| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 2:41:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by UnknownSubject
Terrahawk - if one were also to follow the Bible in the strictest sense, you would arguably be a Christian who would not be compatible with the values of "the West". Religious freedom is automatically denied by the first commandment - "I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall have no other gods but me" - which removes any ability of "the West" to allow other religions to exist under it. Other parts of the bible can be used to justify slavery, stonings of those who break the law and potentially a lot of other things that "the West" would find repugnant. However, only the most fundamentalist Christian sees this as the way to go; most people of "the West" do not subscribe to such extreme interpretations of the Bible.
I won't deny, simply because it would be a lie, that at times Biblical texts have been used in the manner in which you describe. However, it usually happens when you take one part of the Bible and ignore the rest. Historically, you have to look at Western development as the attempt to find the balance between individual rights and responsibilities. This comes from the appreciation that their are two realms, the City of Man and the City of God. Hence, why in the Declaration of Independence, our rights are declared as coming from God and not from man. But, the government of man has the duty to defend those rights. This balancing act is what has created the West. The West has messed up at times, but overall it's created a society that is more free and dynamic than any ever seen before.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Christians can force others to convert. The first commandment, therefore, would apply to Jews and Christians, not non-believers. Freedom of conscience is basic Christian tenet, although that has not been generally followed at times.
quote:
In a similar fashion, a lot of Muslims in "the West" do not subscribe to the extreme interpretation of the Koran - it is the groups with fundamentalist / extremist principles that are the concern. To tar every Muslim with the same brush because al Queda considers itself a Muslim group is unfair, and would be much like using the KKK as a reference point when talking about Christians. (Also noted: I made the first mention of al Queda, not you.)
Here's the question, can you show that al-Qaeda is not following the Islamic tenets of Jihad? I used to follow the same thinking that in general, Islam followed the basic precepts of the other world religions. However, the more I looked, the less that has turned out to be the case. Muslims like to say that the texts being quoted are being taken out of context. The more you dive into it though, the more you see that the context makes it look worse.
I'm not tarring all Muslims as evil. However, they are following an ideology that is evil, Islam. They are either cafeteria Muslims, ignorant of the text beyond the basics, or know what it says and don't act on it.
quote:
Finally, every time different cultural groups meet, the idea that "they'll never integrate because they are too different" is always raised. It was said about the Irish, about freed black slaves, about Jews, about the Japanese etc etc. The thing is, these groups did become part of "the great melting pot". Muslims are now the subject of this line of discussion due to the acts of a small minority attracting attention towards Islamic followers. Thing is, lots of Muslims have already integrated with "the West" and to paint them as being a problem because they have beliefs that are "too different" is just unfair.
In some cases, groups can integrate. But, just because some groups can integrate does not mean that all groups can integrate. The Germanic tribes didn't integrate too well with the Roman Empire. German in Czechslovkia didn't integrate too well in that country which is why they were all kicked out after WWII (over one million). Any integration is hard and I will say most times impossible. Let's look at evidence from today. Show me one country where Muslims, in any significant numbers, have integrated well. In Bangladesh they are beheading Buddhist monks. Indian Hindus suffer from violence with Muslims. In Indonesia, where they are the majority, they are burning down churches and beheading school girls. (Beheading comes from the Koran by the way.) Nowhere, where Muslims are significant proportion of the population, is there peaceful coexistence. Throwing out deep discussion of religious theory, that right there should tell you something.
BTW, thanks for the reply. I enjoy these types of discussions.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
 |
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 11:01:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
Historically, you have to look at Western development as the attempt to find the balance between individual rights and responsibilities. This comes from the appreciation that their are two realms, the City of Man and the City of God. Hence, why in the Declaration of Independence, our rights are declared as coming from God and not from man. But, the government of man has the duty to defend those rights. This balancing act is what has created the West. The West has messed up at times, but overall it's created a society that is more free and dynamic than any ever seen before.
I agree on your final point (and I'll ignore the fact you are really talking about the US here; I can't think of any other democracies that have a Declaration of Independence off the top of my head) but take the view that democratic society is "more free and dynamic "than any ever seen before" because it separates church and state. People who live in these societies follow the laws of Man, which are flexible and adaptable, rather than the laws laid out in a book that is thousands of years old.
quote:
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Christians can force others to convert. The first commandment, therefore, would apply to Jews and Christians, not non-believers. Freedom of conscience is basic Christian tenet, although that has not been generally followed at times.
