"Jihad until Islam takes over the world" over Pope's comments

[DRBUZZ0]

So... it seems that the Pope, who called Islam evil...or used a quote that implied it is now apologizing and yet, the Muslim nations are still calling for his head. Yes, it seems that YET AGAIN, the Islamic world is going to prove everyone wrong who called them violent or terrorist.....by bombing things. (Apparently nobody sees the irony of this).

Personally, I'm not usually one to stand up for the Pope. It's certainly true that Catholism, like most religions, has caused its fair share of problems in the world over the last 2000 years.

Now as far as "Evil." People do not like calling something like Islam evil, because the word "Evil" is subjective. It's a sort of inflamatory word which has an almost unreal religious or mythological feel to it. Perhaps it would be better to call it something like "Founded on that which ought to be considered universally unethical." Or "Having flawed judgement in terms of morality." "Tending toward the unjustified and promoting unrest" or "dangerous to the stability of human society."

Okay...I haven't figured out the best way of putting it. There seems to be a big move toward relativism in the world. In the past it's been more acceptable to call things black or white. Perhaps less acurate, but also more direct and perhaps necessary. Durring the second World War, for example, Nazi Germany was portrayed as an evil group of people bent on world domination. Acurate? Surely not for all residents of the nation. Perhaps for a few in the leadership. Less than half of the population ever belonged to the Nazi party. After the war, many were shocked at finding out what their country's leadership had done just behind their backs.

And yet, the black and white, stereotypical, oversimplified version of events was what drove the Allied powers and the people of the US, Brittan, Russia and others to fight and make the sacrafices necessary. As is the case with such a war, all debate and symantics had to be put aside and all energy focused on winning as quickly and assuredly as possible.

I'd like to present one question: If islam is not evil. Can anything at all be considered evil??? Anything??? If not Islam, is there anything which one can say is so far off of that which is considered right that it trumps cultural sensativity and the need to understand the situations of others?

Anything???

 

[Rob Lister]

Good post. I've heard people within the church whom I respect say this was not a message meant for the world, but rather a message implicitly put to the church. It is a message of warning that the pope believes this situation is about to get far more out of hand than it currently is. I commented on the irony that the pope is, by this message, fostering that prophecy. The reply: shrug.

I can see from where that shrug comes: if not that, something else. Any excuse will do. If none given, several created out of whole cloth.

 

[hgc]

Now as far as "Evil." People do not like calling something like Islam evil, because the word "Evil" is subjective. It's a sort of inflamatory word which has an almost unreal religious or mythological feel to it. Perhaps it would be better to call it something like "Founded on that which ought to be considered universally unethical." Or "Having flawed judgement in terms of morality." "Tending toward the unjustified and promoting unrest" or "dangerous to the stability of human society."

I don't use "evil" because it's childish. It's a construct that appeals to the basest, most emotioally susceptible, most ignorant tendencies of the religious mind. To hear Bush prattle on about "evildoers" makes me cringe. He's the one person most in need of a rational outlook in such dangerous times.

And yet, the black and white, stereotypical, oversimplified version of events was what drove the Allied powers and the people of the US, Brittan, Russia and others to fight and make the sacrafices necessary. As is the case with such a war, all debate and symantics had to be put aside and all energy focused on winning as quickly and assuredly as possible.

OK, think fast! What carries more weight with Britain and the US in going to war with Germany in 1939 and 1941, respectively? Is it an "oversimplified version of events" or is it national self-interest? As for Russia, you might want to bone up on some well-known facts before you espouse lessons from history. Afterall, Russia has a non-aggression pact with Germany until Hitler unleashed his plan for getting more elbow room to the east. What I really can't comprehend is your blatant desire for an emotional and ignorant approach to (black and white, stereotypical, etc) to these problems. Are you serious?!?

Incidentally, your collage of evil is a real hoot. I like the Genghis Kahn, Charles Manson, Count Dracula trifecta. Oooooohhhhhhhh, shiver me timbers.

 

[Tony]

I commented on the irony that the pope is, by this message, fostering that prophecy. The reply: shrug.

People aren't impressed when you point out the obvious.

And yet, the black and white, stereotypical, oversimplified version of events was what drove the Allied powers and the people of the US, Brittan, Russia and others to fight and make the sacrafices necessary.

Hmmm...I'm not sure of that. I think the US and (especially) Britain were fighting for survival (remember, Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor).

