|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it rational to believe that there is a solution to the situation in Israel?
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They all spawn ideologies that's for sure, but most aren't predicated on any rational ideal or morality.
Are you talking about the ideologies that some spawn, or are, or that religions aren't predicated on any rational ideal or morality?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
There was for a very long time no separation of church and state in Christianity either. Was Christianity an ideology then, and only in the last few centuries reverted to being a religion?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
There was for a very long time no separation of church and state in Christianity either. Was Christianity an ideology then, and only in the last few centuries reverted to being a religion?
That appears to be what Martin PC may be referring to, but such a combination of church and state is not something I find taught by Christ or the apostles in the NT. I find not one rule for non-believers in the NT that I am to nag them about. There are teachings for those who believe. Not so with the koran.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
No. Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
A religion having different beliefs than your own does not mean it isn't a religion!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
“With respect to us, briefly, Islam is not a simple religion including only prayers and praises, rather it is a divine message that was designed for humanity, and it can answer any question man might ask concerning his general and personal life. Islam is a religion designed for a society that can revolt and build a community."
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. (Hezbollah Gen Sec)
Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
What troubles me is that it is a religion that is actively hostile. It is essentially an intolerant philosophy.
I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.
Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?
THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
It takes the Old Testament and changes it to suit the Arabs (i.e. Ishmael and NOT Isaac is the son of promise, the one rescued on Moriah) - that means they can oppose Judaism and disrespect it.
It takes the New Testament and removes the cross, saying that Jesus did not die on the cross - that means they can oppose Christianity and disrespect it.
It says that both Old and New Testaments are all false versions of the original and that only Islam is true.
Their anger, hostility and intolerance - all officially sanctioned by their Imams, preachers, scholars, theologians and politicians and presidents(!) as well as the mob in the street (and three was a mob AFAIWC) - is not seen in similar ways within Judaism and Christianity. We do not teach official, enforced conversion and the subjugation of the world, even less do we teach the harrassment of Muslims, Hindus and Jews because they have a different 'faith system' to us.
If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us. But because the word 'militant' is ascribed to it (because that is how it behaves), or the concept of 'jihad' (because that's what it proclaims), it is more than just belief and devotion - this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.
It's about time people woke up to this fact.
And an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.
[ 12. January 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.' You seem to want to judge Islam by the worst bits in their scriptures. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
Firstly, what about Turkey? It's a democratic republic with a mostly Muslim population and a secular tradition. For Turkish Muslims, it seems that there's no difficulty in separating mosque and state. You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the most undemocratic Muslim countries. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
Secodnly, a 'cheep veneer of religiosity'? Considering the genuine spirituality of the Muslims I've known, I find that offensive. How would you feel if the faith of genuine, loving Christians you've known was smeared as a 'a cheep veneer of religiosity'? You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the worst Muslims. Do you judge Christians by the same standard?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I would not be so sure about it Mere Nick. I believe that St Augustine* no less believed there was scriptural warrant for burning heretics. He was using passages such as Matthew 18:9-10 and Luke 14:23.
This is of course repudiated by modern readings, but sometimes when we speak confidently of what others believe we need to remember the ways we too have read the text in the past.
Jengie
* Yes that St Augustine, this is not a dig at Roman Catholics, both sides claimed him at the Reformation
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.'
That would be a valid point if the Christian faith were little more than the pre-exilic writings. it's not. We have the New Testament as well to which the Old Testament was the foundation but not the essence.
Where did Mohammed ever say, 'You have heard it said, but I say unto you...'
The Bible is not one book that says one message all the way through - it is a book of gradual revelation that is seen as a whole through the journey of faith.
Islam needs a 'New Testament'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us.
You talk about "their Islamic intentions" as if all Muslims believed the same thing. Would you talk about Christians in such a pejorative way, in terms of "their Christian intentions", impyling that all Christians support the behaviour of the worst Christians?
You accuse Islam of bullying, intimidation, anger, hatred and intolerance; yet what you describe - getting on with practicising their faith - is exactly what the Muslims I know do. They don't behave aggressively or violently. Do you judge Christianity according to the behaviour of the worst Christians? If not, why the double standard?
You say that 'Islam needs a New Testament'. The Muslims I know have no difficulty in understanding that they should not follow the worst bits of their scriptures or religious teachings - just as Christians don't normally think that the worst bits of the Bible really justify genocide.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.
