Heartland

None of the Abrahamic religions are peaceful, but luckily for us the majority of believers ignore the ugly stuff and pretend that they are.

Coming soon...

"Do Trolls Live Under Bridges?"

Motz wrote:Coming soon...

"Do Trolls Live Under Bridges?"

Only if the bridge has internet connection.

The Bible exhorts believers to stone certain people to death but I'm fairly certain the vicar at the church down the road doesn't do that, so I guess that what a religious text says has nothing to do with whether a religion is peaceful or not.

Which completely invalidates the implied subtext of this thread. Oh well...

pooh pooh I say to you both - there have been threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics - this thread asks if Islam is peaceful or not. If you read the linky you will see it is written by ethical athiests and it is quite informative.

lazarus corporation wrote:The Bible exhorts believers to stone certain people to death but I'm fairly certain the vicar at the church down the road doesn't do that, so I guess that what a religious text says has nothing to do with whether a religion is peaceful or not.

Which completely invalidates the implied subtext of this thread. Oh well...

Put it better than I did.

The only problem is that violent believers can use the religious texts to justify to themselves and like minded individuals that what they're doing is a good thing.

We hear a lot today about how Islam is a peaceful religion and the acts of Muslim terrorists are outside the teachings of the Koran.

DarkAngel wrote:We hear a lot today about how Islam is a peaceful religion and the acts of Muslim terrorists are outside the teachings of the Koran.

I see it as merely damage control.

DarkAngel wrote:pooh pooh I say to you both - there have been threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics - this thread asks if Islam is peaceful or not. If you read the linky you will see it is written by ethical athiests and it is quite informative.

I think the salient point is: were all the threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics posted by the same poster who only ever starts threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics?

If you keep creating new threads about the 'threat of Islam' then we're all going to start thinking that you're some kind of obssessive extremist who only comes on here to post anti-Muslim agitprop rather than to talk bollocks, posts stupid things when drunk, and moan that the Sisters haven't played Floorshow live since [insert ancient gig date].

Obviously we'd be wrong and in truth you're a nice balanced non-obssessive individual, but communication via the net is a poor second to face-to-face communication and it's so easy to get the wrong idea. You can see how it could so easily happen?

It is only fair that all religions are commented on. I'm sure we will get back to christianity soon enough.

Motz wrote:Coming soon...

"Do Trolls Live Under Bridges?"

More interesing part of this thread:
Are you talking about urban trolls here?
(I don´t want to mention the USA´s antisemitic problem, or how Prescott Bush is suspected to have given support to a prominent antisemitic regime of the past..)

DarkAngel wrote:It is only fair that all religions are commented on. I'm sure we will get back to christianity soon enough.

No offence, but you’re coming off as childish now.

Let’s make an individual thread for all religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Babism, Bah’I, Gnosticism, Jainism, Sikhism, Atenism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Yazdanism, Scientology, etc. etc. It's only fair!

DarkAngel wrote:It is only fair that all religions are commented on. I'm sure we will get back to christianity soon enough.

I´d like to mention that I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn is much cooler than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You may call me anti pasta now.

nick the stripper wrote:

DarkAngel wrote:It is only fair that all religions are commented on. I'm sure we will get back to christianity soon enough.

Let’s make an individual thread for all religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Babism, Bah’I, Gnosticism, Jainism, Sikhism, Atenism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Yazdanism, Scientology, etc. etc. It's only fair!

Don't tempt me!

lazarus corporation wrote:

DarkAngel wrote:pooh pooh I say to you both - there have been threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics - this thread asks if Islam is peaceful or not. If you read the linky you will see it is written by ethical athiests and it is quite informative.

I think the salient point is: were all the threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics posted by the same poster who only ever starts threads about the horrors committed by christians and catholics?

If you keep creating new threads about the 'threat of Islam' then we're all going to start thinking that you're some kind of obssessive extremist who only comes on here to post anti-Muslim agitprop rather than to talk bollocks, posts stupid things when drunk, and moan that the Sisters haven't played Floorshow live since [insert ancient gig date].

Obviously we'd be wrong and in truth you're a nice balanced non-obssessive individual, but communication via the net is a poor second to face-to-face communication and it's so easy to get the wrong idea. You can see how it could so easily happen?

Our Laz, as usual, makes The Point with a dry humour I'm too f**king depressed to muster.

Someone clearly has a honey-producing insect in their period headwear.

"The experts tell us militant Islamic fundamentalists, or "Islamists," represent a narrow, if murderous, fringe. They number no more than 10, maybe 15, percent of all Muslims. That estimate works out to somewhere between 100 million and 150 million people. Which is a lot of murderous fringe."
-Diana West

DarkAngel wrote:http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html

Gosh, there's some lovely out of context quotes on that site. Why, anyone would think that someone was trying to present a one-sided picture of a religion (heaven forbid!). Perhaps you will permit me to present a few quotes of my own?

2, 190:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.

2, 193:
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or opression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

2, 224:
And make not Allah's name an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons.

2, 272:
It is not required of you to set them on the right path, but Allah sets on the right path whom He wills.

