathematics, Foreign Language, Chem, Bio & Physics, etc.

Religious studies at both high schools introduced religions other than Christianity. Granted, the primary focus was on the Christian message, but at least they were exposed to something other than the norm. As you pointed out, it is quite difficult to get an even playing field when dealing with religious matters.

Aqua

04-03-2006, 06:47 PM

Admiral ~ Excellent posts. It may not be the easiest to read, but it's worth the 'struggle' of reading to see your viewpoint. I agree with a great deal of what you have to say. Glad to have you in on the discussion.

Admiral

04-03-2006, 11:25 PM

thank you Aqua those a kind words,

jseal, I can see what you meen... it's just sad to see that so much of public school is run down and considerd 'less' favorabul to privat schools but i understand the dilema.

and personaly i would rather put my kid's threw a private school if they where better then public school then to alow them to atende a worse choise jut to make a point.

I think my point thow is that public school dont have to be bad, almost all of the swedich school system is public and is whit some exceptions an excolent school system, i know it cant be translated to how the us school system is organiced but i get the feeling from listening to the political debating that Public is inherently bad, some republicans have even called it comunist thinking.

I think the point i was aiming for was simply that public schools would be able to provide a stabule teaching on religon that is unbias in contradiction ot a privatly founded muslim or cristian school, i have read horror stories where the word Eveolotion was baned, or where saying that the earth was millions of years old was hushed and the term "Very Very VERY old was to be used".

Or my own personal favorit... sexual education... taht in sweden is Mandatory to the muslim comunety's horror and they tried to escape this threw starting private schools... and also go around the mandatory mixed classes boy's and girls can NOT be class seperated in sweden... this caused a scream in muslims becase it mean that children can be 'forced' to bath together in a swiming pool.

This is ofcourse a cultural matter that we cant just go, HEY this is sweden this is how we do things ACSEPT it... but i think it should be explained that in sweden things are like this, this is our law and this is why we belive this way.

Religon should be in a religon class, it should not be in any other subject (apart from hystory perhaps) there should not be a debate wheater relion based creation should be taught in school on the same level as Evolotion, religon based ideas on the age of earth should not be taught as is there is evidense to the subject.

And most of all, Right wing religus fundamental ideas should STAY OUT OF SEXUAL EDUCATION! Leave the condoms alone, leave contraseptivs alone leave SEX alone, yes i belive that sex betwine young teenagers are probobly not the greatest of ideas but saying that it's moraly wrong and think that ambsinence is the answere is just playin stupid.

Forcing women to wear clothing that hide them becase of islamic ideas that women are tempting and should be supressed, is wrong claming in any sence that a man can be apolagiced from rape and blame a woman for dressing provocativ sickens me but this is what many arab coutries law say, and what many muslim fundamental peopel belive... Rape is a crime yes... but only the person raped becase she ofrouce tempted them to rape her.

Right now areound the world fundamental relius groups are breathing fresh air, not just muslims but cristians as well... i cant help but think that it's a bad idea to play as hard as bush do about his cristian agenda when you hear him given questions of the Rapture is comeing.

We are starting to thread on the things that make the western world great, and that greatness is diversety of spirit... we are not in a war of religon but a war of ideals of exstream...

and to fight this war our leaders continue to push away from our greatness further in to the exstream... where civil liberties are trampled on where lies are used to further agendas all in the name of freedom...

Is Freedom at the price of Liberty realy worth it? and is it realy Freedom.

When a very close and dear freind of my family passed away fron canser in 2002, an illness that we ironicly and cruly found out about on the same day as 9/11 2001... i wrote a poem from her funeral, this is the last two lines...

"While today might bring us heartache pain and sorrow.

Remember there will alwayes be a new tomorrow."

Pain and anger make is hard to see that the hardest and most worse sitovation will still become the past the next day, it might take time but there are very few finaleties, most of them have timelimit's... in 2004 my gf felt pretty down about bush being elected a second term, and i could understand her, (she is amerikan btw and still live in the USA) but it was still just 4 years, two of witch have soon passed.