[...] an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are ideologies within all religions, those ideologies should not be confused with those religions - and, in some cases, those same ideological positions can transcend the boundaries of individual religions.
The desire to establish Islamic nation states where the only acceptable religion is Islam (and, often only one Islamic tradition if the conflicts between Sunni and Shia in many majority Islam countries are a reliable indicator) governed by Sharia law is an ideology. It's an ideology that some Muslims certainly subscribe to (although there would be variants within such an ideology about the exact nature of such a nation state and how to bring such a nation into existence). There is a very large Muslim community who would not subscribe to such an ideology.
A similar ideology would be Zionism, with the desire to establish a purely Jewish nation state. It's an ideology that is shared by some Jews and Christians. It's also an ideology rejected by many Jews, and the majority of Christians.
The situation in the Middle East, and within Palestine/Israel in particular, is primarily a clash of ideologies rather than religions. Attempts to paint it as a religious conflict fail to accurately describe the problems - although many people have made it out to be religious; through intellectual laziness, ignorance or because such a misrepresentation suits the propaganda of their ideological position.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.
Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?
THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
OK, let me get this straight. You were in Hyde Park with a group of Salvationists. Presumably doing what Salvationists, and others, do in Hyde Park - haranguing passers by with statements of what you believe to be true. Many people just walking through the park would find that words like "bully" and "intimidation" would fit all the assorted preachers there.
Why should the Salvation Army be allowed to preach what you believe? Because, if you accept the right of the Salvation Army (or any other Christian individual or group) to preach in Hyde Park why shouldn't that right be extended to Muslims?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
As mine also don't.
This is just prejudice. I daresay there are plenty who would post likewise about Christians. Bizarre, considering Christian history. Some of which is recent.
I'll add that I know Palestinian Muslims who don't fit in Mudfrog's view of Muslims.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Both Mere Nick. All pay lip service to the Golden Rule, but from our behaviour, we hate ourselves: If we treated ourselves as we treat others we'd be extinct. ESPECIALLY the people of the book.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
So something is an ideology if it promotes violence? I have noticed that when Christians want to avoid the nasty bits in the Bible, they tend to treat the Bible as if it was confined to words said by Jesus. I can imagine a Muslim saying 'Christianity is an ideology. Look God's command to kill all the Canaanites in Joshua and the near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 20.' You seem to want to judge Islam by the worst bits in their scriptures. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
The difference between violence in the Bible and the Qur'an is that in the Bible the violence against others is set within certain parameters, in a particular timeframe and against a particular nation/race. In the Qur'an it is not, it is often, if not always, open ended, with no time constraints nor with a specific cause - it is in effect an eternal call to wage violence against anyone and everything to ensurethe submission (Islam of course meaning submission) of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn: quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
Firstly, what about Turkey? It's a democratic republic with a mostly Muslim population and a secular tradition. For Turkish Muslims, it seems that there's no difficulty in separating mosque and state. You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the most undemocratic Muslim countries. Do you judge Christianity by the same standard?
Turkey is not the ideal you hold it up to be, not anymore anyway. The radicalisation and Islamising of Turkey is evident and ongoing, it has under the current leadership reighned back 'secular' nature we like in Western democracies and has begun to promote a more Islamised state. I would be interested to know what 'Christian' countries you rate as oppressive and militant (both physically and ideologically) as say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (that great example of an Islamic 'Israel'), Iran, the manner in which Egypt/Syria is going, people on the streets of Europe and North America who seem able to use freedom of speech to incite violence and hatred (whilst also using the same rules to suppress other people's use of freedom of speech and expression).
quote:
Secodnly, a 'cheep veneer of religiosity'? Considering the genuine spirituality of the Muslims I've known, I find that offensive. How would you feel if the faith of genuine, loving Christians you've known was smeared as a 'a cheep veneer of religiosity'? You seem to want to judge Islam by the behaviour of the worst Muslims. Do you judge Christians by the same standard?
The trouble you face there is the disagreement about who is right, the 'peaceful' Muslim or the 'violent' Muslim - both have very valid arguments from the Qur'an, using the Laws of Abrogation and how later revelations are superior to earlier ones however confuses the issue as does Islam's history which was spread by the sword rather than by people preaching...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... If Islam were a religion they would of course be entitled to it and they would just get on with it within their own culture, society, communities and families like the rest of us.
