The Koran -- Serious business.

[Elvis]

So what would be a moderate American?

Since I cant get a moderate Muslim's definition out of you.

And no, middle eastern muslims dont seem "moderate" to me. Specifically due to their treatment of women.

I am not an Islamic scholar. I mean, I have a vague understanding of Muslims in America. I have a peripheral understanding of Muslims in America via my interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I think they are people like us. They have lots of stuff to be angry/worried/sad/happy about - and I will refer you to the post I made which was simply an attempt to HUMANIZE 'the Arab' and 'the Muslim'.

There is a very deep anti-Arab and anti-Islam sentiment in our country going back almost a hundred years. There are lots of books that study this.

One concept and category of literature that focuses on this issue is called Orientalism.

An example is the popular images of the Arab and Muslim in Hollywood.

There's a book called 'Reel Bad Arabs' by Jack Sheehan that goes through the record and offers it's take on the stereotypes presented therein.

If you want to understand what Orientalism means, look up 'Edward Said' on YouTube.

Here is a four-part documentary on Orientalism as explained by Said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HQiHuEuuhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj39Py-shOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ6hf68tudI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdwKXOmsg7c

Excuse the unibrow.

I'm sure there are Muslims in America - like those right-wingers - who present themselves well but have extreme views. I do not consider them 'moderate'. I consider them polite fascists.

[Plow]

It amazes me that neo can so effectively own himself without Elvis even needing to point out the fact that the conversation went:

neo: moderates aren't moderates

elvis: what?

neo: moderates are bad mmmkay

elvis: uh, no?

neo: define moderates!

[Neosutra]

At least Elvis takes the time to quote the contradictions and increase their size.

Dont be lazy Plow.

I am opening up alot of freebies here though. Just keep alt tabbing every half hour or so and copying one line and responding until Elvis catches on Q.Q. For some reason I just dont feel commited to this argument, even if it is on religion.

Everyone knows what these people did is retarded. Everyone knows Islam isnt the "only" thing to blame and cultural influences had their share, but we cant say religion didnt carry much of the weight. My view on "moderate" muslims in the middle is may be "generalizations", but their treatment of women in even the non extremist states makes me sick to my stomach, and that isnt even reaching into my extreme disgust with theocracies.

I do however stand by the "religious moderates" causing more trouble than any extremist. If you dont want to consider right wingers as religious moderates (certainly not political moderates), then what is a religious moderate? The clinic bombers are the extremist. The people that sit at home and practice their faith via simple voting and going to church affect policy more however, and are they not the "moderates"? Or are moderates only people that dont have strong opinions.

[Elvis]

BTW, this is for ZarakiKujata:

I finally found that picture.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4...worldburqa.jpg

From the book, The Jews of Arab lands, by Norman A. Stillman.

GoogleBooks preview:

The Jews of Arab lands: a history ... - Google Books

[Plow]

I generally consider the "good extremists" to be moderate, really. In this day and age moderation in religious context tends to apply more towards forcing your beliefs upon others than how you live your own life.

As a counter-example to what I'm about to say, you could say that a woman who legitimately believes she should approach the world in a way you consider "subhuman," hiding her skin, never allowing herself situations that could remotely be considered temptations, etc., would still be quite moderate if she's not trying to force others, and supporting forcing others to her lifestyle choices.

Here is a great example of religiously motivated positive activity, in a field you love to talk about:

Lutheran Social Services


While those extremists you love to talk about are bombing abortion clinics, those terrible moderates at LSS are offering adoption and other child services relating to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Their services range from simply being an active, extremely trustworthy and highly regarded adoption agency, to psychological support for both the biological and adoptive parents after adoptions, to homes for children having trouble in foster care, and victims of abuse, and they even stretch into similar care for elderly in situations similar to those of children without healthy homes.


But you're right, since some of them most definitely still think abortion should be illegal, they're clearly a massive detriment to society.