 

[DRBUZZ0]

OK, think fast! What carries more weight with Britain and the US in going to war with Germany in 1939 and 1941, respectively? Is it an "oversimplified version of events" or is it national self-interest? As for Russia, you might want to bone up on some well-known facts before you espouse lessons from history. Afterall, Russia has a non-aggression pact with Germany until Hitler unleashed his plan for getting more elbow room to the east. What I really can't comprehend is your blatant desire for an emotional and ignorant approach to (black and white, stereotypical, etc) to these problems. Are you serious?!?

True Russia did have a non-agression pact with Germany. And the US was attacked by Japan. One could make the argument that it had it coming based on the oil sanctions on Japan and the sabre rattling in the paciffic for many years. However...that sounds very firmiliar to me, given the "We would not have been attacked if not for being in the Middle East" and as for history: You did not point out that the UK declared war on Germany and that some of Hitlers writings had indicated that he would have been receptive toward an alience with Brittan, had Churchhill and the leadership not been so anti-nazi.

I would argue that the US and others are in danger from Islam, just as previous movements had been a severe danger to other societies.

As for "Evil." No...it's not a very good word. I already said that. It's simplistic and borders on childish. Can you think of a better word? If anything is evil, Islam certainly fits the bill. Should we stick to better terms. That islam is "A force which poses a clear and present danger to all of human civilization." Yes it's a poor word. But not an inacurate word.

Perhaps a parallel: Raw sewage is "yucky." That's a childish and rather odd way of describing it. Perhaps "It contains a very high amount of bacteria and can be dangerous to the health of a community if not removed properly" or "It has an unpleasent oder"

The second two terms are better. But the first is not inacurate

 

[Skeptic]

I don't use "evil" because it's childish. It's a construct that appeals to the basest, most emotioally susceptible, most ignorant tendencies of the religious mind.

I never understood why it's "base" or "childish" to call something evil and to hate it. According to such childish people as Aristotle, Plato (or Socrates), St. Thomas Aquinas, Confucius, and numerous others I could name, the very essence of good education--and of morality--is to hate what is evil and love what is good. Furthermore, recognizing and hating evil is not only is it morally the right thing, it is practically the right thing.

The absurdity of such the "dispassionate" view can be seen by the fact that if one refuses to use words like "evil" or "bad", it is hard to say why Germany was morally wrong in WWII. By any "objective" scale, Britian and the USA made it suffer far worse than it made them suffer, so it at least should be "objectively" seen as morally superior to the western allies.

Or, just replace "hate" with any other "base" emotion. Suppose someone says he "cringes" when he hears people speak of primitive, subjective things like "love" or "beauty", and he would marry a woman only based on objective facts like her bank account. Or someone who claims he is above such base instincts of "eating food that tastes good", and he only eats what scientists recommend based on their nutritional value...

 

[Polaris]

I don't use "evil" because it's childish. It's a construct that appeals to the basest, most emotioally susceptible, most ignorant tendencies of the religious mind. To hear Bush prattle on about "evildoers" makes me cringe. He's the one person most in need of a rational outlook in such dangerous times.

I would argue that the folks out there cutting peoples' heads off, burning embassies and shooting nuns in the back on their own volition - because of cartoons and speeches - are in the most need of a rational outlook. Or do you think Muslims are beyond all hope?

As for "evil"...

We're talking about a religious movement that calls Muhammad the most perfect human who has ever lived. This is a man (I use the term loosely) who once raped a woman while all her male relatives' bodies, hacked to death by his followers, were still nearby and warm. This is a man who consummated a marriage with a twelve-year old. This isn't later interpretation by someone with an axe to grind. This was from Abu Bakr, Muhammad's first biographer, who was trying to make the "prophet" in the best light possible.

Evil's accurate.

 

[a_unique_person]

If we followed your logic, we may as well call the jews and xians evil too. The old testament isn't a record of benevolent behaviour and tolerance either. The book of the apololypse is pretty damn evil, too.

 

[Marc L]

If we followed your logic, we may as well call the jews and xians evil too. The old testament isn't a record of benevolent behaviour and tolerance either. The book of the apololypse is pretty damn evil, too.

Congrats. You just hit the nail on the head!

You're right, and all three* religions have committed their share of evil in the past. That's one of the problems, IMO, with social religions. They make it easier for people to let go of their rationality.

