Originally posted by black beetlePoint is that I am confused with the attitude of the religionists Christians and the Muslims to make poletics through their "Religion".
The very essence of a democracy is that every citizen respects the opinion of any other. Muslims tend to act irrationally whenever they estimate that their religion and beliefs are critisized, just as some Christians use to do.
You people seem unable even to discuss a slightest different opinion, particularly when it has to do with your religion. The ...[text shortened]... ough their "Religion". How hard for a Christian/ Muslim to conceive such a naive thought;
Is there a problem to build poletical views depending on a specific religion? What is it exactly?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou miss the point, quite deliberately, of course.
And that's all the news worth reading.
No one really wants to take on the seemingly impossible task of explaining or dealing with violence prompted by or merely excused by religion, in today's world it is usually Islam that is cited by both the perpetrators and the victims of this violence as the reason for it.
Of course, usually I would take a case by case approach. but it is curious, is it not, that all the aforementioned bombings involved Islamic extremists or those who claim to be so.
My question was fairly straightforward and as neutral as I could be: I think there is a problem; what should be done about it?
Bush's answer was to invade a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with this problem because he wanted to seize the Iraqi oil fields and place them under long term contracts with the big oil companies who are his true base and constituency.
If he wanted sincerely to deal with Islamic extremism and terror, he would have put all his troops into Afghanistan right away and destroyed Osama's HQ and the Taliban, before they had a chance to rebuild and grow strong in their mountain redoubts.
I want to find a non-violent solution to this problem. I hope there is one.
Originally posted by ScriabinHow about the guy in Tennessee that killed 2 Unitarians this morning? How about the Holocaust?
All of the previous posts capture just one search for today on Google news -- Add it all up and tell me why this doesn't amount to a real problem world wide?
How do we address it in a rational and humane manner?
Originally posted by black beetleI can see that the spirit of Rajk has infested you too.
The very essence of a democracy is that every citizen respects the opinion of any other. Muslims tend to act irrationally whenever they estimate that their religion and beliefs are critisized, just as some Christians use to do.
You people seem unable even to discuss a slightest different opinion, particularly when it has to do with your religion. The ough their "Religion". How hard for a Christian/ Muslim to conceive such a naive thought;
Originally posted by scherzoThose examples seem not to have turned out too well.
How about the guy in Tennessee that killed 2 Unitarians this morning? How about the Holocaust?
Now, think really hard and try to come up with something that isn't knee-jerk blood simple violent.
I did want to reach your minds .. where are they currently located?
Originally posted by ScriabinIsn't "knee-jerk blood simple violent" exactly what you spent a page of the forum describing?
Those examples seem not to have turned out too well.
Now, think really hard and try to come up with something that isn't knee-jerk blood simple violent.
I did want to reach your minds .. where are they currently located?
Hi ahosyney,
Thank you for being reasonable and for understanding that my point is not to insult a religion although I believe in none.
In case you think that my first statement is wrong, for starters kindly please check the circumstances under which Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdamn; then kindly please let me know what you think of the Nigerian women and girls that still end up stoned to death by Muslims; and finally kindly please let me know if you agree with the reaction of the Muslims against Denmark everywhere after the incident of Feb. 2006 regarding the drawing cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten.
I repeat: I have nothing against the spirituality of the individuals. A citizen has the right to follow the religion of his choice and to do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't harass the other citizens with his actions.
I am aware that the Muslims are contributing in every scientific field and I have nothing against each of them individuals. I simply said that the religionists Jewish/ Christians/ Muslims have replaced the politics with their religions, and such an attitude in my opinion is erroneous and dangerous.
I agree that today there is not a pure Islamic country, and I am sure that you understand too that there is not a pure Christian country: centuries ago both religions were vastly twisted and became the perfect tools for social manipulation. But the situation in Muslim countries is even worse, not only because the fanatics amongst them which they prefer to kill each other instead of establishing a descent dialogue, but also because of the theocratic governments that they mostly rule those countries. This is the reason why I claim that the Muslims are living in the past. When all the Muslim citizens take a grip and change this situation, then they may get a chance to establish a democratic environment (of course they are free to prefer a theocratic system and keep on the way they do the last 10 centuries).