You talk about "their Islamic intentions" as if all Muslims believed the same thing. Would you talk about Christians in such a pejorative way, in terms of "their Christian intentions", impyling that all Christians support the behaviour of the worst Christians?
You accuse Islam of bullying, intimidation, anger, hatred and intolerance; yet what you describe - getting on with practicising their faith - is exactly what the Muslims I know do. They don't behave aggressively or violently. Do you judge Christianity according to the behaviour of the worst Christians? If not, why the double standard?
You say that 'Islam needs a New Testament'. The Muslims I know have no difficulty in understanding that they should not follow the worst bits of their scriptures or religious teachings - just as Christians don't normally think that the worst bits of the Bible really justify genocide.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... this is a revolutionary movement that wants to bring sharia law to world governments, as well as the worship of Allah to individuals.
[...] an Islamic world contains no Jews and no Christians either - that is the scary part of their Islamic intentions.
My Muslim friends don't want to impose sharia law or Islam on anyone. They don't want to eliminate all Jews or Christians. They don't want to force anyone to convert to a different religion. You're trying to portray all Muslims as if they conformed to the beliefs of the worst extremists.
It's because they are living under and within western values.
I can tell you however that I know of one city council that so ran scared of the Muslim influence and stated intention to create an Islamic 'ghetto' in the city that they banned ALL faith groups, including Christians, from applying for a certain, let's say, 'contract'. They did this because they dared not say an outright 'no' to the Mosque leaders.
In this same city, an on another occasion, the council wanted to do a listening exercise and went to the main Mosque to hear from the elders. They then, in the interests of diversity and equality, asked to speak to the woman of that Muslim community and the elders said 'No! we will tell the women what they think and then we will tell you what they think.'
Do you really believe that in the UK there is no attempt to build and then spread a separate Islamic society? Do you really believe that even ordinary Muslims don't want Sharia law? In which case what about the Muslim Council and all the other bodies that oversee the lives of Muslims outside and in addition to British law?
I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others and are as nominal as the next C of E member. But there are a significant number of devoted Muslims who do indeed want sharia law and Islamic values to be superior to English law.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remember as a trainee Salvation Army officer standing in Hyde park and literally being hemmed-in by three rather forceful young Muslim men who waved a copy in my face of the Athanasian creed (that I not yet studied) and with great of anger accused me of worshipping three gods! It was really quite frightening.
Even if I did worship three or more gods, what gave them the right to do this? What gives them the right to bully me, to intimidate me simply I because I believe something different to what their religion teaches?
THAT is what scares me about the philosophy of Islam.
OK, let me get this straight. You were in Hyde Park with a group of Salvationists. Presumably doing what Salvationists, and others, do in Hyde Park - haranguing passers by with statements of what you believe to be true. Many people just walking through the park would find that words like "bully" and "intimidation" would fit all the assorted preachers there.
Why should the Salvation Army be allowed to preach what you believe? Because, if you accept the right of the Salvation Army (or any other Christian individual or group) to preach in Hyde Park why shouldn't that right be extended to Muslims?
We had been at speaker's corner and, one by one, we had stood for a minute each and given our testimony. It was later on when I was by myself, away from the speakers' stand, that I was approached by these young men.
My point was not that they disagreed with me - a good natured discussion would have been OK, it was the fact they pressed in on me and were extremely threatening and hostile - waving their little booklet in my face. It was not a pleasant experience.
Can you REALLY believe that three Salvationists would approach a young Muslim man in a white robe, surround him in a manner that prevented his walking away, and wave a Koran in his face and start shouting, in unison, about what a false religion Islam was? Really?
And what's more, on a larger scale, can you imagine any church going, mainstream Christians doing this to Muslims?
And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Christians from being 'openly Christian' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Christian services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?
Really?
[ 12. January 2013, 10:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The difference between violence in the Bible and the Qur'an is that in the Bible the violence against others is set within certain parameters, in a particular timeframe and against a particular nation/race.
I don't think that we should get into a 'our scriptures advocate violence less than your scriptures' contest, when our scriptures include (apparent) advocacy of genocide. I remember a Christian speaker (who had tried for years to convert people of other religions to Christianity) who argued that Christians should be cautious about pointing out bad bits of other people's religions, because they can always point at similar bad bits in our religion. Our bad bits are sometimes different in the details, but getting into a 'our bad bits are less bad then yours' contest is doomed to failure, in my view.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Turkey is not the ideal you hold it up to be, not anymore anyway.
I didn't say that Turkey was 'ideal'. I said that it's a democratic republic with a secular tradition. Turkey's example shows that, for many Muslims, there's no problem with separating mosque and state. Yes, it's true that there are people who want to change that secular tradition, but this brings us back to 'judging Islam by the worst Muslims' territory.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I would be interested to know what 'Christian' countries you rate as oppressive and militant (both physically and ideologically) as say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan ...
Just as I'm not interested in getting into a 'your scriptures have more unjustifiable violence than ours' contest, I'm not interested in geting into a 'your human rights violations are worse than others' contest, either. I'm not saying that Christian countries are equally oppressive, or worse, than countries such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I'm saying that Christians - and countries that are officially Christian (like the UK) and largely Christian (like the US) have done bad, violent things - like kidnapping people and taking them to be tortured, in the extraordinary rendition programme.
I'm reminded of a senior judge, Lord Steyn, who said that "In the light of Guantanemo Bay, Abu Graib, Fallujah, the other horrors of the Iraq war, and the continuing relevations about so-called extraordinary rendition - a fancy phrase for kidnapping - the Muslim world may not be over impressed with protestations about the rule of law." In the wake of such events, Muslims may not be over impressed with claims that Islam is inherently violent, whereas Christianity isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The trouble you face there is the disagreement about who is right, the 'peaceful' Muslim or the 'violent' Muslim ...
I don't think I face any difficulty in arguing that we should not judge Muslims by a standard that we would not accept, if applied to Christians. I'm advocating moral consistency and respect for the principle that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us. My Bible doesn't have a footnote under that text, saying that this moral principle doesn't apply to Muslims.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
woops, that final paragraph should have read:
"And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Muslims from being 'openly Muslim' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Muslim services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?"
I had, of course, in my mind the situation in a number of Islamic states where you cannot worship openly or even build a church. And God help you if you convert from being a Muslim (even a non-practicing one) and become a Christian.
When the British government, spurred on by the Archbishop of Canterbury passes a law in the commons, signed by HM The Queen, making it an offence to convert from Christianity to Islam, punishable in the extreme, then I will say that Christians are equal to Islam in intolerance and hostility.
And please don't allow your white Christian son to marry a Muslim girl from Bradford - I can't vouch for their safety. I can't recall hearing of an Anglican family from the local parish sending some relatives round to beat up their Christian sister who has just married a bloke who isn't a communicant in the C of E.
[ 12. January 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Mudfrog: yes, there are some Muslims who want bad things. But there are also many Muslims who disagree with them. Since I don't judge Christianity by the worst Christians, I don't judge Islam by the worst Muslims. To do otherwise would be to accept the claim of the extremists that their beliefs are the real Islam. I don't believe that Christians with extreme views represent the only authentic Christianity; basic moral consistency requires that I treat Muslims in the same way.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others and are as nominal as the next C of E member. But there are a significant number of devoted Muslims who do indeed want sharia law and Islamic values to be superior to English law.
Firstly, my Muslims friends aren't merely 'nominally' Muslim. To treat non-extremists as 'not really Muslim' is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' trap. They don't want to impose sharia law or Islamic values on anyone.
Secondly, I'm reminded of Barnabas62's previous comments about Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's comments that "If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
You seem to believe that the world is 'so simple': any Muslims we know who aren't evil must just be 'nominal' Muslims because (in your view) real Muslims are violent, aggressive people who want to impose their views on others. The world really isn't that simple. There are people who behave violently and aggressively, who want to impose their views on others, in every sufficiently large human group. The problem is not that they're Muslim, or Christian. The problem is that they're human.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you REALLY believe that three Salvationists would approach a young Muslim man in a white robe, surround him in a manner that prevented his walking away, and wave a Koran in his face and start shouting, in unison, about what a false religion Islam was? Really?
I admit, that would not be consistent with the Salvationists I have met and know. I have, however, met Christians (albeit representatives of a very small minority of Christians) who might behave in such a manner.
quote:
And on an even larger scale, can you imagine a Christian society preventing Muslims from being 'openly Muslim' and prosecuting them for worshipping in a place that advertises Muslim services? Can you imagine a Christian society that would refuse Islam permission to carry out its religious practices in buildings that are advertised for that purpose?
I don't need to imagine such a Christian society. All that's needed is to open up history books, and you'll find plenty of examples of Christian societies where Christians persecuted other Christians for worshipping in ways different from that dictated by the state. Even in the UK we still have residual legislation that dates from such dark parts of our history (eg: laws that would prevent a Roman Catholic ascending the throne), and our history is not as bad as some.
From this side of the Atlantic (and, hence liable to be inaccurate) there appear to be elements within the Religious Right in the US who would quite willingly do some of the things you accuse Muslims of wanting to do here. Actively lobbying for the passing of legislation that supports "Christian" positions (eg: on who can marry, whether someone can have an abortion, what gets taught in school science classes) is not, IMO, that different from lobbying for Sharia law.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Indeed, Alwyn.
My Muslims friends were, by the way, people who pray every day.
Portraying all devout Muslims as intolerant or what have you is not only untrue but also plays into the hands of those Muslims, Jews, Sikhs or indeed Atheists who believe Christians themselves to be full of prejudice.
[ 12. January 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I don't think that we should get into ...
Look, I was just correcting some of your factual errors... what you wrote would probably be classed as a mis-representation of the facts.
It's easy just to go, oh but I don't think tit-for-tat is useful, but I was not engaging in tit-for-tat, I was pointing out that you are basing an argument on an unsound premise where you believe that Christianity and islam are coming from a similar background in terms of tradition and scripture, when they are not... at it's basic islam has a great deal of divergence from the Christian foundations which mean that in thought and practice the outcomes are going to be very different...
Yes all should be juged by the golden rule, and I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... I have met a number of Muslims here and you are quite correct - lovely people! Some of them are not as religious as others ...
Firstly, my Muslims friends aren't merely 'nominally' Muslim. To treat non-extremists as 'not really Muslim' is to fall into the 'no true Scotsman' trap. They don't want to impose sharia law or Islamic values on anyone.
Secondly, I'm reminded of Barnabas62's previous comments about Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's comments that "If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
You seem to believe that the world is 'so simple': any Muslims we know who aren't evil must just be 'nominal' Muslims because (in your view) real Muslims are violent, aggressive people who want to impose their views on others.
Maybe you are just as prone to simplifying it as well.
Please read what I wrote again. I did not say that there were only 'extremists' and 'nominals.
'Some of them are not as religious as others' suggests two groups: the 'not as religious' and 'the others' Both of which come under my definition of Muslims I have met. Some are nominal, some are religious.
None of them are extremists.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
]Look, I was just correcting some of your factual errors... what you wrote would probably be classed as a mis-representation of the facts.
You see it as 'correcting errors', I see it as 'trying to move the goalposts'. For example, I said that Turkey has a secular tradition. You argued that there are people who want to change that. While true, your comment doesn't change the fact that Turkey has a secular tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I was not engaging in tit-for-tat, I was pointing out that you are basing an argument on an unsound premise where you believe that Christianity and islam are coming from a similar background in terms of tradition and scripture
Again, to me this looks like an attempt to move the goalposts. My argument doesn't require Christianity and Islam to come from a similar background. It requires that, while there are bad bits in Islamic teachings, there are also bad bits in Christian teachings. That's true. Also, your claim about Islam coming from a different background in terms of scripture sounds dangerously close to treating 'real Islam' as defined by the views of the most extreme, or most conservative, believers. I'm not prepared to do that.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
So you get to define what 'real Islam' is, and say that my Muslim frinds aren't following real Islam? We're back to the 'no true Scotsman' probem. I could only agree that my Muslim friends' faith 'would be more reflective of Christianity' if I was prepared to essentialise Islam as intrinsically bad, and Christianity as intrinsically good. I'm not prepared to do that - that's not reality.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Most self declared Christian are nominal and most non-nominal are extremist. Exclusive way beyond any biblical-apostolic mandate to damnationist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This came up recently for discussion. For people where I live, it is an armchair and distant discussion, as the representation of the two religions is extremely sparse (Judaism, Muslim). The point was made that the Palestinians need to have their standard of living raised, and that the neighbouring countries of Arabs, and the Palestinian country of Jordan are vested in not doing this, so as to have the non-democratic government despots remain in power, and to keep the demon of Israel as the projected enemy.
The further discussion was that Israel is really a tiny space and the sacrifice that is being asked of the Palestinians is rather small in terms of territory, much less onerous than say Treaty 11 or Treaty 6, and all the others, which were about the surrender of First Nations lands to Britain/ Canada.
The point was further made that there had to be something in it for the First Nations peoples, in terms of services from the government. money, and ongoing nature of relationship which is again being pressed for negotiation though without violence. There was also a coercive aspect in that without the surrender the people stood the distinct chance of dispersal and disappearance. I'm not trying to be inflammatory with these comments, but that's the Canadian parallel. Though I don't think we can call the Palestinians "aboriginal peoples" and thus, the comparison probably fails there.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.
What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.
This hot war (which has been continuous since the Palestine Arab revolt circa 1937 to date) is occasionally overt, but is always there; like the ''cold war'' between the USSR and the West from 1947 to 1990. In it's cold form it has been around for a long long time.
It's roots are political but they are also strongly religious. There is a clash of culture, faith and ideology.
As this thread and any others posted on the Ship of a similar nature, views are strongly held by all ''sides''.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... I applaud those muslims that have managed to do away with what are fundamental commands in their scriptures and live lives that would be more reflective of Christianity, but from all my study and teaching, I cannot accept that they are faithfully following the Qur'an and Surahs and the teachings contained within...
So you get to define what 'real Islam' is, and say that my Muslim frinds aren't following real Islam? We're back to the 'no true Scotsman' probem. I could only agree that my Muslim friends' faith 'would be more reflective of Christianity' if I was prepared to essentialise Islam as intrinsically bad, and Christianity as intrinsically good. I'm not prepared to do that - that's not reality.
There is another religious book, full of violence and intolerance. Now, what was its name? I'm certain I've heard it referenced 'round here quite a bit....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.
What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.
That is quite a chilling prediction to make - and is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Another Bosnia, another Rwanda is not impossible.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It is rational to say there will (eventually) be a solution to the ongoing war between Israel and it's neighbours.
What that solution is who knows; I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, there will be a solution to the Jewish problem/ question, but that has echoes of another era.
That is quite a chilling prediction to make - and is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Another Bosnia, another Rwanda is not impossible.
Of course some would predict an axis of nations would decide to ''sort Israel out'' once and for all.
I shudder to predict anything.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So they wouldn't mind the nuclear consequences? There must be a point on a graph somewhere where Israeli Arabs and Druze outnumber Jews. What an interesting time that will be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Interestingly the Jewish population of Israel has grown and by international standards is still very small, it reached six million mark in 2012.
See here.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/israel-jewish-population-six-million
The existential threats to Israel do exist and will continue to exist for a while to come IMHO. Solutions of any kind seem a very long way off.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sadly, and in another context, W H Auden was on the money when he wrote:
'I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.'
The Jewish settlers who flocked to Israel after WW2 had suffered great evil. Sadly, they also perpetuated great evil - on a smaller scale, of course - committing massacres and atrocities in several Palestinian villages.
But evil is evil and atrocities are atrocities by whichever side they are committed.
Violence breeds violence. There is a cycle of it here as we've seen cycles of it elsewhere.
Israel is surrounded by some pretty scarey enemies. If extreme Islamicists carry the day in Syria then I dread to think what might happen.
But there are people of goodwill and people working for peace and justice on all sides.
There are also bizarre things on both sides too. I recently saw an Israeli/Zionist website which was trumpeting about a Muslim Zionist - a Muslim who had come to reject the prevailing Islamic view and who was apparently singing the praises of Israel as a warm, welcoming multicultural state ...
All these things are relative. Mudfrog is right to observe that there is precious little freedom of religion in some strict Islamic states. But Islam is not monolithic, and there are nuances.
It strikes me that the big problem isn't Islam, Judaism or Christianity - but fundamentalism. It consistently demonises the 'other' and cannot accept or tolerate any point of view other than its own. In different ways this is as true of Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.
I'm terrified right now of the US Christian Right being seduced by the siren voices of the extreme right. It is 'Christian' to bear guns, it is 'Christian' to oppose welfare reforms ... it is 'Christian' to support Israel whatever happens.
I believe that Israel has a right to exist - and the best solution to work towards is one where it can somehow co-exist with its neighbours ... how we achieve that, I have no idea. But it must be the ideal to work towards.
I don't see what solution Mudfrog has up his sleeve - other than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
Of course, we should make a stand against evil ideologies. But as Islam is neither evil nor an ideology, the target of our denouncements needs to be elsewhere.
And, of course, if we're going to make a stand against evil we need to start by making sure we're clearly making a stand against evil within our own societies. Something about taking the log out of our own eye before addressing the speck in another.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...[O]ther than to denounce Islam. What does that achieve?
So it's pointless to denounce evil ideologies? Really?
Of course, we should make a stand against evil ideologies. But as Islam is neither evil nor an ideology, the target of our denouncements needs to be elsewhere.
And, of course, if we're going to make a stand against evil we need to start by making sure we're clearly making a stand against evil within our own societies. Something about taking the log out of our own eye before addressing the speck in another.
No society is perfect and in a democracy any disagreement with a policy can be corrected by the will of the people at the next local/national election. Does the UK promote or use 'evil' means?
I don't think so. You might disagree with a social policy or an injustice that you perceive is promoted or left unrectified, but I hardly think DC and his cabinet are deliberately and openly pursuing the kind of things as official policy that we see in repressive Islamic states.
Islamic law is intolerant and Islamic states DO pursue intolerant policies.
There is no separation between religion and state in these countries, hence the huge difficulties and the blanket application of Qu'ranic standards and sharia law.
People say that here in the UK there is also no separation between church and state. The difference is that the Church of England is NOT the ruling party and there are no clerics in our Government/Cabinet/House of Commons who are making laws according to any strict interpretation of the Torah.
Any clerics we do have in the establishment are seated firmly in the House of Lords, which is merely a revising/advising body, and they sit almost in a chaplaincy role.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If we're going to start denouncing evil ideologies, like Jesus, we should start with our own.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
No. Jesus didn't tell me to fight others until they die, convert, or pay me protection money as a sign of being under submission to me.
There appears to not be a separation of mosque and state in Islam so it is an ideology. Wrapped in a cheap veneer of religiosity, sure, but an ideology.
A religion having different beliefs than your own does not mean it isn't a religion!
No, of course not. But there is far more to it than that and that is why Islam is a dangerous ideology.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Far less dangerous than Christianity, to which it has always been a reaction.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does the UK promote or use 'evil' means?
Of course the UK does. We participate in a global economic system that oppresses, practically to the point of enslaving, less prosperous nations and individuals. Though there may have been some justification for action in Iraq and Afganistan, our actions have been far from perfect - and in some cases 'evil' is an appropriate word to use. We have supported other nations in their actions which have been as bad as our own, sometimes worse. There are evils continuing to be perpetrated by our government, there are more that were perpetrated in our name by the predessors of the current government.
If we consider that in a hypothetical binary "us" vs "them" our side also includes the nation state of Israel then we also need to address the evils conducted by the Israeli government and its predecessors. We can't just say that the actions of some radical Muslims are evil if we don't also say that the actions of others are also evil: those who engaged in terrorism; eviction of peaceful and innocent people from the homes and farms that they have lived in for generations; restrictions on movement that stop innocent peaceful people from visiting relatives, attending school or work, getting to hospital when ill, getting their goods to market.
We can't condemn the actions of a minority of Islamic radicals without at least acknowledging how far from perfect the actions of those on "our side" are, and preferably standing against those evils as strongly (if not more strongly) than we stand against the evils of others.
[oops, left in a section of the quote]
[ 14. January 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Islam is a dangerous ideology.
I think what you mean to say is that Islam is a religion that includes some ideologies that you consider to be dangerous.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Islam is a dangerous ideology.
I think what you mean to say is that Islam is a religion that includes some ideologies that you consider to be dangerous.
Yes. A religion/iedology that says I'm to be fought against until I convert, die or pay protection money as a sign of submission is very dangerous.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again, get your own house in order.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm all for taking planks out of our own eyes and so on but I'm not sure that's pertinent to the question I asked ... which is what do we DO about the situation in Israel other than to denounce Islam - as Mudfrog and Enders' Shadow seem to be doing - or to denounce 'the West' or 'the USA' or 'the UK' or whoever else.
The issue, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of any particular religious belief, is surely how we can work towards a peaceful solution - or as peaceful a solution as we are ever likely to get.
Is it education? Is it negotiation?
Simply fulminating and spouting off about how nasty 'they' are as opposed to how nice 'we' are - whoever the we or the they are in each case - doesn't get us very far.
So Mudfrog encountered some nasty Muslims in Hyde Park? I'm sure I could introduce you to some nasty Muslims near here and some nice Muslims near here.
That's not the point.
The point is that we have Muslims in the Middle-East, we have Jews in the Middle-East, we have Christians in the Middle-East, we have people of no faith or all manner of faiths in the Middle-East. We have seemingly entrenched and intractable issues on all sides. How do we prevent the powder-keg from exploding?
Israel isn't going to vote itself out of existence. Neither are some of the more radical Islamists going to desist from calling for its destruction.
Somewhere, between those poles, we have to find somewhere to stand.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm all for taking planks out of our own eyes and so on but I'm not sure that's pertinent to the question I asked ... which is what do we DO about the situation in Israel other than to denounce Islam - as Mudfrog and Enders' Shadow seem to be doing - or to denounce 'the West' or 'the USA' or 'the UK' or whoever else.
...
Israel isn't going to vote itself out of existence. Neither are some of the more radical Islamists going to desist from calling for its destruction.
Somewhere, between those poles, we have to find somewhere to stand.
I think the taking out of planks from ones own eye is important. Because, as you note, any solution has to come from between the extremes. And, I believe, those moderates who will have to find some solution (and, perhaps even harder, sell it to the extremists on their own side) are going to have to start by admitting the faults on their side. It's going to need Israeli's admitting that it was wrong to forcibly evict Palestinians from their homes, and for Arabs to admit that it was wrong to attempt to destroy the state of Israel by force. And, admit fault in the whole catalogue of wrongs since the mid 40s onwards.
In Northern Ireland, South Africa and other places the first steps to peace happened when moderates started to refuse to allow the shouted voices of the minority extremists to be the only ones heard. It takes moderates to stand up, and often take a risk in doing so, and be heard - and to start talking with those on the other side. Later there will need to be some process towards reconcilliation and justice (as there has been elsewhere), but we need to start by talking and being honest with each other as we talk.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Again, get your own house in order.
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.
To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.
[ 14. January 2013, 14:38: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.
To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.
Again, you get to be treated as an individual while all muslims are treated as one entity. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't know a single muslim who is engaged in war against me. Despite having a large number of muslim friends I have never once been threatened with death if I refuse to convert, or had protection money demanded from me.
At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East. Who is warring against whom, again?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
As I attempt to get my house in order please provide a list of those I am warring against, demanding they either convert, die, or pay me protection money as a symbol they are in submission to me.
To the best of my knowledge I've been trying to just pound sand and let other folks live their lives.
Again, you get to be treated as an individual while all muslims are treated as one entity.
I don't know a single muslim who is engaged in war against me. Despite having a large number of muslim friends I have never once been threatened with death if I refuse to convert, or had protection money demanded from me.
At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East. Who is warring against whom, again?
You are making the mistake I often see made in response to questioning Islam. You think I am attack the believers. I attack the belief.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You make the mistake of not attacking your own.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At the same time, bloodthirsty armies from Christian and Jewish nations have been invading, killing and torturing across a significant amount of the Middle East.
But only if you go back to the crusades and earlier...
To equate the USA, UK, France, Germany, NATO, the UN, the Arab League infact since they sanctioned the Libya thing as well... with 'Christian' nations is a mistake... the nations you describe are nominally Christian and did not go to war in teh name of Christ...
You are also arguing that 'Christian nations' (which is a disengenious term and one that cannot be held to be supportive of any country I can think of, except maybe the Vatican...) are going on religious wars whilst Mere Nick is talking about individuals, there seems to be an attempt to divert attention away from the issue you have in your argument that the level of violence, misogyny, intolerance etc. advocated and practiced by large numbers of muslims across the world cannot be exactly compared to actions by Christians around the world, since the number of Christians that get anywere near the rhetoric and actions of the muslims Mere Nick is pointign you to is infinately smaller.
I would also draw your attention to a verse in the Qur'an which stipulates it is ok to lie to non-muslims in an attempt to spread islam and shariah...
[ 14. January 2013, 15:49: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