On the other hand, there are peaceful, law-abiding Muslims out there. The guy who runs the deli near where I live is one of them-directly from Iraq. He knows I'm in the military, and yet is always pleased to see me when I come in.**
Extremism in religion (in anything, really) is a bad thing. It creates environments that lead to things like the Conquest of Canaan*, the Crusades/Inquisition, and the current Muslim fanaticism.

* Assuming that the account in Joshua is historically accurate. I'm not aware of any other examples of Jewish extremism, and it would be politically incorrect for me to ask about them...

** Of course, he may be glad to see me because I'm there to give him my money, but still, he's not trying to blow me up at all, and I count that as a good thing.

Marc

 

[Darth Rotor]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7875450f3828e16f0.jpg[/qimg]

You seem to have left out Blackbeard, who according to popular lyrics was called "Son" by the Devil.

Since tomorrow is Talk Like A Pirate Day, please consider removing the swastika (you have Hitler with one on next to it) and adding a pic of Blackbeard to the collage.

D"aarrrrrr"

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Congrats. You just hit the nail on the head!

You're right, and all three* religions have committed their share of evil in the past. That's one of the problems, IMO, with social religions. They make it easier for people to let go of their rationality.

On the other hand, there are peaceful, law-abiding Muslims out there. The guy who runs the deli near where I live is one of them-directly from Iraq. He knows I'm in the military, and yet is always pleased to see me when I come in.**
Extremism in religion (in anything, really) is a bad thing. It creates environments that lead to things like the Conquest of Canaan*, the Crusades/Inquisition, and the current Muslim fanaticism.

* Assuming that the account in Joshua is historically accurate. I'm not aware of any other examples of Jewish extremism, and it would be politically incorrect for me to ask about them...

** Of course, he may be glad to see me because I'm there to give him my money, but still, he's not trying to blow me up at all, and I count that as a good thing.

Marc

Okay...that is true. But you're missing something.. I haven't seen the Christians or Jews crash a plane loaded with civilians (who had nothing to do with forign policy or military issues) into buildings (again full of inocents) with the intention of killing as many as possible with no regard for who they are.

Nor do I see women burried up to their neck and beheaded in the vatican city. Nor do I see the isralie authorities calling for all who might question their religion to be sentenced to death. Or have their tongues cut out and lay in the sun until their bodies are picked by buzzards (or some other strange rituatlistic punishment).

Did these things happen? Sure, durring the Spanish inqusition and the witch trials and even more recently. Do they continue to happen? Perhaps somewhere. I'm sure there are a few christian fundies who would go for that.


But the difference is that they have not demonstrated an iminant threat. We are not constantly finding churches are a hotbed of terrorist planning. We are not finding a communications between priests or rabbis or ministers indicating an intention to build a dirty bomb. Nuns and friars are not blowing themselves up on busses on a weekly baisis.

If they were such a threat to society or if they ever become such, then the same would apply to them. And don't give me this bull about the Oklohoma city bombing. Yes...tim mcveigh was a white american. However, he was modivated by a ultra-rightwing militant philosophy more than religion. And again: Yes, it does happen. But not on a near-constant baisis like with Islam.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Okay...that is true. But you're missing something.. I haven't seen the Christians or Jews crash a plane loaded with civilians (who had nothing to do with forign policy or military issues) into buildings (again full of inocents) with the intention of killing as many as possible with no regard for who they are.

Does blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946 count?

Does it include any number of (Crystal Palace? Mountbatten?) bombs placed and exploded by Catholics/IRA folks?

Does bombing abortion clinics (a bit dated reference) in Virginia count?

Does Tim McVeigh's bombing on 2d anniversary of Branch Davidian raid count?

Maybe not recently, but it's not unheard of.

First "car bomb" went off on Wall Street, 1920, but it was a Horse Cart. I wonder if that is where McVeigh got his idea to use Manure/Fertilizer for his bomb.

DR

 

[firecoins]

Does blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946 count?

Does it include any number of (Crystal Palace? Mountbatten?) bombs placed and exploded by Catholics/IRA folks?

Does bombing abortion clinics (a bit dated reference) in Virginia count?

Does Tim McVeigh's bombing on 2d anniversary of Branch Davidian raid count?

Maybe not recently, but it's not unheard of.

First "car bomb" went off on Wall Street, 1920, but it was a Horse Cart. I wonder if that is where McVeigh got his idea to use Manure/Fertilizer for his bomb.