Weather you agree whit Bush is not realy the point of my little rambel, but more that the sitovation we are in now will pass, there is not a great 'end' coming we wont one day seize to be... unless you do belive in the rapture i guess but that is another thing altogether i guess.

Alot of peopel, good peopel are going to suffer before we come to 'tomorrow' and they should not have to do so becase a bounch of peopel belive that their way is the only way... and right way.

I want freedom, i want Liberty but i dont want either taken for the protection of the other... Not for muslim fundamentalistic ideolagy, Or for a "crusade of freedom" for peopel who dont understand what they are doing.

A realy good freind of mine and former of Irak told me back in 2003 when Bush can't sucseed in Irak they way they want becase they dont understand what they are doing... he was hopefull that they would get rid of saddam but he knew that it would not work.

you have two cultures the compleat oposit of each other two ideals that are so compleatly razor edge defined difrence that you cant make it work threw force.

Noting illustrated this more then what happens in Afganistan where a cristian is about to get executed after converting... and bush and the western cristian society is suprised and angerd.

I'm not saying it's right far from it but it defines the problem, there are SO many major problem in Afganistan, problems created in the lat few years that need to be adressed that are on a so much bigger scale then a lone mane who converted to cristianity.

But it's that one issue that these peopel get worked up about, In afrika Famin and Hiv is causing to much suffering... and bush get's hung up and funding founding to organcations that help whit sex educations contraseptics medical treatments... becase they also advocate Abotion rights and contraseptics... for the many very very young pregnant teens who in many cases are raped and HIV infected.

Sometimes you need to look at the whole picture and not simply put on blinders and capture one problem and let the others slip out of their hands, and i have to wounder if the world would ahve reacted as outraged... if the man in Afganistan was Gay instead of cristian... becase so far no one hvae cared to notise those who die becase of who they Love, not belive

scotzoidman

04-04-2006, 09:28 AM

jseal

04-04-2006, 09:22 PM

Admiral,

I believe that most public school systems here are adequate – Baltimore City Schools just happen to be stunningly bad. With 85% of the nation’s pupils in public schools it is most likely that the worst schools will be public (I just wish they were somewhere else).

I’m not so down on religion as some are, the latest in peer-reviewed research indicates that weekly attendance at religious services accounts for an additional 2 to 3 years of life (http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/short/19/2/103). Remember also that the tens of millions deaths caused by Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China can hardly be attributed to religious fundamentalism. I still see intolerance as a human rather than a religious limitation.

I’m uncomfortable with the “clash of two cultures” idea. My take is that it is more complex. The culture of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, is quite different from that of Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are located. Try telling a German or better yet, a Frenchman that his culture is essentially the same as America’s. :)

Admiral

04-04-2006, 11:20 PM

Debates on wheter religon was involved in Natzi genocide or have been put back and forth for many years, while i belive that it was not a major brance i think we can all agree that the european cristian comunety in natzy freindly nation didnt mind getting rid of the jews, but more fundamentaly it ahve more in comon whit the religus 'problems' that we see today then we might think.

It's the fundamental groups that create the problems Natzi, Comunist party in Russia or china may no be religus in nature but i think we can all agree that they come from a fundamentalism ideals so the difrense become rather mute.

The problem is not in basis the religon itself but the peopel that twist it in to a fundamental ideolegy.

No culture is the same, USA is a very unik culture thow, sence it share it's 'vestern' culture whit pretty much every european coulture, whit it's 'real' own is the native Amerikans... creating a very mixed but seperated culture that is cuite unik something you wont find anywhere in any singel european country, the difrence of the country dont realy play in as much, the suadi are the way it is becase they have the money to controle a fundamental society whit an iron fist whti the help of every contry in the world, it's one of the most teribul countries treating it's citisence and women ... rather badly.

but we need the oil so we play nice, more fundamental islamic terrorists come out of Saudi Arabia then most other countries combined... this is the birth country of Bin laden.