I'm fairly sure that somewhere in the Bible is a passage that promotes evangelism of the Christain faith (I had a look but couldn't find one specifically) and I agree that Jesus didn't say, "Make everyone follow my word!". However, this lack of direct commandment hasn't stopped a lot of people being made to worship and convert to Christianity by those who were in power (eg pretty much any indigenous people living in a land the English colonised). Or people being discriminated against because they aren't Christian or the 'right' kind of Christian.
Also, although there are definitely arguments that support the commandments only applying to those of the faith, you could also find a lot of arguments supporting the idea that since God is the One True God, then His Word applies to all people.
quote:
Here's the question, can you show that al-Qaeda is not following the Islamic tenets of Jihad?
They are following their twisted interpretation of their religion, in much the same way that the KKK twist Christian teachings to justify their beliefs.
quote:
quote:
Finally, every time different cultural groups meet, the idea that "they'll never integrate because they are too different" is always raised.
In some cases, groups can integrate. But, just because some groups can integrate does not mean that all groups can integrate. The Germanic tribes didn't integrate too well with the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire invaded. Using military strength to hold a foreign country is probably the worst way of trying to integrate it into another culture.
quote:
German in Czechslovkia didn't integrate too well in that country which is why they were all kicked out after WWII (over one million).
That was another military invasion. Once the war was over, the 'oppressors' got the boot.
quote:
Any integration is hard and I will say most times impossible.
I agree that it is difficult, but it's not impossible. Given time, patience and acceptance, groups from difficult culture backgrounds do integrate. Now, the further apart the original cultures were to begin with, the longer it can take, but provided both (or all, depending on the number) sides are mostly willing to work together, then integration can occur.
quote:
Let's look at evidence from today. Show me one country where Muslims, in any significant numbers, have integrated well.
Turkey is a secular, democratic Muslim society. Now, it is a country that has had a variety of troubles in its past (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3192647.stm), but is often seen as the best example of a progressive Muslim nation that is integrating into the West.
quote:
In Bangladesh they are beheading Buddhist monks. Indian Hindus suffer from violence with Muslims. In Indonesia, where they are the majority, they are burning down churches and beheading school girls. (Beheading comes from the Koran by the way.) Nowhere, where Muslims are significant proportion of the population, is there peaceful coexistence. Throwing out deep discussion of religious theory, that right there should tell you something.
I can dig up Christain atrocities versus non-Christains , or even Christian versus Christain violence on the large scale (eg Rwanda). Or Hindu versus Hindu violence. In many cases, such acts are due to a number of different factors, with religion being only part of the equation.
But all of this gets away from the issue of Islamic followers versus Islamic extremists. I do not believe that Islam is inherently evil, but that some of its interpretations are, in much the same way that other religion have adherents who follow the most extreme interpretations of the source material. Being a Muslim doesn't make you evil; strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing innocent civilians in some perverse form of matyrdom is.
quote:
BTW, thanks for the reply. I enjoy these types of discussions.
I enjoy the discussion too, but feel we aren't really going to sway each other with our arguments. Plus, I really want to know:
Why DID the radical Christian group take over the mosque? Did anyone watch it?
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - "Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD" |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 03:41:39 AM
|
Maybe presenting ones view (or argument)for your position here may not persuade someone with a differing point of view to change their mind, but it is cool that nobody on this board is going ape because someone is expressing their views.
Rob |
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 07:22:29 AM
|
US, if I remember correctly, I believe the Netherlands has a similar document dating from the 1600's. And, while most Western countries do not have a DOI like the U.S., they have come to the same conclusion.
People who live in these societies follow the laws of Man, which are flexible and adaptable, rather than the laws laid out in a book that is thousands of years old.
Yes and no. Societies rely on, as Bramford Parkes describes it in Gods and Men, myths (i.e. religion) to bind a society together. These common beliefs are necessary otherwise societies either collapse or turn into totalitarian regimes. The laws of men have to rely on some commonly held beliefs otherwise they are just based on who is in power and can change when those in power change. Also, Christianity doesn't impose much in the way of dress codes, dietary laws, etc. Just because something was considered moral 1000 years ago doesn't mean it isn't moral today. Finally, this is why integration is difficult, especially for people with radically different religions. The groups have different core concepts.
Evangelism, spreading the word of Christianity, is not coercion. It does not say, if they don't convert kill them or make them submissive, like Islam. This isn't to say that is hasn't happened though. I am saying that it isn't a core belief that can be found in the Bible to forcibly convert. One theory, is that a lot of the forced conversion dogma came about for two reasons. Early on it was due to the continuing belief that people were subject to the state (it takes time to change societal beliefs) and later it was in due to contact with Islam which has those beliefs built into it. In that case it was kind of taking on one of the aspects of you enemy. Obviously, there are other theories as to why.