DR

Islamic terrorism is done more frequently and more recently than anything you mentioned, obviously. And it is done to prevent any influence at all of non Islamic entities, in some case for a world Islamic state. This goal is bad if not evil. It is in Western Secular societites interest to prevent this goal from being a reality.

 

[Skeptic]

Does blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946 count?

Does it include any number of (Crystal Palace? Mountbatten?) bombs placed and exploded by Catholics/IRA folks?

Does bombing abortion clinics (a bit dated reference) in Virginia count?

Does Tim McVeigh's bombing on 2d anniversary of Branch Davidian raid count?

Maybe not recently, but it's not unheard of.

First "car bomb" went off on Wall Street, 1920, but it was a Horse Cart. I wonder if that is where McVeigh got his idea to use Manure/Fertilizer for his bomb.

DR

Yes, these DO count, but the fact that you have to go back to the 1920s or 40s shows you these were exceptions. Now, when was the last time Islamists used car bombs? Last week?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, these DO count, but the fact that you have to go back to the 1920s or 40s shows you these were exceptions. Now, when was the last time Islamists used car bombs? Last week?

Yes. Probably somewhere in Iraq. Perhaps the Islamists were slow learners, but they did eventually learn.

DR

 

[Marc L]

Okay...that is true. But you're missing something.. I haven't seen the Christians or Jews crash a plane loaded with civilians (who had nothing to do with forign policy or military issues) into buildings (again full of inocents) with the intention of killing as many as possible with no regard for who they are.

Nor do I see women burried up to their neck and beheaded in the vatican city. Nor do I see the isralie authorities calling for all who might question their religion to be sentenced to death. Or have their tongues cut out and lay in the sun until their bodies are picked by buzzards (or some other strange rituatlistic punishment).

Did these things happen? Sure, durring the Spanish inqusition and the witch trials and even more recently. Do they continue to happen? Perhaps somewhere. I'm sure there are a few christian fundies who would go for that.


But the difference is that they have not demonstrated an iminant threat. We are not constantly finding churches are a hotbed of terrorist planning. We are not finding a communications between priests or rabbis or ministers indicating an intention to build a dirty bomb. Nuns and friars are not blowing themselves up on busses on a weekly baisis.

If they were such a threat to society or if they ever become such, then the same would apply to them. And don't give me this bull about the Oklohoma city bombing. Yes...tim mcveigh was a white american. However, he was modivated by a ultra-rightwing militant philosophy more than religion. And again: Yes, it does happen. But not on a near-constant baisis like with Islam.

Putting aside recent examples of Christian/Jewish terrorisms, which, as some have already said, are uncommon, you have to understand the difference between the West and the Middle East. In the West, we had a whole movement that started during the Reformation which began to seriously question religious authority, and ultimately, force it out of government. One side effect of this was that more and more people were able to become educated. More was learned about the world, and disseminated into the local populace. As time went on, the West became more secularized, and religion lost its hold (for the most part) on the people.

As this happened, Christianity (I can't speak for Judaism) began to "modernize". Less emphasis was placed on sin and penance, and more on turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, etc. By the time these ideas made a resurgence, they were consigned to a minority.

This makes Christian/Jewish extremism (of the "Jihad" variety) extremely rare. While certainly, there are those who'll bomb abortion clinics, there are enough of the "Christian Lite" (to quote a phrase from my fundie days) variety to keep them largely in check.

The Middle East never had this process. Islam was the law. Period. There was no Enlightenment, or secularization. As such, there is nothing to keep extremism in check over there. To pick on the deli owner down the street again, he is a peaceful man with fairly modern ideas (think of him as "Muslim Lite") because he lives in an educated, secular society. He has the freedom now to question his beliefs and interact with other people that have different viewpoints. This freedom of thought and interaction enables him to mold his own beliefs around his new world.

Most Western Muslims are like that. They've been living in free societies for awhile now, and have altered their beliefs to coincide with the idea of freedom and tolerance. Sure, there are vocal (and sometimes violent) minorities, but they're not as mainstream as they are in the Middle East.

The Middle East needs to experience something akin to our Enlightenment before extremism and religious violence will stop over there.