[Neosutra]

What part of those humanitarian services require them to be theists? I dont have a problem with people doing good for others for any reasons. I have a problem with people doing bad things (like influencing an entire nation to vote based on ONE issue of abortion over every other topic) for reasons that are not up to critical debate.

The good those people do dont require a religion or god. The bad (specifying their theistic beliefs are divinely correct and thus never budging on the issue) has divided a nation and established a campaign that has actively attempted to squash scientific progress for the last 50 years, under a guise of divine purity.

[Elvis]

Polite fascists.

Yes. People who exploit the Enlightenment values of this country? Fear mongers. Corporate hacks. Fanatic jingoists. The Fifth column (Zionists).

Christian Zionists are the best example. They have lots of political power and they are large in number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

Muslims in this country are marginalized and they have a magnifying glass on them 24/7. They can't be an effective fifth column. (That doesn't mean there aren't Muslims who aspire to do so.)

Who are the Christian Zionists supporting? Who are the Jewish Zionists supporting? Jesus and the Rapture and Israel respectively. A very ironic alliance.

[Plow]

What part of those humanitarian services require them to be theists? I dont have a problem with people doing good for others for any reasons. I have a problem with people doing bad things (like influencing an entire nation to vote based on ONE issue of abortion over every other topic) for reasons that are not up to critical debate.

The good those people do dont require a religion or god. The bad (specifying their theistic beliefs are divinely correct and thus never budging on the issue) has divided a nation and established a campaign that has actively attempted to squash scientific progress for the last 50 years, under a guise of divine purity.

You absolutely literally just stated that the good doesn't require religion while the bad does.


Are you really this oblivious to even your own thought processes?

[Neosutra]

You absolutely literally just stated that the good doesn't require religion while the bad does.


Are you really this oblivious to even your own thought processes?

I didnt state that bad requires religion, I stated that bad deeds done via reasons that are "beyond critical review" due to being divinely true is the problem. Good or bad can be done with or without religion, we are discussing the motivation/influence of religion on these areas. Are you that oblivious to anyone else's thought process?

And literally means "word for word" not "my interpretation of what you just said Neo to inflate my side of the argument".

[Plow]

First off, you asked for an example of moderate religious people.

You proclaimed that moderate religious people are worse for the world than extremist religious people.


Yet your only response to examples of wonderful moderate religious people and actions is "well but that doesn't require religion!"


What the fuck does that have to do with the claim that moderate religious people are worse than terrorists and other violent, corrupt, "evil" organizations?



I am perfectly aware of your thought process-- bad deeds performed in the name of religion are religion's fault, and definitive of the entirety of religion. In turn, good deeds done in the name of religion are meaningless-- bad people being bad are doing it because of religion, and wouldn't have done it otherwise. Good people being good are doing it because they're good people, and would have done it even without religion.

This is exactly the point you're making, repeatedly, and it's just plain beyond ignorant.


Anyway, back on topic, I've defined and given examples of moderate religious folks, despite the claim being made by you in the first place. Now, please, go ahead and tell me how LSS is worse for the world than Al Quaeda, not just "well they could be good without religion too!" bullshit.

[Plow]

in before "plow you said all that before in some post I didn't read somewhere it's meaningless and I'm not going to respond"

[Neosutra]

Nice. Skip the problem of bad deeds done in the name of divine truth as the main concern and go straight back to "but this group does good things!". And since when is pushing your agenda for pro-life (anti-choice, turning women into incubators) a good thing? I neither respect the LSS nor do I consider them to be a good example of religious humanitarianism. There are no religious charity organizations that dont have specific motives behind their actions, else they wouldnt need to be religious charities... just "charities".

[Faris]

middle eastern muslims dont seem "moderate" to me. Specifically due to their treatment of women.

....