The KKK though doesn't have major religious leaders backing their interpretation. Al-Qaeda does have the backing of several major imams in the Islamic world. The point still stands though that if they have twisted the texts, then it should be easy to refute them. Then most Muslims could easily denounce what they say. I have yet to see any detailed rebuttal. I would like to see one as I could breathe a lot easier then.
Actually, the Romans stopped at the Rhine. Migrations into Roman territory and not conquests were what helped cause the collapse.
The people the Czechs deported had lived there for several generations. I'm sure the majority had no problem living under Czech rule and it was only the minority that agitated for German rule. They, the majority, had nothing to do with the German invasion. Are group deportations okay then after a war and not before? If you can avert a war by deporting the threat earlier is that immoral?
Ah Turkey where every imam is trained by the state, every sermon is approved and monitored by the state, and all Islamic activities are managed by the state. The only reason Turkey is the way it is is because the state uses draconian measures to control and suppress Islam. Even with that, they are barely able to maintain control and the military has staged several coups over the years to maintain their secularism. What Turkey demonstrates is that the only way Islam can operate in a secular society is for that society to absolutely control it.
It's not the violence, it's why the violence is happening. The Rwandan violence was tribal warfare and had nothing to do with Christianity. Muslim violence though is being propogated by Islamic tenets of jihad.
Being a Muslim doesn't make you evil; strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing innocent civilians in some perverse form of matyrdom is.
Considering that no Jew in Israel is considered an innocent civilian under Islamic law, that allows the bombings to continue. Islam is a serious us-vs-them ideology and it you aren't under their control, you can't be considered innocent.
I didn't see the show so I can't say why they did it.
This is the last I'll post on the subject. Thanks for your replies and I yield the floor to you for a final post.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 8:31:47 PM
|
Unfortunately, I'm very busy at the moment (which sounds like a big cop out of the argument, I know) and will be for a while. So instead of going point for point, I'm going to the original argument of integration vs segregation.
Segregation of Muslims to outside of "the West" will do nothing to stop the violence caused by Muslim groups. In many ways, it will create more problems, as there will be hard proof that the Christian West discriminates against the entire religion of Islam. This seems to me to be a situtation that wouldn't take much to kindle the fire of a religious war (which certain sections on both sides wouldn't be opposed to).
Integration, on the other hand, does offer the opportunity for both sides to see the people concerned as people, not idealogues. Although it isn't an easy path and takes a long time, tensions will ease as the various populations get into the habit of living with each other rather than trying to oppose each other all the time.
Islam may, as stated in the Koran, appear to be a more difficult target for integration. However, I take the view that almost all formal religion, if taken at its written word, has the same problem. The Word of God shouldn't be particularly accommodating, or else what's the point of following one religion over another if all are equally valid?
It's one of the reasons today that Christian Right groups launch court battles about things that would appear to be protected in the US Constitution - because they take certain sections of the Bible, as written, to be absolute. However, I think that such groups represent minority opinion (or perhaps a collection of minority opinons, given the weird collaborations of groups that get behind some proposals). The majority of people just want to get along.
I agree that Islam and Christianity are at different points in their development. Christianity has had several hundred years of influence by outside societies, by secular democracy and, most recently, by global capitalism. Islam, on the other hand, has tended to be dominated by more closed societies, where large piles of money have been recently available (through oil et al sales) for those in control. Keeping Islam locked into those closed societies isn't going to improve the problem of global terrorism - in fact, it will likely only make things worse.
The only way forward is to open up Islam to the opportunities that secular democracy offers through integration into the West, both within countries and between nations. This will not be easy to do and will take time, but it is the best way to long-term decrease the chances of terrorist attacks on the West. Segregation only dooms us to more of the same.
Finally, I also think that only looking at religion oversimplifies this issue quite a bit. There are a lot of other factors at play, some of which stem from religion certainly, but quite a few that don't (for example: economics, natural resource allocation, other cultural influences, etc).
Hmm... and I was going to keep this short ;-)
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - "Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD" |
|
|
|
John Nowak
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1017 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 5:11:12 PM
|
I'm pretty much in agreement with Unknown Subject. During World War II, there were fairly serious policy arguments over whether or Germany and Japan should be permitted to be industrial states after the war. That looks downright foolish now.
"Can Muslims integrate?" Of course they can. They have, by the millions. I've worked with at least three and that was never an issue. Being Muslim is not, and never has been, an issue as far as I'm concerned. Wanting to blow me up is.
----------
We've always been united in stupidity. That's why there is no hope. But, then again, when has that ever stopped us?
-- hbrennan |
|
|
|
Desslar
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 02:29:27 AM
|
Wow, there are some surprisingly offensive anti-Muslim sentiments being expressed here.