Marc

 

[Darat]

Good post. I've heard people within the church whom I respect say this was not a message meant for the world, but rather a message implicitly put to the church. It is a message of warning that the pope believes this situation is about to get far more out of hand than it currently is. I commented on the irony that the pope is, by this message, fostering that prophecy. The reply: shrug.

I can see from where that shrug comes: if not that, something else. Any excuse will do. If none given, several created out of whole cloth.

You don't seem to be aware what the lecture the Pope made was actually about i.e. Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections

 

[BPSCG]

The Middle East needs to experience something akin to our Enlightenment before extremism and religious violence will stop over there.

Good post. Of course, before you can have an Enlightenment, you need a Reformation. The problem is, what will happen to the Muslim Martin Luther when he nails his 95 Theses to the mosque doors? I'm afraid we probably know the answer, and it isn't a pretty one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Putting aside recent examples of Christian/Jewish terrorisms, which, as some have already said, are uncommon, you have to understand the difference between the West and the Middle East. In the West, we had a whole movement that started during the Reformation which began to seriously question religious authority, and ultimately, force it out of government. One side effect of this was that more and more people were able to become educated. More was learned about the world, and disseminated into the local populace. As time went on, the West became more secularized, and religion lost its hold (for the most part) on the people.

As this happened, Christianity (I can't speak for Judaism) began to "modernize". Less emphasis was placed on sin and penance, and more on turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, etc. By the time these ideas made a resurgence, they were consigned to a minority.

This makes Christian/Jewish extremism (of the "Jihad" variety) extremely rare. While certainly, there are those who'll bomb abortion clinics, there are enough of the "Christian Lite" (to quote a phrase from my fundie days) variety to keep them largely in check.

The Middle East never had this process. Islam was the law. Period. There was no Enlightenment, or secularization. As such, there is nothing to keep extremism in check over there. To pick on the deli owner down the street again, he is a peaceful man with fairly modern ideas (think of him as "Muslim Lite") because he lives in an educated, secular society. He has the freedom now to question his beliefs and interact with other people that have different viewpoints. This freedom of thought and interaction enables him to mold his own beliefs around his new world.

Most Western Muslims are like that. They've been living in free societies for awhile now, and have altered their beliefs to coincide with the idea of freedom and tolerance. Sure, there are vocal (and sometimes violent) minorities, but they're not as mainstream as they are in the Middle East.

The Middle East needs to experience something akin to our Enlightenment before extremism and religious violence will stop over there.

Marc

While I concur with "what the Mid East needs" sentiment, it isn't me who needs convincing. It's people who'll never read this board.

Violent minorities do things like start revolutions, or pull Tim McVeigh like stunts. I find no consolation in this placebo of the bulk of people being mild mannered. That is expected, and desired, and for the matter at hand, irrelevant.

You will note that the Muslims authorities wage cultural warfare against Reformation and Enlightenment style movements. (The odd progressive like Emir Al Thani of Qatar seems the exception, empowered by a lot of wealth and not much population.) Perhaps they saw what happened to traditional Christian culture, and have vowed not to fall into the same ideological trap/laziness/materialism that the "christian" world did. The progressive (if bloody now and again) Ba'athist movement, a nationalist and somewhat secular movement, was at odds with the old school and more Islamist mode from its inception. If we are fighting against Islamism, why toss Saddam out on his butt?

When seen from the PoV of an authoritarian Salafist, I'll argue that the reactionary blocs in the Mualim world don't want to learn from the Wests' mistakes, and they don't want to repeat them. See MTV and Ho Video Central for an argument (albeit an extremely narrow one) in their favor.

DR

 

[Darat]

Good post. Of course, before you can have an Enlightenment, you need a Reformation. The problem is, what will happen to the Muslim Martin Luther when he nails his 95 Theses to the mosque doors? I'm afraid we probably know the answer, and it isn't a pretty one.

Yep - probably what happened to hundreds of Protestants and Catholics afterwards - killed by the opposing side.

I would suggest if you are interested in this you look into the difference between Sunnis (940 million) and the Shiites- (120 million) it may explain to you why they are battling violently today. Don't forget nearly all the Muslim violence we see in the world at the moment is between different types of Muslims.

In historic terms I would say you could liken the Sunnis to the Roman Catholics and the Shiites to Protestants (especially consider one of the major difference of theology - i.e. Sunnies believe that if Allah say to do something it makes whatever you are doing a "good" thing whereas the Shiites believe that Allah only commands people to do good things - it's a rather fundamental difference.)