Obama: The United States is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"

[Dimmauk]

Christians in Salem used to burn witches. Let he who is without sin, etc etc. but seriously brutal patriarchy happens independent of the religion involved. Let's not fucking pretend like Muslims are exceptionally violent, kids.

Exactly!

[Bingbong]

The burden of proof is on you Bingbong. Clearly, you are an Islamic scholar and understand the truth about Islam that is only now being 'exposed'.

So enlighten us.

Kuya and I have pretty much the same politics, and we'll give you one angle on the story. You tell us your perspective.

Actually the burden is not on me to prove anything... I made no such claims, but merely offered a much less complex reason of the existence of Muslim fundamentalism.
Kuya states that a return to fundamentalism exists because other people (namely American servicemen and women) caused it, I state that it's always been there but is now more exposed (hi2u global oil-based, industrialized economy, and hi2u 24 hour news outlets).

How did military cause it, because they are mostly white, or they dress different? Or did they come out and drag people away because women were being stoned? Or was it the fact that some of the closed off areas of the m-e were now more exposed to outside forces? Or were they playing the rock music too loud while eating pork sandwiches? How does recent military expansion in the area account for fundamentalist activities previous to US expansion?

I merely asked for a source for the claim, nothing new around these parts.
I just stated that CNN and MSNBC and FOX were not embedded in the m-e like they are now, and just that exposure alone could bring light on some of the uglier sides of muslim living that have always been present, but never seen.

Occam's razor is on my side, what you got?

[Neosutra]

He is too busy fucking bitches and getting Tattoos to be bothered with yet another lame religion thread.

Was a biased site and I agreed with what Obama said, wasnt much to say. This thread is like making a post saying "Obama is trying to destroy america, says Fox news". All we can really do is /facepalm and hope the OP isnt as gullible as they make themselves out to be.

And I pissed my wife off yesterday, so no fucking for me until I apologize =/

[Correction]

Occam's razor is on my side, what you got?

mandypatinkin.jpg

It's not the simplest answer, and especially in this case looking for the simplest possible explanation is going to lead you to the wrongest possible conclusion. All you want is the simplest possible answer because it does not force you to think with a broader perspective and prefer slogans like 'islam is violent.'

[Cyn]

Where do you make this connection though? Christianity is equally if not more violent by your standards then, as evidenced by the Crusades and numerous other Christian religious-backed wars throughout history.

Definitely more if you count the Thirty Years War, since that was originally motivated by Catholicism versus Protestant Christianity. Christians killing each other lol.

Organized religion has been more or less a self fulfilling prophesy of murder and violence pretty much as far back as recorded history reaches.

The Skeptical Review Online - Religion's Death Toll - Author James A. Haught

[Lee]

Christians in Salem used to burn witches. Let he who is without sin, etc etc. but seriously brutal patriarchy happens independent of the religion involved. Let's not fucking pretend like Muslims are exceptionally violent, kids.

I like how you completely ignored the clear point I made and continue with "BUT CHRISTIANS ARE VIOLENT TOO!". I already stated that, are you ignorant? I can't deny that there are Christians that use violence in the name of their religion. The point that I pointed out to you though is that there are much more violent Muslims (because of Islamic circumstances such as text purity, everything I said in previous posts etc) then there are Christians. Get your glasses out Correction, because you didn't read my posts.

Here's the reason why I started posting:

saying that anyone who follows a particular religion is more likely to be violent.

Muslims are more likely to be violent because of their religion being kept intact for 1000+ years.

Also, I'm talking about present day Muslims. Stop bringing up all this crap from hundreds of years ago, I understand everyone back then was violent/barbaric.

[Dimmauk]

I like how you completely ignored the clear point I made and continue with "BUT CHRISTIANS ARE VIOLENT TOO!". I already stated that, are you ignorant? I can't deny that there are Christians that use violence in the name of their religion. The point that I pointed out to you though is that there are much more violent Muslims (because of Islamic circumstances such as text purity, everything I said in previous posts etc) then there are Christians. Get your glasses out Correction, because you didn't read my posts.

Here's the reason why I started posting:


Muslims are more likely to be violent because of their religion being kept intact for 1000+ years.

Also, I'm talking about present day Muslims. Stop bringing up all this crap from hundreds of years ago, I understand everyone back then was violent/barbaric.

Yeah cause Present day Christians arent violent either.

[Neosutra]

I like how you completely ignored the clear point I made and continue with "BUT CHRISTIANS ARE VIOLENT TOO!". I already stated that, are you ignorant? I can't deny that there are Christians that use violence in the name of their religion. The point that I pointed out to you though is that there are much more violent Muslims (because of Islamic circumstances such as text purity, everything I said in previous posts etc) then there are Christians. Get your glasses out Correction, because you didn't read my posts.

Here's the reason why I started posting:


Muslims are more likely to be violent because of their religion being kept intact for 1000+ years.

Also, I'm talking about present day Muslims. Stop bringing up all this crap from hundreds of years ago, I understand everyone back then was violent/barbaric.

First: We arent that much different now than we were back then. We still slaughter/rape/kill, and for the same reasons. We just have better weapons now.