No religion is superior to any other. We have to respect each other to get along. And no, that sure don't come easy.
Someone said Hollywood would never depict Jewish terrorists. Actually, I believe the upcoming film Munich shows Israeli agents engaging in vigilante justice. Not having seen it yet, I don't know exactly what the angle is.
Also there have been some recent films that feature Muslim terrorists. This year brought The War Within and Paradise Now. And who could forget The Siege (1998)? |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 03:09:35 AM
|
Well, the problems exist because some people DO believe that their religion is superior to others, and YOU better believe like them OR ELSE (the OR ELSE part being the problem, because anybody following a particular religion would HAVE TO believe that religion is better than all the others, or they wouldn't be following it, and as long as they just go about their religion and don't try to force it on others, it shouldn't be a problem in our society).
Also, there are religions that I'm sure just about anybody would agree are not "equal to others" -- would you say that a religion that advocates human sacrifice equal to one that doesn't? Is Scientology equal to Christianity or even the Church of the SubGenius?
If there is a dominant religion in the West, it's Christianity, and even if one likes to think that our society is secular, there is and influence on the way we live -- If this was replaced with some other religion, there would be a noticable change in the way we live.
Rob |
|
|
|
Desslar
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 2:21:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bobby-G
Also, there are religions that I'm sure just about anybody would agree are not "equal to others" -- would you say that a religion that advocates human sacrifice equal to one that doesn't? Is Scientology equal to Christianity or even the Church of the SubGenius?
Fair enough. I was referring to major worldwide religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. |
|
|
|
jedimom
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1239 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 5:22:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak
I'm sorry, but you're missing an important point as well:
Christian on Muslim violence is not widespread or common in the United States. Are refugees streaming North across the border? It isn't happening.
Yes, it's disturbing that people are discussing apartheid and the rest, but I think it's seriously foolish to think that people are going to change their minds over a TV show. "By golly," you seem to imagine people will think, "That fictional muslim was a very nice fellow. I guess there are muslims just like that fictional musilim." That doesn't happen.
No, it doesn't. But fictional portrayals and public attitudes mirror and influence each other. Think about the portrayal of black Americans in the media in the 1950s. The cowardly, lazy, eyerolling, watermelon-eating pickaninny is not with us any more. Did roles like "Mr. Tibbs" change anyone's mind? Maybe not--but they were symptomatic of a change in the culture.
As for your contentions that Christian-vs.-Muslim violence is uncommon in the US and that Muslims are not fleeing the US, I believe you are mistaken on both counts; either that, or you have a different notion than I do of what counts as a significant number of incidents.
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=278
ACLU also reports FBI and police harrassment of Muslims as significant problems.
And finally, from a 2004 Cornell University study:
ITHACA, N.Y. -- In a study to determine how much the public fears terrorism, almost half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should -- in some way -- curtail civil liberties for Muslim Americans, according to a new survey released today (Dec. 17) by Cornell University.
About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.
"Oh, that is so lame! You will pay for your use of inappropriate dialogue!" --Mojo Jojo, "Power Prof" |
|
|
|
KreenWarrior
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
111 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 5:23:25 PM
|
| On a side note, Western Christians have, over the last few hundred years, taken over almost every area of the world, in ways usually involving bloodshed. If we can, to an extent, change, what would make you say that Muslims cannot as well? |
|
|
|
Ubiq
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 9:08:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KreenWarrior
On a side note, Western Christians have, over the last few hundred years, taken over almost every area of the world, in ways usually involving bloodshed. If we can, to an extent, change, what would make you say that Muslims cannot as well?
See, that's one of the things that bugs me about the whole argument: Christianity has killed a lot of people in the past century; far more than Muslims have.
Just because things have changed doesn't mean that we no longer have to consider our past. Especially when the cultural conflict is with a group that is especially aware of their own history.
BM: I should have mentioned this at the beginning. I solve my problems with violence. |
|
|
|
Bobby-G
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
904 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 10:35:34 PM
|
Well, I don't know how this "Well, in the past, CHRISTIANS Killed ..." is supposed to be useful in this situation --- What, are Christians supposed to say: "OK other religions, now IT'S YOUR TURN! Please come and Kill us!!!"
I think most Christians in the west have progressed to the point where they wouldn't approve of people being forced to adopt their religious beliefs, so this "in the past..." is just that-- in the past.
Rob |
Edited by - Bobby-G on 12/01/2005 02:40:07 AM |
|
|
|
KreenWarrior
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
111 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 10:44:56 PM
|
| The point is simple. A culture based around violence can change to at least partially overcome it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked