Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[metacristi]

Unfortunately, any Muslim (or indeed non-Muslim) who criticises even the worst excesses of Islam puts their life in danger. I don't know of many Muslims who speak out against extremism in the UK or Europe who have not received death threats. Whether it's raising the plight of women in Islam or speaking out against FGM or forced marriage or extremism in mosques or even criticising ISIS, you have to be prepared to face the prospect of an unpleasant and unexpected death from the Religion of Peace.

This is what we have to change, also via criticism of islam and empowering liberal imams. Now, not when muslims become important minorities and no way back possible (an important possibility, 'demographic predictions are notoriously imprecise' cuts both ways, we should be prepared for the worst). Any other solution is dhimmitude by our own choice, very probably leading at least to an Europe without some modern values (even to a 'second golden Age' of Islam). At the beginning we will probably witness more Islamic violence but on long term there are good chances to 'tame' Islam.

 

[Civet]

This is what we have to change, also via criticism of islam and empowering liberal imams.

I hear where you're coming from, but I'd worry that any attempt by non-Muslims to empower a liberal imam would promptly be used by radicals to discredit him. He'd get characterized as some sort of a sell-out or the type of fellow Bill Maher recently got criticized for referencing.

 

[Vixen]

You do understand they're only "very nice Christian girls" in the eyes of those who are willing to see them that way, right?

You do understand there are plenty in this world who believe those girls should be put to death, right?

They're not joking. They're not just repeating dogma. They mean it.

"The wages of sin is death. If you sin, I'll kill you."

It's not a joke, and there is no compromise.

That's nonsense. In Judaism it was believed that when you die you go to a limbo land called 'Sheol'. Then there are the various 'seven heavens' for the enlightened.

In Christianity, you are doomed to die unless you believe in Christ. So, 'the wages of sin is death', is not a call to kill anyone, as you claim. It is an edict that those who believe in Him will have everlasting life. Those who do not remain subject to sin, disease, death and decay.

Why are you trying to equate Christianity with IS-terrorism? It is getting tiresome.

 

[DragonLady]

In Judaism it was believed a when you die you go to a limbo land called 'Shoal'.

I'll take your word for it, as I know nothing about Judaism.

In Christianity, you are doomed to die unless you believe in Christ.

That's one (fairly mainstream) way of looking at it. But it's not the only view -and that's the point I'm making.

Why are you trying to equate Christianity with IS-terrorism? It is getting tiresome.

Because I believe both are just as uncompromising at the very base. But as one has found a way to coexist fairly peacefully in a far more secular world, I hope the other can, too.

 

[Vixen]

I'll take your word for it, as I know nothing about Judaism.



That's one (fairly mainstream) way of looking at it. But it's not the only view -and that's the point I'm making.



Because I believe both are just as uncompromising at the very base. But as one has found a way to coexist fairly peacefully in a far more secular world, I hope the other can, too.

If you have to do it by misquoting and scandalising, then your theory isn't very strong, is it?

 

[DragonLady]

If you have to do it by misquoting and scandalising, then your theory isn't very strong, is it?

I'm sorry...did I misquote you?

 

[Vixen]

I'm sorry...did I misquote you?

Not me. You misquoted the NT to presumably convey the impression Christianity advocates killing people.

You wrote:

You do understand there are plenty in this world who believe those girls should be put to death, right?

They're not joking. They're not just repeating dogma. They mean it.

"The wages of sin is death. If you sin, I'll kill you."

So your hypothesis 'Christianity is as bad as radical Islam' must be quite weak.

 

[ddt]

That's nonsense. In Judaism it was believed that when you die you go to a limbo land called 'Sheol'. Then there are the various 'seven heavens' for the enlightened.

AFAIK, Judaism is largely unconcerned with the afterlife, and as far as they're concerned, Sheol is just an underworld without any negative connotations. Everyone gets there.

In Christianity, you are doomed to die unless you believe in Christ. So, 'the wages of sin is death', is not a call to kill anyone, as you claim. It is an edict that those who believe in Him will have everlasting life. Those who do not remain subject to sin, disease, death and decay.

It's far too facile to just say that in Christianity, anyone who believes in Christ gets to heaven. There are quite diverse opinions.

First of all, the RCC has always put emphasis on "good works". You don't just have to believe in Christ, you also have to lead a good life (of course, donating to the church is also a "good work"). Several quotes of the current Pope suggest strongly he thinks that good works alone, without faith, could get you in heaven.

Second, Luther indeed thought that anyone who believes in Christ - and "sola fide", through faith alone - gets a ticket to heaven.

Third, Calvin taught predestination: God has predestined certain people to go to heaven. Now, you may think that you can freely go loot, plunder and mass murder without losing your place in heaven, but presumably God is omniscient enough to not predestine people who are wont to do such things. Arminian did not believe in predestination, merely that God knows beforehand who will have enough faith in Christ to get into heaven. Of course, this utter heresy meant that Arminian's followers were persecuted in 17th C. Netherlands because that's worse than being Catholic.

Fourth, the Jehova Witnesses think there are exactly 144,000 seats in heaven, but I have no idea how their idea of the ticket lottery is.

And so we can go on. There are dozens of variations on how to get into heaven between the ca. 30,000 Christian denominations.

 

[DragonLady]

Not me. You misquoted the NT to presumably convey the impression Christianity advocates killing people.

You wrote:




So your hypothesis 'Christianity is as bad as radical Islam' must be quite weak.

Some Christians do advocate killing people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

"The wages of sin is death" is King James; Romans 6:23.

But when I wrote it, I wasn't quoting the NT. The two sentences I was quoting -and they are the exact words, as I remember them spoken- are those of a very fundamentalist Christian from my own childhood.

While the individual in question didn't hold mainstream beliefs, there are plenty of Christians who don't. Just like people here keep saying about Islamists/Muslims -there are many individuals, and they hold a wide range of beliefs.

But at the end of the day, I believe most of those disparate theologies and attitudes can be traced back to their respective texts and traditional teachings, just as the very wide range of Christian beliefs can be.

So your hypothesis 'Christianity is as bad as radical Islam' must be quite weak.

I never made that hypothesis. My point (the one I entered this thread with was:

I disagree. I don't think Islamic terrorists want to disrupt society.

I think they want every single man, woman, and child who is not Islamic to die. Period. I do not believe there is any compromise they will accept.

...and of course, I had to dig out of a pile of people who want to draw distinctions between these terrorists and the rest of the Islamic community.

That's fine say I; Christianity also has a fringe that holds ideas, ideals and values counter to the mainstream.

Being unable to discuss these fringe beliefs -in either religion- for fear of being accused of scandalizing or of tarnishing the larger group is crippling the efforts to determine what is the hot button cause(s) of these terrorist acts.

 

[McHrozni]

There was a time and a place - Without religion, all you would have had was murderous tribal warfare.

Now? Really?

Correct, in the early days religion was an important tool in getting people to behave. About half of the ten commandments are an affirmation of religion and the other half can be summarized as "also, don't be a jerk". It's an early form of the code of laws, giving it divine background also made it more likely people will follow the code.

Not a bad thing, overall. In those days it was probably the very best one could do. It's outdated nowadays, we don't require the laws and moral standards to have a divine background, we accept them for what they are because we have come to realize they're there to make our society and our lives better (for the most part anyway).

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I would just like to say that we're finally beginning to see the early stages of what is the only possible solution to Islamic terrorism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lerics-islam-isis-burial-khuram-a7776861.html

If this is more than a green shot, if the Muslim really begin to show their distaste towards Islamists in a strong and meaningful way, then maybe we can avoid disaster altogether.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

And if it is an ideology that specifically advocates killing others (but not every follower carries out the teachings) - What then?

Depends on what you mean by but not every follower carries out the teachings.

That implies that the (vast ?) majority do, in which case I could see a case.

If you're talking about Islam in the UK then I don't think it's fair to say but not every follower carries out the teachings, but rather but only a tiny minority of extremists carry out the teachings - in which case it's not justified IMO.

 

[quadraginta]

Hasn't it been done that way throughout history? Just like when we put the Japanese into internment camps during WW2. We rounded up all of them because it was the only way to make sure we protected ourselves against the spies and other security risks.

I'm not saying it was right; clearly we went too far and without reasonable evidence it was necessary. But it wasn't a new idea, and the Japanese government certainly should've been aware it was a possible -or even likely- consequence of starting a war with us.

We can look back NOW and cry "racism" and "it wasn't fair" but that might be partly because we foiled plans that could've changed history. If the Japanese had won the war, do you think they would've treated the Americans any differently?