[Plow]

Nice. Skip the problem of bad deeds done in the name of divine truth as the main concern and go straight back to "but this group does good things!". And since when is pushing your agenda for pro-life (anti-choice, turning women into incubators) a good thing? I neither respect the LSS nor do I consider them to be a good example of religious humanitarianism. There are no religious charity organizations that dont have specific motives behind their actions, else they wouldnt need to be religious charities... just "charities".

Wow, you're a much bigger douche than I ever imagined. And here I thought it was raw self centered idiocy.

[Blarg]

The dude in that vid basically avoids the meat of the question and talks about the lack of western morals concerning sexuality. I know it's a cultural thing about if showing skin is bad or good but letting a person choose for themselves what they can wear should be a universal thing. It was also pretty disingenuous at the beginning when he talks about how in western places you just walk by alleys and there are woman getting raped as if it's happening in every alley all the time. Rape isn't unheard of in both cultures and I wouldn't be surprised if a exposed stomach showing in the west is just as enticing as an ankle in some other country that is more restrictive.

[Faris]

no it doesnt...wtf

a christian is asking why do you oppress your women in Islam by making them wear a veil.

and he points out that in the bible it mentions the same thing in a more aggressive manner (shaving off the head), indicating how ignorant that person is about her own religion. then he continues to explain why is that important, wearing the veil, and the effect the women have on men...

lol @ you accussing Sheikh Deedat of avoiding questions.

[Blarg]

no it doesnt...wtf

a christian is asking why do you oppress your women in Islam by making them wear a veil.

and he points out that in the bible it mentions the same thing in a more aggressive manner (shaving off the head), indicating how ignorant that person is about her own religion. then he continues to explain why is that important, wearing the veil, and the effect the women have on men...

lol @ you accussing Sheikh Deedat of avoiding questions.

Forcing a dress code onto a person sounds like a form of oppression to me. If someone wears a funny shirt and it makes me laugh I don't force that person to wear what I want them to, I learn to live with it because I should only have control over myself and not others.

Yes she is a hypocrite if she thinks the bible is nice to women. I said avoid the 'meat' of the question not the whole question btw.

'God made me like food, my neighbour owns a bakery and the smells are too tempting for me so I am going to board up all his doors and windows so I can't smell it anymore and force him to only make good food when I am not around'

[Faris]

how do you feel about countries forcing people NOT to wear a veil, is that oppression or freedom to you?

and sorry for saying making them, but it is a requirement. its very clear that there are women that are muslims and not wear the veil, is it the right to the religion? in Islam its not. people are free to choose, God will be the judge.


so are you complaining about how women are created? lol, its clear that women are the attractive gender. Its a fact that to some people, they pose as objects, sex sex sex. whats the problem in preservation from harming yourself and others (in a way), and provoking that instinct in men?

[Blarg]

I don't think countries should force people to not wear a veil since it is limiting a form of dressing. You admit to the point that Islam requires the veil which is what I was talking about the meat of the question (Islam limiting that thing for women) being avoided and instead he was saying what is wrong with western culture rather than admit that, yes, Islam hinders the rights for a woman to wear what she wants.

so are you complaining about how women are created? lol, its clear that women are the attractive gender. Its a fact that to some people, they pose as objects, sex sex sex. whats the problem in preservation from harming yourself and others (in a way), and provoking that instinct in men?

What is your response to my analogy with the neighbour who has a bakery? Is it right for someone else to board up their house and tell them when to cook their nice smelling food?

You must know that muslims live in europe and other westernized parts of the world and it appears that even with all those women walking around in western dress that they aren't non stop rapists. These muslim men seem to have more than enough control over their bodies that these problems aren't occurring.

God created Brazilians with the same sexual instincts and you don't see their beaches being giant orgies do you?

[Mayareira]

Well, we don't allow veil or other religious, visible equipment in schools and government offices because it can and did potentialy turn into a political problem.

In my opinion, veil might've had a meaning in the past but like most of the "old stuff" in holy books, its outdated and no longer serves any purpose. Everything is changing and there is a very good reason why we humans have a brain, and decide what's necessary and what's not.