10/15/2005: Monk protection

[mlandman]

You are ALL missing my point.

The association is there. Period. I'm not defending it, advocating it. If you don't think Islam (And yes, while there is no 'pope' there are grand poobahs) as an entity should do one thing about it, great. Head in sand.

[John]

Originally Posted by mlandman

The association is there. Period. I'm not defending it, advocating it. If you don't think Islam (And yes, while there is no 'pope' there are grand poobahs) as an entity should do one thing about it, great. Head in sand.

So, why don't you hold all Baptists responsible for Phelps, Terry, Robertson, and the KKK? Sure, there's no Baptist "pope", but there are grand poobahs. Why haven't Baptists, as the single entity they so *obviously* are to you, done something about the repugnant actions of a small minority of Baptists?

[BigV]

We're missing your point, or we don't agree with your point?

If we're missing it, explain yourself. If you say my head's in the sand, that implies I insist on not seeing something you do. That sounds like you think I'm merely disagreeing with you. There's a difference, an important difference.

I want to explore this a little: the grand poobahs and what "they" should do about it. Do you know who these poobahs (imams) are? Have you read anything by any (and there are many) of them? Do you know what "they" are saying? I think you fall into a dangerous trap by lazily assuming there's some controlling "they". There isn't. Stop wasting your time looking for "them".

There ARE imams who incite violence, yes, there are. Many many more of them oppose it. Which do you think makes better copy? Which is more exciting? Which one will make the 6 o'clock news?

You make a suggestion for improving the situation: "Islam as an entity should do something about it". That's a great start. But it just begs the question, who is going to do something? Individual muslims? And when one DOES do something peaceful, will you talk about "Islamic" peaceniks? You probably mean the leaders in the communities of faith, the imams. What would you have them do? Condemn the violence? Do you have some other suggestion as to what "they" should do? Be specific.

You're on the right track, keep going. I'll work it with you.

[capnhowdy]

Be careful guys.... UT is responsible for your actions/comments since you are all cellarites. Don't force him to get his

SHIT UNDER CONTROL.

*****beaming with sarcasm while hitting alt + s*****

IMO most terrorist/radicals aren't at all commited to any religion or group. They use these for something to conveniently (and cowardly) hide behind, hoping to imply the "safety in numbers" theory. They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do.

[BigV]

capn, you said it three sentences what I wanted to say in three pages. I like yours better now. Well put.

[capnhowdy]

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by mlandman

re: radical Christian right: I assume your point is that US policy overseas re: the war in Iraq and 'blowing stuff up' is based on the radical Christian right, who wants to eliminate Islam in the name of Christianity, somehow indirectly has controlled our armed forces --- but I don't see it.

Let me just say that I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have been quite as quick to go around blowing up non-Muslims in today's sociopolitical environment. I don't think we're directly conducting a crusade, per se, but it is more than a little curious that the war was conducted and continued despite us having found out that the entire alleged reason for conducting it in the first place was a mistake.

I also find it curious that Bush panders so obviously to the Christian Right, alludes to his actions being guided by God (Jehovah, to be precise...not some other deity, but The One True Deity (tm) ). He is a self-proclaimed observant Christian, a religion whose main purpose is to essentially sort out everyone on Earth by making sure they are aware of the Great 50/50 Choice, (they like to refer to it as "Free Will"), wherein the masses of the unwashed and unrepentant can avail themselves of Jesus' mercy by accepting him as their Saviour, or burn in eternal anguish...and they're more than happy to achieve this evangelistic imperative through whatever means necessary.

I'm thinking that there is a large number of people here in the good old USofA who would be real cool with a Christian theocracy, and that is real scary. I think some of the vanguard of that fetid governmental philosophy are already in power, so if there's an element of "who cares if they're dead, they're only a bunch of Muslims" to our foreign interventions of late, it is probably par for the course.

[mlandman]

Originally Posted by BigV

We're missing your point, or we don't agree with your point? If we're missing it, explain yourself. If you say my head's in the sand, that implies I insist on not seeing something you do. That sounds like you think I'm merely disagreeing with you. There's a difference, an important difference.

MISSING it. I see alot of arguments from people defending Islam as not preaching violence. But, that's not a point I'm trying to make, so I don't know why that's a counterpoint. My point is the association exists whether it's justified or not. So, people can choose to pretend that association doesn't exist (hence my head in the sand comment), or they can acknowledge it whether it's a justified association or not.

If you don't think a very very large number of people are associating Islam with violence, you are wrong. I'm not asking if you agree with the association, merely it's existance. It's rapidly growing existance.

Whether you choose to agree with the COUNTLESS articles that discuss how Islamic leaders need to denounce killings of innocents 'in the name of islam' is irrelevant.