<snip>

We could look at it then and cry "racism" and "it wasn't fair".

How many German-Americans got rounded up and shoved into concentration camps? They were a much more visible and apparent threat than Japanese-Americans. They had organized groups publicly supporting Hitler right up to the beginning of the war.

Or Italian-Americans?

It wasn't obviously racist when only the Japanese were rounded up wholesale, taken from their homes, and stuffed into barbed-wire compounds, while all those Caucasians with every bit as much reason to be worried about (or, in the case of the Germans, perhaps much more) were left with their freedom and property intact?

We even bribed and browbeat Peru into rounding up nearly all of their citizens of Japanese descent, arresting them without warrants and shipping them all, thousands of them, to the U.S. to be incarcerated here for the duration of the war.

Plenty of people at that time saw it for the racism that it was.

There just wasn't enough who cared.

 

[quadraginta]

Who is blaming the innocent? Surely we've got beyond this conflation of Muslims and Islam. Identifying Islam as the primary factor and the source of much of this terrorism, violence, intolerance and fascism is not, in itself, blaming anybody. Do we wring our hands with worry that we will victimise the millions of peaceful, law-abiding right-wingers in this country when we criticise the white nationalist mentality and identify it as unwanted?
<snip>

Plenty of people reacted that way when Hillary did exactly that.

More than a few suggest it was a primary contributor to her loss of the election.

 

[McHrozni]

Plenty of people reacted that way when Hillary did exactly that.

More than a few suggest it was a primary contributor to her loss of the election.

Calling Trump supporters "a basked of deplorables" is not criticizing white nationalism. It's a personal insult against white nationalists, akin to calling Islamic terrorists "despicable brownies" or something like that. This is indeed not a productive area of discussion and a divisive, destructive approach. If she was against a better candidate than Trump (which is not a tall order) I'd welcome her defeat.

You can criticize white nationalism without insulting white nationalists, not in a way an insult is usually understood anyway. In the same manner we can and should criticize Islam in a way no Muslim would have the right to feel insulted.

McHrozni

 

[Liam]

In the same manner we can and should criticize Islam in a way no Muslim would have the right to feel insulted.

Good luck with that.

 

[McHrozni]

Good luck with that.

Thanks

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The peoples, no.

The principles, yes.

Just as the Bible contains the Christian principles -both those embraced by the mainstream, and those not- I suspect the Islamic principles are contained within their texts or oral history or other traditional sources.

Couldn't disagree more. People of all religions make their own principles and then look to the bible or holy book for justifications. Because the books are incoherent nonsense that contain contradictory principles ideal for that very purpose.

 

[McHrozni]

Couldn't disagree more. People of all religions make their own principles and then look to the bible or holy book for justifications.

The flow of information does not go only in one way. While it is true that some people will make their principles up and then look to their holy texts to justify them, others will read the holy texts and make their principles match what they just red. Some will even make up their principles, look to their holy texts to justify them, find their principles are not well justified and change the principles.

It's not a one way street in either direction.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You have missed my point entirely - we have to address the elephant in the room.

Others Muslims are doing so, and good for them too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEk2ALt3c8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZMXV_PRXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3Fd5JwArM

And if we skeptics want to criticize or even laugh at, without fear, a ridiculous ideology, we should be free to do so.

That form of criticism led to Europe's and the West's enlightenment by removing the shackles of religion.

I do not want to go backwards based on the sensitivities of one group.

By not doing so i.e. criticizing Islam, we are being condescending (and could be argued racist) since we assume that the ideology and the followers being criticized do not have the intellectual capacity for debate.

That too is intellectual dishonesty.


ETA ... and we in the West need to do it before the extreme Right Wing take the baton and twist it to their non intellectual but purely perverse and ugly emotive argument.

I didn't miss your point at all.

Incidentally nobody is saying you can't criticise Islam here. But there is a difference between criticising it and smearing it and its followers with dog dirt because of your own petty prejudices and ignorance.

The Quran and Islam are wrong about pretty much everything in it as a description of reality. People who choose to follow it in my opinion are misguided misinformed and deluded. what they are not is murderers waiting to happen.

The problem with the criticism of Islam that has forced politicians and others to disown it is that it is nothing more than bigotry and racism and it is having real effects on the lives of peaceful law abiding Muslims everywhere.