Indonesia is VERY difrent, but still have it's problem but mostly from outside Islamic fundamentalist wanting to shape the contry in to a fundamentalistic state.

As refernce to living longer as a religus atendence, i tend not to pay atention to statistic like taht sence it's not realy very acurat and the science behind it is rather new, you might want to consider that over the last 50 years doctors ahve stated that a glass of wine a day is good for you, another doctor say it's bad for you and a third say good a forth say bad over and over doctor ahve argued this statistics and it's still raging on.

I have very little agine Religon in fact i love it, it's fasinating stuff, i have a problem whit peopel using religon for there own personal crusade telling me that i'm wrong for not beliving os contradicting astabliched sience and generaly causing health problems.

1, Teaching Evolotion
2, Teaching Age of Earth
3, stem cell Resertch
4, Sexuality issues/education
5, Homosexuality this pisses me of the most i think.
6, Abortion

To me these are a few of the issues that religus groups should plainly stay the hell away from, i belive tehy should be debated under etical guidlines but those guidelines should not be dictated from religus belifes as we see today in the USA under Bush, If you have a religus person who is also a resertcher in the feild of Stem Cell resertch no problem on the issue but he atleast need to KNOW what it is they they need to astablich etical ground for.

And no one will convince me that Bush is to keen on the higher points of what Stem Cell's are.

jseal, i hope you dont take any of these as if i feel Religon should be slapped in teh backseat, realigon is a wounderfull thing that breing meaning to peopels life, a code of conduct and a sence of belogning and a belife in a higher power.

But i cant belive that it should have a positon of political Influence over peopels life whome do not belive in these things, or belive in other things then the 'norm'.

right now that is what we see in the middel east, we see it in China whit the Comunisem... and i see dangerus parts of it in the curent administration in USA.

I do apolagice for these long running posts i usaly just have alot to say.

scotzoidman

04-04-2006, 11:26 PM

And no one will convince me that Bush is to keen on the higher points of what Stem Cell's are.

Some of us also wonder if he's too keen on where his brain stem is, for that matter... :rolleyes:

jseal

04-05-2006, 05:24 AM

...I do apolagice for these long running posts i usaly just have alot to say.

Admiral,

If verbiage be the food of learning, speak on. Give me excess of it! With apologies to William Shakespeare… :D

I shall respond to your issues above presently. For the moment, let me say that the fact you and I disagree on some of the issues is only to be expected. We are different people with different visions of the here and now, and of the future – based upon different histories and cultures. What I find pleasing is that you do so without animosity or rancor.

Admiral

04-05-2006, 03:50 PM

i'm looking forward to your responce, and glad you took my post as the way it was intended.

jseal

04-05-2006, 06:42 PM

Admiral,

… It's the fundamental groups that create the problems Natzi, Comunist party in Russia or china may no be religus in nature but i think we can all agree that they come from a fundamentalism ideals so the difrense become rather mute.

The problem is not in basis the religon itself but the peopel that twist it in to a fundamental ideolegy…
If you are suggesting that intolerance, whether secular or religious, is based on a rigid and unyielding interpretation of some ideology, then we are in complete agreement. It is precisely such an arbitrary interpretation of Islam that serves as the basis for “Muslim extremists” or “Islamic fundamentalists”, etc. This type of “us versus them” mentality in the U.S. led to the Red Scare hysteria exploited by Senator Macarthy in the early 50s.

It might be a good idea to take the time to read the article (http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/short/19/2/103) before dismissing the research. Ignoring the facts is what extremists do when confronted by evidence which runs counter to their beliefs.

In re people using religion to further their own agenda; well, people have been doing so since the beginning of recorded history, do so today, and will I suspect, continue to do so forever – or until it stops serving their purpose. This, I think, speaks volumes about how people follow and are led, but says very little about religion.