Second: You have NO evidence to back up Islamics being more violent than Christians. Both have their nut jobs, and both have caused their share of our planet's misery. The only difference between the two atm is that many of the muslim states allow for theocracy, thus Islam is used to justify more violence than in the west (people still are motivated to violence from christianity, they just dont get a government pat on the back for it).

[Dimmauk]

First: We arent that much different now than we were back then. We still slaughter/rape/kill, and for the same reasons. We just have better weapons now.

Second: You have NO evidence to back up Islamics being more violent than Christians. Both have their nut jobs, and both have caused their share of our planet's misery. The only difference between the two atm is that many of the muslim states allow for theocracy, thus Islam is used to justify more violence than in the west (people still are motivated to violence from christianity, they just dont get a government pat on the back for it).

Wait, werent you in Iraq? Arent their soldiers that think they are there for religious reasons?

Didnt our previous president say something about doing God's work in Iraq?

[Elvis]

mandypatinkin.jpg

It's not the simplest answer, and especially in this case looking for the simplest possible explanation is going to lead you to the wrongest possible conclusion. All you want is the simplest possible answer because it does not force you to think with a broader perspective and prefer slogans like 'islam is violent.'

This.

You want me to link you to some internet sources on why 'Islam is not violent'? Don't you think the question is pretty ginormously broad?

I was being sarcastic when I called you an Islamic scholar. I was also being sarcastic when I asked you to explain yourself. You can't explain yourself.

Your argument ignores the effect of imperialism and colonialism on the Arab world. You're just saying these people are religious fanatics for the sake of being religious fanatics.

Technically, I could find you a simple answer but it's still being studied. We had a thread like this awhile ago where the conversation dealt with humanism and compassion. Were these things inherent to the human race? Someone cited a study on 'feral children' - feral children do not exhibit these 'virtues' (based on the particular study).

Now, if the same book (the Qu'ran) is being taught to people who will become 'Muslim' then they ought to behave the same way - yea?

Well, clearly, there are Muslims who do not go around blowing themselves up but are religiously devout.

So, we can rule the text out.

Now, if they are followers of the same religion but perhaps a different sect - is it the sect of Islam? Wait, there are Shia and Sunni who are civil and don't go blowing themselves up. Wait, Shia and Sunni are different interpretations right? Wait, this means it's not inherent - it's how it's perceived - so it's not even the religion at this point - it's how a human being (a fallible creature) understands a poem/piece of art (essentially).

So it's not the text because Muslim A is different from Muslim B.

It's not the sects because each sect has people who are not extremist and the very notion of a sect defeats the original argument that it's simply the religion IN GENERAL since a sect = a different interpretation. IMPLYING that these fallible creatures (human beings) are taking this piece of art and seeing a different image from that of another sect of fallible human beings.

So the problem is not the religion IN GENERAL.

What could the mechanism be by which Muslim A ends up a extremist and Muslim B ends up a peaceful blah blah?

Interpretation.

What variables dictate how we interpret something?

Well, we acknowledged :

Variable 1) LOCATION (Indonesian Muslims versus Saudi Arabian Muslims versus American Muslims versus UK Palestinian Muslims)

Others:

Could income affect your behavior? Are poor people more desperate and in-turn, end up more inclined to look to religion for 'answers'?

Education. Do these people know about 'other stuff'? Like, if all someone knew was what the Bible (to use another religion as an example) told them, would they go around burning people for being witches in the modern age? Wait, this happened in Africa last month or something.

Blah blah blah.

Basic point: Yes, there are problems with religion IN GENERAL as there is with any static ideology (especially when interpreted as such).

But is it a unique problem where we single out the coating? Coating being Islam in this situation.

The bottom-line is interpretation. The reason some interpret Islam differently than others has to do with other social variables.

So there is truth to the Islam-bashing but it's really just static-ideology-bashing or religion-bashing that is the more accurate way of putting it. Furthermore, the claim is that the coating (Islam for 'religion') is the problem which ignores all the variables that draw people to religion and then draw people to a style of interpretation.

And to understand this issue further, you have to consider the geopolitics of the region.

It is dishonest to bash Islam as uniquely this or that.

The Radical Islamist is seen as a monolith. This is a very self-serving perspective because it absolves us of our own crimes (providing we acknowledge the faintest possibility that we commit crimes). Didn't we read that one of the MAIN recruitment tools for foreign fighters in Iraq was the humiliation and torture fellow Muslims and Arabs endured in imprisonment? Wouldn't basic human dignity be a compelling social pressure/variable that affects our decision-making?

I mean, just think about militant nationalist groups throughout history.

Some are referred to as 'underground' groups (the Jewish nationalist groups like Irgun and Lehi and the Stern Gang) while others are called 'terrorist' groups (Hamas and Hezbollah). We often see these groups associated with religious imagery. Is it possible that we do not care about the religious aspect insofar as it's a moral argument? Rather, if it suits our political (contrived) goals - as in demonizing an 'enemy of the State' then it's alright.

Do we react to similar groups differently? Of course. Irgun was designated a terrorist group by the British. They killed women and children. They did it purposefully to achieve a political goal (expulsion of the Palestinian Arab population).

