The most depressing "conversation" I've had in a while

[Mr. Harley]

Even more amusingly one of the original tenants the Baptists had was individual study and understanding of the Bible, often through a group with a minister for guidance and help but still aimed at the individual and their understanding of scripture. This was in part a result of the centralized pronouncements of the Church of England which were forced on everyone in Britian at the time, in the same good traditions of most centralized authority churches.

Secondly, having read large portions of the Koran (Penguin translation, I have a new one I need to read) it is more intolerant of any non-Old Testament religion than Christianity, and also definitively more violent. Sharia as codified takes the intolerance even further, and specificies that no Moslem should be under the authority of a non-Moslem, however it is righteous and proper that Moslems should hold authority over those who are non-Moslem. It's not that Christianity doesn't have it's problems, I live in the Bible Belt of the USA and I suspect some of you have caught my debates with BK. However, what we define as fundamentalist among Christianity would be moderate for modern Islam.

Thirdly, modern history show Islam doesn't play well with neighbors. If you look at the conflicts in the last generation (25 years) you will find Islam is involved in around 80% on one side or both. Since Moslems are about 1/6th the world population, that is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than random chance. There are a variety of reasons, but one is very clearly that a significant minority in Islam are both intolerant and violent about their intolerance. Until Islam chooses to put it's house in order, and rein in the zealots, like Christianity mostly did after religious/political wars between Christians almost depopulated parts of Europe (look at Germany) they are going to, as a faith, have credibility problems.

[Agathon]

Think that's funny. I did a University course on the Bible and Homer. Basically a course on reading ancient texts and ancient literary methods. I've forgotten most of it.

Apart from me, who took it to study the Odyssey, the rest of the class were all Christians. We had to write an analysis and commentary on a short piece of Biblical text. I chose Jonah and the Whale. Anyway, I think I got an A- for it (the professor objected to my "modernist rationalizing" or something like that).

However, the next class he announced that almost everyone would have to redo and resubmit the paper. He said that almost everyone had submitted a religious rant and that half the class had spent the paper attacking the Jews.

What's funny is that the Professor was Jewish, and obviously so. He was a great connoisseur of Jewish jokes and made several references to his Barmitzvah and other Jewish religious observances he had attended as a boy. I nearly wet myself. These fools had spent hours composing vitriolic pieces of anti-semitism completely unaware of the fact the professor was Jewish. Even better - he didn't tell them even after that.

[Jaguar]

Re: The most depressing "conversation" I've had in a while

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen The next 20 minutes was filled with condemnations of the violence of Islam

Oh, no! Condemnations of violence! May God have mercy on us all!


More seriously, I don't doubt that there were a good number of idiot Christians in your class. And their arguments weren't very good, etc. But condemning violence in itself isn't a bad thing. If it is, then what sort of world do we live in?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Thirdly, modern history show Islam doesn't play well with neighbors. If you look at the conflicts in the last generation (25 years) you will find Islam is involved in around 80% on one side or both. Since Moslems are about 1/6th the world population, that is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than random chance.

Actually if you look at relative numbers, that is you factor in the population of a religion with violent incedents, then surprisingly Jews come out well ahead. This is of course to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. So number can be decieving.

Of course the chances of being taught, and having your papers graded by a Muslim scholar is significantly lower, so hedging your bets in propagandizing against Islam seems like a good idea.(See Agathons post above for clarification)

[Mr. Harley]

Tripledoc, there are Jewish minorities in many other countries though, with no accompanying violence. However, Judaism has an advantage if you want to call it that. Due to Zionism, the ultra-Orthodox, and the current political/constitutional structure of Israel, the Holy Land has served as a magnet for many, if not the majority, of radical and intolerant Jews. This is a topic that I watch with interest, due to it's effects on US politics, military history, geopolitical develpments, and the fact that my wife, and therefore my daughter, are Jewish (it's the matrilineal thing ). If you've caught my arguments with some of our fellow Isreali posters, you'll know that I cut them no more slack than I'll cut BK.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Actually if you look at relative numbers, that is you factor in the population of a religion with violent incedents, then surprisingly Jews come out well ahead. This is of course to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. So number can be decieving.

But those conflicts are ONLY with Muslims, leading to the conclusion that perhaps the Jews are responsible for the existance of many or all of those conflicts

EDIT: I said that wrong, I meant leading to the conclusion that the Jews AREN'T responsible for those

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, the conflicts (yes, I caught your wink ) include with fellow Muslims, secularists, Christians, Jews, Communists (is the PRC still communist, well whatever they are), animists, dictators, and democratically elected governments. They also include the third worst war in the 20th century (casualties wise) - the Iran/Iraq war. Most people don't realize it was that bloody, both sides kept the press out. Of course it may come from that little bit about it being fine for Muslims to be in charge over non-Muslims, but you can't have non-Muslims in charge of Muslims. The non-Muslims typically don't agree with that logic. Between Muslims it's the entire heresy bit - Shia, Sunni, Sufi - and there it gets REALLY ugly.