If, when you refer to ethics, you refer to the rules or standards governing the conduct of an individual, then you will find that many, if not most, people’s ethical choices and behavior are attempts to do what is “right”. For better or worse, religions claim to provide the knowledge to identify what is right, and how to make those choices correctly.

Should or ought religion influence political decisions? I certainly wouldn’t want to try to prevent that from happening. Doing so would be intolerant of the belief systems of other citizens. I would say what others have said – that an educated electorate is needed for an effective democracy. If political debates and arguments are taken to the literate and numerate voters of this fair republic, and the voters are persuaded one way or another, then “vox populi, vox Dei” – if you’ll pardon the expression.

Admiral

04-05-2006, 09:13 PM

If you are suggesting that intolerance, whether secular or religious, is based on a rigid and unyielding interpretation of some ideology, then we are in complete agreement. It is precisely such an arbitrary interpretation of Islam that serves as the basis for “Muslim extremists” or “Islamic fundamentalists”, etc. This type of “us versus them” mentality in the U.S. led to the Red Scare hysteria exploited by Senator Macarthy in the early 50s.

Indeed, but i dont think Macarthy would fall in to the same catagory even if it have simular efects Fundamentalisem is on a larger scale and usaly involve an idiolagy of total obedience and controle.

Macarthy more as you say played on The unrational fear of comunisem to his own ends.

Your right about Peopel using Religon to there own agenda not realy portraying the religon, but the person whit the Agenda... but the point is more that Religon is more a perfect medium in the past becase of it's inflexabuility of organised religon, I think we can all agree whit that there was not much chance to disobay the catholic leaders during much of europs past not matter how much might might think it's not the messige of the bible that is being presued or practised, but agine to these peopel the messige become what ever we want it to be.

My reference to Ethics is simply a rule of conduct, there is no SET ethics that refer to every path of life, but instead it need to be worked out in regards to difrent things, I belive in being flexibel whit out it we risk becoming entangled in the problem of ethics.

but in essence it's 'Right and Wrong' a subject we all hold a very difrent view on in both law and culture.

For exampel, in sweden for the state to practis Execution Is not Ethical, in some States in the USA it is, that dont make these places UnEthical only that we see that etichal points difrent.

That creates the main problem of Ethics today, the point i was trying to make in my own point of view is that Ethics should not be influenced by Religus belifes.

I remember the when before Bush Adressed the subject of Stem cell resertch he actuly consulted the Pope about it when visited him, and said that the Pope brought up some interesting points.

And i think we Can all agree, whit no disrespect to the Pops inteligence but on a scientific level nighter of the two would have much knowlige on the issue.

Having had a problematic medical history witch have resulted in inevital problems in my future Stem Cell resertch in to the promesing feild of Organ repair, not involving cloaning, or the much debated fetal stem cell resertch it makes me and others angry that this resertch get set back decades on the basis of religus arguments.

Gay issues are another subject that is being for lack of a better word attacked threw political Religus manuvering, these are issues that should be not be in the realm of religus considerations.

Abortion is alwayes a charged issue so i will try and be diblomatic about it, in Sweden this is a right as obvius as freedom of religon, for any political group to even sugest toutching this right comit political suaside, so this is something that i personaly from a cultural stand point obviesly feel very strong for, the my point is the same from above, considerations should be made from a medical standpoint as to what life is, not religus.

As in reference to "vox populi, vox Dei" i belive rought translated "voice of the peopel, Voice of God" in no offence i belive you should look up where that came from :) i dont know if you know but "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" is from a much longer sentence stated by a munk to 'Charles the Great' saying. "you should not listen to the peopel whom keep saying, the voice of people is the voice of God, since the acts of that crowd is alwayes close to madness" Or something like that, just a bit of trivia... i meen no offence as to the saying.

The problem to me whit Religon in Politics is that it can never satisfy two difrent religons, if you elect a muslim, and he acts in acordance to islamics belifes some of those will be incompaticel whit Cristian, and the same whit cristian and it will perhaps whit out intente guide some of his politics.