People are peaceful, or violent, or whatever - most religions advocate tolerance, but there will always be someone who seeks to gain advantage by interpreting the Word in whatever way suits him. Wars are never fought over religion. Never. Not once in human history has a war been fought because of religion. Wars are fought over land, or money, or power, or influence - fighting over a religion is stupid in the extreme, especially when the world's Big Three are pretty much the same.
People always bring up the Crusades as a religious war. The Crusades were about money, but you can't tell good christians to fight over money, so you tell them that it's about religion and then they're happy.

Wars are never fought over religion.

What about those 'good Christians' who thought the Crusades was about religion and not money? They were fighting over religion. True, it wasn't the actual reason for the Crusades, but they certainly thought it was.

nick the stripper wrote:

Wars are never fought over religion.

What about those 'good Christians' who thought the Crusades was about religion and not money? They were fighting over religion. True, it wasn't the actual reason for the Crusades, but they certainly thought it was.

You both have a point. It is human nature to take any good idea or "religion" and use it for personal gain. Unlike other religions which have evolved out of violent acts, Islamic extremists still saw off people's heads in the name of God - quite dark ages really.

"There is in the religion of Islam itself the historical, inexorable and driving force behind what the entire non-Muslim world is now experiencing as jihad terror. Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed. "
-Diana West

I know I shouldn't jump into this, but I'm quite revolted. When it comes to political or religious issues, most of you would rather fling s**t like monkeys than actually have a discussion (I'm not naming names, but if you think it applies to you it probably does). What's even worse is that it's perfectly acceptable for you lot to sit here and p*ss all over the United States, Christianity and anything to do with what might be called 'western traditionalism' in general, but the moment someone dares to question your post-modern Euro-pieties you get your panties in a wad. Some of you (again, not naming names) are, as the old Screeching Weasel song put it, "narrow-minded judgmental left-wing Nazis" more interested in empty postmodern sloganeering than facts. You lot can be real douchebags with the reflexive and ignorant anti-Americanism, and it does you no credit. Englishmen: that vibration you feel is John Locke turning in his grave.

Like it or not, bigoted or not the fundamental political question for the near future , which he has raised (even if in a manner that most of you find overbearing), is whether or not violence is inherent to Islam, secondarily, whether or not Islam is compatible with liberal democracy. There are enormous differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths, the chief of which is that the Koran does NOT claim to be divinely inspired (as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles do) but to actually be the literal word of God. There's a hell of a lot less room for interpretation there, because the Koran claims to be unmediated--it's not divinely inspired, it's divine. It's the literal word of God, and as the Fremen say: one cannot go against God. The second distinction is that of the relation betweeen secular and religious spheres--for Islam, they are not seperate. The earthly regime is legitimate only if it enforces the divine law revealed in the Koran--this is why Ayman al-Zawahiri calls democracy a blasphemous regime. It's blasphemous because it allows man to replace divine laws with his own.

Multiculturalism involves the blunting of all edges, but it only works if all parties involved are agreed that it's the way to go.

I don't expect this to win me many friends around here...Hey, why don't they play Floorshow anymore? I like that song. Anyone know where I can buy some pointy boots and capes?

nick the stripper wrote:

Wars are never fought over religion.

What about those 'good Christians' who thought the Crusades was about religion and not money? They were fighting over religion. True, it wasn't the actual reason for the Crusades, but they certainly thought it was.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Look at the map prior to the emergence of the Crusader kingdoms.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call democracy blasphemous, but I would certainly prefer benign dictatorship to what some places these days call "democracy". Bring back the property vote, the university vote, deny the franchise to adherents of certain religions (can anyone honestly look at Blair and not have a certain fondness for the time when catholics were forbidden to hold office?), bar the stupid, the insane, and the criminal from having a voice. One man, one vote - the Patrician is the man, and he has the vote. Works for me.

I dislike anti-americanism as much as I dislike any other anti-countryism. The US has done some incredible things in areas like human rights, and in some cases leads the world in progressive thinking. The UN owes its existence to the ideas of an American, which is a bit of a shame given that the current US administration seems intent on making the body redundant.

I'm with you on the Floorshow thing, though - it would be nice to see some of the old standards make a comeback.

I hope it's not me you're calling a left-wing nazi. If you look at my first post you will see that I did judge the Muslim religion, and not in a good light.

As for the transmediation. The Christians I know and have talked to all believe it to be the literal word of God. And there are extremist Christians who have a literal interpretation.

sultan2075 wrote:Like it or not, bigoted or not the fundamental political question for the near future , which he has raised (even if in a manner that most of you find overbearing), is whether or not violence is inherent to Islam, secondarily, whether or not Islam is compatible with liberal democracy.

For a discussion forum dedicated to contemporary politics/current political events that would probably be true,

For a discussion forum dedicated to the Sisters of Mercy, the fundamental issue for the near (and far) future is whether there will ever be a new album.

Creating thread-after-thread about this same political issue on a contemporary politics forum would probably be normal. Doing the same on a forum about a rock band smells funny. You know this. I know this.

While political issues get talked about here, having one person constantly post about one single political issue is highly suspect. Coming out in support with a tirade of out-of-the-box anti-left-wing insults when that posting habit is questioned doesn't help that one bit.

Now let's never talk about this again.