It's different re: McVeigh re: Ohio. He didn't do it in the name of religion. Yet, suicide attack after suicide attack after suicide attack after bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after hotel bombing after school siege after plane explosion is 'IN THE NAME IS ISLAM'. So, you go ahead and choose to believe that there isn't an association growing across the world with islam and terrorism. Again, not saying that true islam preaches this, but I'm saying these terrorists are have an EFFECT on people's perception of Islam, whether YOU **like** it or not.

[BigV]

Ok, I guess I totally misread you.

I **thought** you were saying that you totally associate Islam with suicide bombings and terrorism. I **thought** you were saying that it was up to Islam to seriously take action here. I thought you were saying that your opinion of Islam is decided by what they do, and not by you.

I totally missed the real message that you were concerned that Islam was getting a possibly bad rap in the eyes of the world. I missed the part where you really talking about how dumb people can be. Sorry, dude. My bad.

So, I guess we agree. There's a TON of bad press out there about Islam. I agree that "their" public relations machine is puke compared to the terrorists'. I agree with you that some people, most people will believe **anything**, regardless of the truth of the matter. Witness the stooopidity surrounding the Intelligent Design as Science comedy. I guess we're right inline with each other.

Oh, except that you persist in posting stuff like

Originally Posted by mlandman

Yet, suicide attack after suicide attack after suicide attack after bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after hotel bombing after school siege after plane explosion is 'IN THE NAME IS ISLAM'.

and you clearly imply that you believe this part is true. You don't qualify it, your don't set it apart, you repeat it as though it were true. Let me just say this, In the name of Islam, it just isn't so.

EVEN IF the moron hollers "Allah Akbar!" just before he blows himself up, DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Even if he has brown skin doesn't make it so. Even if he has a foreign sounding name doesn't make it so. Even if he lives in the Middle East doesn't make it so. Loudly repeating a lie only produces a loud lie. Not truth. No matter how long or how loud. It never, ever makes it true.

But that part about the bad rap? Yeah, I totally agree.

[mlandman]

bigV, you're right. None of the suicide bombings are in the name of islam.

None of what is happening in Indonesia is.

None of what sept 11 was about, was.

none of london was.

none of the attempts thwarted in France, Spain, and other countries re: Moroccan and Algerian muslims, is.

You're right, and I'm wrong. This association is all a bad rap. The bad press machine made it happen.

Apologies, they're clearly deserved.

[wolf]

True enough, Islam is not about terrorism.

Islam is about Submission.

That's what it means, right?

The idea is that EVERYONE will submit to Allah.

Not to "some god equivalent to Allah" but Allah.

The one, the only, whose prophet is Muhammed, etc.

Terrorism, as one face of the Jihad, is one such means by which this will occur.

Islam does allow for non-Muslims to live in Muslim lands, however, they are subject to significant restrictions, cannot build houses of worship, cannot celebrate major religious festivals, have to pay a tax (which can be 1/3-1/2 of one's salary plus other applicable secular taxes), and if there is any suspicion that an attempt is being made to convert a Muslim, one can be imprisoned, punished, and even killed.

[Troubleshooter]

You know something. If we didn't have this silly thing called religion we wouldn't have a self-delusional charade to hide behind. We would have to own up to our imperfections. And if those imperfections are blamed on someone else we could at least look at who it was blamed on and find out. We wouldn't have some fictional entity to use as an excuse for predatory actions, or bestial behavior. We would just have to look at ourselves and say, well fuck, I guess I'm just not civilized after all.

Taken as a whole, fuck religion.

(G)god(s) may exist but if they want anything from me then they need to Fedex me a fucking manual and CV that's hard to refute. Otherwise anyone, anywhere who wants me to believe anything other than something that can at least be actually seen can kiss my ass. Repeatedly...

[xoxoxoBruce]

EVEN IF the moron hollers "Allah Akbar!" just before he blows himself up, DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

The hell it doesn't.....even if the rest of the Islamics don't want it to. It's a stain on them that they have to remove. If someone blows them self up in the name of the Baptists, they have to disavow that action or it sticks.

I'm thinking that there is a large number of people here in the good old USofA who would be real cool with a Christian theocracy, and that is real scary. I think some of the vanguard of that fetid governmental philosophy are already in power, so if there's an element of "who cares if they're dead, they're only a bunch of Muslims" to our foreign interventions of late, it is probably par for the course.

I was thinking vice versa. All the muslims who eschew violence but smirk when their neighbor kills an infidel.
It won't stop until everyone on all sides work to stop it. Nobody commits these acts without somebody knowing in advance.

[johningerslev]

The whole

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

fuck religion.

argument sortof falls down in my opinion when you consider aetheism as a religion - i.e. set of beliefs just like the other "religions"... admittedly a very free faith, but a set of beliefs that are based around the principle that there is no god just like religions are a set of beliefs based around the principle that there is a god. What we need is people to question everything they do and try to work it out according to this "right" and "wrong" morals we all intrinsically feel - not anger and hate.
i think.

[Happy Monkey]

Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color. You can use it in the same line on a form, and people will know what you mean. But it doesn't mean you have hair.