Regarding your question “Is there a problem to build political views depending on a specific religion? What is it exactly?”, I reply:
I make clear that I am talking about the politics of a country as a whole and not for the right of the individual citizen to live following a particular religion. Unfortunately the religionists try constantly to force the politicians to promote their “faith” instead of letting the civil law offer the same chances to each religion (and also the same chances to the citizens which they don’t follow a religion). On the other hand, isn’t true that the greater disasters are caused, and in the past were caused, by leaders which they insist that they act in the name of the “God”?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'll agree Islam is a scurge if you agree Christianity is also a scourge.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/011308dnedidreher.1ab6eb80.html
Several years ago, the Jordanian parliament voted down attempts by Jordanian women and human rights activists to end honor killing, which takes the lives of 20 to 30 Jordanian women each year. Parliament upheld lenient sentenc t, we don't look at it as violent," he said. "We look at it as a deterrent."
I am an equal oportunity scourger.
Originally posted by ScriabinYou are 100% correct in the bushwhacker assesment. There are more terrorists now than before 9-11 and women now also. But that is no excuse for the sectarian violence in Iraq where Muslims are killing other Muslims. That is another issue, more of an Iran V Iraq thing now. When the US pulls out of Iraq, I predict within a few years, Iraq will be Western Iran. And of course we all believe the Iranians only want to develop nuclear power JUST for peacefull purposes, right?
You miss the point, quite deliberately, of course.
No one really wants to take on the seemingly impossible task of explaining or dealing with violence prompted by or merely excused by religion, in today's world it is usually Islam that is cited by both the perpetrators and the victims of this violence as the reason for it.
Of course, usually I would t tain redoubts.
I want to find a non-violent solution to this problem. I hope there is one.
And as for the oil, have we gotten one drop of it for all those hundreds of billions spent?
Originally posted by sonhouseHi sonhouse;
I'll agree Islam is a scurge if you agree Christianity is also a scourge.
I am an equal oportunity scourger.
I think Judaism, Christianism and Islam are scourge big time. From an ancient barbaric manuscript, the Old Testament, were born these three religions, all of them hostile to the Man;
Originally posted by black beetleI am an atheist and do not have a religion.
You people seem unable even to discuss a slightest different opinion, particularly when it has to do with your religion.
My objections centre around your xenophobia, your clear ignorance about Muslims, and your blanket generalizations about them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not xenophobist. Kindly please proove the opposite based on my posts.
I am an atheist and do not have a religion.
My objections centre around your xenophobia, your clear ignorance about Muslims, and your blanket generalizations about them.
I don't care for any religion and I think that every citizen is free to choose the one he thinks is correct for hiself; and I clearly said that I disagree with the view of the fanatic Muslims.
You consider my opinion "generalization", but I clearly talked about the Muslim religionists. Kindly please check my abv mentioned answer to ahosyney and you will see my point;
Originally posted by black beetleYou posted:
I am not xenophobist. Kindly please proove the opposite based on my posts.
Muslims keep on coming in Europe and USA and they constantly try to change the very essence of the democracies that accepted them in their soil.
It doesn't proove that you are xenophobic, but it does look that way. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that any Muslim residing in Europe or the US is a recent immigrant, and that anyone migrating to a country has to conform to the culture of a particular subset of that society.
I don't care for any religion and I think that every citizen is free to choose the one he thinks is correct for hiself; and I clearly said that I disagree with the view of the fanatic Muslims.
Sorry, but I missed the bit where you qualified it. You seemed to be talking about Muslims in general.
You consider my opinion "generalization", but I clearly talked about the Muslim religionists. Kindly please check my abv mentioned answer to ahosyney and you will see my point;
But your answer to ahosyney was after the posts I had been responding to.
Let me also quote another statement you made:
You Muslims have the right to live the way you please in your countries, but kindly please leave the citizens of the countries which accepted you in their soil to live too the way they want.
1. I don't see any qualification there about which Muslims in particular you are referring too.
2. Which countries are the "your countries" you are referring too? Does a Muslim citizen of the US have the right to live the way he pleases there?
3. Which Muslims in particular are trying to tell you (or other non-Muslim Europeans) how to live?