This is the reason for the seperation of churche and state is most countries, it's to keep Religus issues outside politics it's not perfect adn ti's not realy working, and i know that to realy stop religon in poletics cant be done but i would like to see a rule that stop peopel from using religus arguments in politics.

This is a Very dificult subject and i dont have all the right answeres... infact i hardly have any especialy 4am in the morning.

It all come down to a very simpel fact, we all belive wheater we want to or not, albe it not in the same things, most of us belive in everyday things things that are tangebul, things that are proven facts... some belive in bigfoot some belive in Aliense abducting peopel...

Others belive whole heartedly in God

Others in Allah

Even others in Budda

The list go on and on...

To me as long as someone dont look to their belife and belive they are superior and the only belife alowed, and that I cant belive difrently or act difrently love difrently or look difrently.... all of these belives are wounderus and fantastic... all of them hold some truth in them, weather they to you hold mirecals or coinsidents fact or fiction proof or theory... they should be respected for that they are, how they have changed the life and history of so many peopel.

Unfortunatly history also who us how religon have been abused... this is what we must guard aginest and not repeat the horros past be it the cristians in Rowanda, or Muslims at 9/11...

The problem is Not RELIGON thow... it's Hate and fear... unfortunatly... in this world there is no lack of either.

jseal

04-06-2006, 09:05 PM

Admiral,

The problem is Not RELIGON thow... it's Hate and fear... unfortunatly... in this world there is no lack of either.
I agree, I agree, and alas, I agree with you. Were that it was otherwise!

Sorry about the to "vox populi, vox Dei" ref. The allusion I was trying for in the electoral context I used it was that the voice of the people (here represented by their votes) was equivalent to an irresistible command of The Almighty. As you had handled my other English idioms, I assumed that you’d take this one in stride also. Oops. I meant well. :o

We’ll never find out, but I will always wonder how a President Gore would have responded to the carnage on my 49th birthday.

As and when humans are given to know when life begins, we will know when abortion is and is not appropriate.

There is, at least in my mind, a risk in having too flexible ethics. If it is sufficiently adjustable to fit any situation, then it doesn’t really help much in discriminating right from wrong – and the appropriate action to take in each situation. People who can use religious teachings to assist them in these often difficult situations may be better off than those who pursue a “religion free” theory of ethical conduct.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential ethics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/#4) takes a reasonable whack at doing so, but it really takes a tough individual to live it day in and day out. I guess that is only another way of saying that taking the religious path to ethical behavior is taking the easy path to ethical behavior. But if religion gives answers that are good enough almost all the time, and the alternative is some synthesis between Sartre’s ideal of "integral man" and Nietzsche’s “master morality”, then if I were a betting man, I’d bet that most people would go with God.

Admiral

04-07-2006, 12:11 AM

My Swedich teacher who was by no meens religus, used to say when we wher debating that in what ever sitovation of you find yourself in, the ten comandments is usaly a pretty good roadmap. It's not the whole truth but ti's a great place to start.

Lot's o filosofers have taken a crack at the old Etics thing, not to mention wheater god exsists or not.

I do belive alot of the anemasety some of the early peopel who so hard desided to deny God somehow had to do whit the inflexability of the church who was trying to hang on to the last bit of power.

Today ironicly i think we have the oposing efect science are starting to prove more and more and peopel are trying to 'justefy' old and warped belifes, this is probley the reason we see so much "inteligent Design" preatching today it's peopel like pat robertsen and other much less extream voice alittle to high there opinions that today simply make no sence... and still they have a audiance who listen becase peopel who belive and want to belive what the bibel say the word hear what they want to hear... this is a very small group tath i think is portrayed larger then it is becase they get mixed up whit other republican groups who are jus simply cristian and nor fanatical about it but they all unfortunatly come under the same roof.

Most cristians i know Belive in evolotion, but ofcourse they belive in an "Inteligent Design" the two consepts dont ahve to be portrayed difrently as is usaly tried to portraied.