Hamas does the same thing yet under a different context. Hamas kills and carries out attacks of civilians to achieve a political goal. These are terrorist tactics. (I would call both Irgun and Hamas militant nationalists though, rather than terrorist organizations because that terminology is unrealistic.)

Similarly, why do we focus so much on Islam (inherently) while ignoring the other possibilities? I think it's about politics - not religion. It's about our own aversion to introspection.

This does not absolve Islamists of terrorism. It just makes things look less simple.

[Cyn]

Also, I'm talking about present day Muslims. Stop bringing up all this crap from hundreds of years ago, I understand everyone back then was violent/barbaric.

Religion has been used as a form of control for centuries. The easiest way to turn a normal, honest man into a monster is to convince him that hell (in some form or anther) exists and that he can avoid going there if he does what you tell him to. This is how the catholic church rose to power to start with, and what led to the crusades, which is a large contributing factor even in the current Islamic-Christian tensions.

So when you have religion married to government, atrocities are going to happen, because there's too much power over the population. This is mostly what led to America's policy of separation of church and state. It's also likely more to blame in the more violent tendencies of extremist Muslims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg

[Neosutra]

Wait, werent you in Iraq? Arent their soldiers that think they are there for religious reasons?

Didnt our previous president say something about doing God's work in Iraq?

I was agreeing with you man..

[Dimmauk]

I was agreeing with you man..

LOL. Yeah, I was just wondering.

[Sady]

I object to the United states being called a Muslim country cause it's NOT a Muslim country. It's a country that is not governed by religion at all. It was BASED off of Puritanism and protestantism, but is run by no religion at all. Regardless of the source, if Obama did indeed say that, I'm not happy.

Perhaps in theory religion and state are seperate entities, but in practice its very obvious that the two are still to this day very much intertwined.

Try and name one prominent american politician that is not in some way connected to a religious group. That's because being openly non-religious would often be political suicide in the US. Even without going into very touchy subjects like abortion or gay and lesbian rights we can see that many political decisions are influenced by religious beliefs.

The sad irony is that the only governments that were truely atheist states were under the former USSR and other Marxist/communist regimes. In this case it was the very opposite and it was not possible to achieve social success for those who were admittedly religious. Just look at what happened to the Russian orthodox church after the Bolchevic revolution and tell me that doesn't parallel what many religious groups did to the "non-believers".

IMO, religion -much like communism- has some great ideals and fundamentals (ie: the golden rule, treat everyone as equals), but inevitably becomes a source of corruption, oppresion and violence. Religion (or the opposition of religion) will always be at the very fondation of government and politics.

[Elvis]

Sady makes a good point. I was rambling in my last post but I agree w/ his point in a similar context (of my last post) that when you institutionalize religion into government (and thereby making it 'official' and not open to interpretation) then you run into several problems.

Hence why Saudi Arabia is oppressive.

[Shinryuu]

Do Americans truly believe they're led under seperation of church and state?

[Kuya]

How American imperialism plays a role in increasing religious fundamentalism should be a self explaining answer. How it leads one to believe one's culture is being attacked and how the US's choice of allied governments have lead to an increase in fundamentalism is also obvious. You really need to look no further than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for that point. And to the poster that commented on the Mujahadeen being less extreme than the Taliban; i'm not talking about the Taliban, i'm talking about the Russian backed Afghan government that was much more progressive, but the US opposed because it was backed by Russia.

And yes Obev, and i'm really dumb.

[Beckwin]

For anyone doubting that modern Islamic fundamentalism is a conservative reaction, just do a cursory overlook of Muslim/Arab history... yes, Biblical/Quranic times were initially pretty brutal, but go past that to the era when much of the world's scientific and mathematical progress was being made in the Middle East. And further beyond that, read up on Afghanistan prior to the Soviet Invasion... you had a progressive government headed towards European-style socialist democracy, with regionally impressive individual freedoms/human rights.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the notion that religions are inherently violent. On the one hand, there are obviously people who can follow them who aren't violent wackos. On the other, there are smatterings of quotes from the texts that seem undeniably violent or oppressive and a history of the religion being used for violence, oppression, and control. I suppose the problem is the ability to interpret texts differently (cherry-picking, if you will) and inability to pin down a singular "essence" or true core of any religion.

[Beckwin]

How American imperialism plays a role in increasing religious fundamentalism should be a self explaining answer. How it leads one to believe one's culture is being attacked and how the US's choice of allied government's have lead to an increase in fundamentalism is also obvious. You really need to look no further than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for that point. And to the poster that commented on the Mujahadeen being less extreme than the Taliban; i'm not talking about the Taliban, i'm talking about the Russian backed Afghan government that was much more progressive, but the US opposed because it was backed by Russia.

And yes Obev, and i'm really dumb.

The "Russian backed" Afghan gov't was actually invaded by the Russians for god knows why. It was still very progressive, but growing a bit out of sync with Moscow's beliefs/desires (which will happen if you're progressive, lol), iirc.

[Kuya]

Women's rights were advancing quite quickly under that government too; what a pity to what it's been reduced to.