[Kuciwalker]

Sorry, that was a type - I mean that the Jews AREN'T responsible.

[Tripledoc]

My view on socalled 'Muslim' resistance.

Actually, I think that the resistance to foreign occupation has more to do with nationalism, or pride. There is no Muslim nationalism, or pan-arab nationalism. Note how Middle East leaders routinely refer to eachother as monkeys, lackays or crazies. The Arab league is notorious for basicly being a club, where people ***** at eachother. When Saddam in 1991 wanted recompensation from the Kuwaiti, the Emir (or was it his son? I forget) said to the Iraqi delegation, that if they needed money they could send their daughters and wives into the streets to prostitute themselves. That sparked the invasion. Also there is a great deal of racism. For instance the Saudis are generally considered to be horny drunkards. The Egyptians routinely make the black southern Nubian population the butt of their jokes. If Muslims are anti-semitic it should be seen in the light that speech on such matters in general is very permissive.

However, when an outside force begins to behave obnoxiously, there is nothing better than to strike that pan-Muslim chord and make everyone feel like they are one happy nation. That same feeling should be familiar to Americans.

And of course when this nationalism is aroused, religion helps to underpin it, and strengthen it. This is true when it is looked at historically. When Nasser closed the Suez canal that was the first time nationalism in the Muslim world made its effects felt. And then came Arafat, and Saddam both of whom were carried away by nationalist sentiment. I would even say that the Iranian revolution was to a large extent a nationalist uprising against someone the people considered a foreign controlled puppet, of course coupled with a social revolution along fundamentalist lines. I even doubt that Osama bin Laden would be demanding the removal of American forces from Saudi territory were it not for a rising tide of homegrown nationalism in Saudi Arabia.
So nationalism is the prime motivating factor.

Many of the problems with integration in Europe is not so much a problem of colliding religions, as one of different perceptions of culture, and nationalist sentiment. Blood feuds and female circumcison are not elements of Islam, but of locally derived culture. Anti-semitic attacks by Palestinians against Jews in Europe has an obvious connection to the situation in Palestine, and thus is not mainly a religious conflict.

Like European nationalism, Arab nationalism is underpinned and strenghtened by religion, but religion is not the main cause of the violence. However, maybe Islam has more concise or precise doctrines which can be used for the purpose of nationalism. So one can of course study the Koran, and heap evidence on the bonfire, that Islam is the root of all evil - but I would say that this is an overly positivist exercise in hermaneutics.

[Kirnwaffen]

Oh, no! Condemnations of violence! May God have mercy on us all!

I should have said that better. What I meant was they condemned Islam as the root cause of the violence and as supporting that violence, when that is not, generally speaking, the case. The violence we tend to associate with Islam typically has much more to do with politics than anything the Koran has to say.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
However, what we define as fundamentalist among Christianity would be moderate for modern Islam.

I really don't understand this, but I guess it depends on what you define as modern Islam.

Certainly, the three million American Muslims should be considered "modern"; and do not appear to me to be particularly "fundamentalist".

Thirdly, modern history show [b]Islam doesn't play well with neighbors.[b] If you look at the conflicts in the last generation (25 years) you will find Islam is involved in around 80% on one side or both. Since Moslems are about 1/6th the world population, that is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than random chance. There are a variety of reasons, but one is very clearly that a significant minority in Islam are both intolerant and violent about their intolerance. Until Islam chooses to put it's house in order, and rein in the zealots, like Christianity mostly did after religious/political wars between Christians almost depopulated parts of Europe (look at Germany) they are going to, as a faith, have credibility problems.

Well, as far as reasons, I would suggest that their ideals are very different from the west, and they resist being co-opted by foreign interests. Is the "conflict" in Iraq really Islam's fault? Saddam is far less a Muslim than Dubya is a Christian, IMO.

I would suggest also that Islam is involved in the vast majority of third world nations; and that >80% of "conflicts" occur in third world nations.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: The most depressing "conversation" I've had in a while

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Christianity is this great religion without any problems, and how people who aren't Christian are going to hell.

Well, this bit is true.

[GePap]

80% since 1989?

Interestingly, this is after the end of the Cold War...so I guess if you made it the last 50 years, islam would loose that lead rapidly. And sicne the Koran has not changed in at least 1000 years (if one assumes there are periodic rewrites) and Sharia law has no changed dramatically in the last 500, the last 25 year uptick of violence must be explained by something other than the religion itself as is.

So again, islam itself hardly seem the independent variable here.

[Jac de Molay]

Go to church, eat your Wheaties, don't step on sidewalk cracks or wash spiders down the plughole, and you are cleared for takeoff, baby....

I don't think Islam itself is violent. And considering how violent, vitriolic, and mysogynistic the Bible is, I don't think anyone has the right to dole out huge descriptions of religions one way or the other.

HOWEVER, I think the religion at this point in time is losing the battle against fundamentalism and extremism, and needs a major paradigm shift. I'm not confident that will happen in the near future.

[Jac de Molay]

Edit for severe brainfart