(November 3, 2015 at 5:33 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: So while I think Islam is a vile religion, I think most muslims are basically decent people that wonna get by like the rest of us

I think, every religion taken by the letter and carried to it's extreme, is vile. As I often say, it's only a thin coat of society and laws that prevents christian and jewish radicals to act onn their violent impulses. And sometimes this coat breaks and the results are ugly. Always keep in mind, we're talking about failed or authoritarian states when we talk about the Middle East.

That is true. But between Christian and Muslim culture there is one major difference. Christian, or I should more specifically is western culture has been effected very deeply by enlightenment teachings such as equality and individualism. These ideals are only now beginning to take

(November 4, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Christian, or I should more specifically is western culture has been effected very deeply by enlightenment teachings such as equality and individualism. These ideals are only now beginning to take

Little of what you observe to be muslim culture is actually influenced by religion. It's their regional culture they lived even before Islam came to be. That's why I said to look at the countries we're talking about. They're still deeply tribal in nature and the countries we now see on the map are mostly artificial constructs with next to no natural glue of people wanting to form a nation. That's especially true for Iraq, Lybia and Syria and to a lesser degree for Jordan.

Add to this that the Turks became the dominant people around the 14th century, adding most of the above regions to their realm and keeping them on a tight leash for about 500 years and you have one of the reasons why they didn't see any independent development. Add to this the fact that Lawrence of Arabia promised them independence if they fought the Osmanic empire. Add to this that this promise was entirely void at the end of WWI and they only exchanged Osmanic domination against british and French domination. All of this are ingredients to the cocktail of making them suspicious of everyone trying to change their ways. But you're only scratching the surface with all of this.

Iran, just to take one example, was on a good way to become an entirely secular nation. The only mistake they made was to nationalise oil production and leaning to socialism. That, the West couldn't tolerate. They were losing their profits and they feared of losing out on the Soviets. So the helped overthrow Mohammad Mossadegh and installed their puppet. And the rest is history, since the Shah's rule fertilized the soil for the backclash.

Still, much of what we tend to perceive as religious nuttery, has entirely political origins. Overthrowing Saddam and laying off all Ba'athists in the army led to them joining insurgent groups. They lost their jobs and their livelyhood and wanted to get back at the invaders. So high ranking Ba'athist officers ultimately ended up training and commanding ISIS. Not because they like them that much, since the Ba'athist movement was entirely secular and rather left leaning in principle. But because they hated the same persons, they hated.

The list could be continued for pages. It's only, like most things in the world, things aren't as simple as making blanket statements. There are reasons for people being motivated to act in a certain fashion. Even if it looks like religion motivating them, religion may actually be only the pretext for something entirely different. That's why I said in a previous post, to look at their history and try to walk in their shoes for a spell. Not to excuse what their radicals do, but to understand why the people are angry.

That’s not fair! You knew I wouldn’t argue against Muslims if you put them vis a vis the Church..

My argument was based on what I had read about the written language Muhammed’s companions used. During the time of the prophet. The Arab orthography was still quite inchoate and many letters were identical. The diacritical dots that distinguished the letters weren’t added until later.

Apparently, there was more to Muslim knowledge than that possessed by the people Muhammed originally discipled. And converted to Islam.

I will look up the names Abaris mentioned. I will increase my knowledge. And nobody better not fuck with me than.

So there.

(November 4, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 5:33 pm)abaris Wrote: I think, every religion taken by the letter and carried to it's extreme, is vile. As I often say, it's only a thin coat of society and laws that prevents christian and jewish radicals to act onn their violent impulses. And sometimes this coat breaks and the results are ugly. Always keep in mind, we're talking about failed or authoritarian states when we talk about the Middle East.

That is true. But between Christian and Muslim culture there is one major difference. Christian, or I should more specifically is western culture has been effected very deeply by enlightenment teachings such as equality and individualism. These ideals are only now beginning to take

I wonder how much it can be said that Western culture is set apart from while in the Muslim world the difference between culture and religion is negligible. Is that generally true?

(November 4, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(November 4, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: That is true. But between Christian and Muslim culture there is one major difference. Christian, or I should more specifically is western culture has been effected very deeply by enlightenment teachings such as equality and individualism. These ideals are only now beginning to take

I wonder how much it can be said that Western culture is set apart from while in the Muslim world the difference between culture and religion is negligible. Is that generally true?

It wasn't true of Iran when I lived there during the Shah's regime, and folks I know in the expatriate community tell me that in Iran the public display of Muslim piety is still a thin overlay on the cultural life of the people there.

That may not be entirely the case, given that my personal experience is outdated and the rest is hearsay. Apply salt as needed.

(November 4, 2015 at 1:29 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, don't look up facts, for all I care. And it's not Islam, but the muslim world, bringing us culture in the medieval world.

Actually it was the Jewish collaborators who were the brains behind the brawn.

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: Now who is guilty of a lack of nuanced thinking?

Can you really not differentiate between OUTRIGHT BLAMING a moderate, everyday American muslim for 9/11,

vs

Respecting the rights of an everyday muslim in every way,
UNTIL they engage me on the subject,
and only THEN asking them why they continue to be part of a religion that is so convoluted and violent???

Unless they themselves have been violent, you yourself are being an asshole.

Judge people based on their behavior, not because someone else cherry-picks the same fucking book in a different manner.

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: I am NOT burning crosses in anyone's front yard,
I am not accusing random muslims of plotting 9/11.

Firstly, these are strawman points, and I shouldn't really address them because they're irrelevant. Bigotry is not only displayed in your high-visibility examples. But I will address them, because there's a larger point to be made: bigotry is not always on the radar. You selected nice, highly visible examples of bigotry when it is in fact more often the insidious, silent bigotry that harms folks. The idea that a Muslim in front of you should answer to you for the misdeeds of one who murdered people 14 years ago -- simply because he has the same general faith -- is exactly the source of bigoted thinking: groups are held responsible (i.e., individuals must respond for group behavior) for the misdeeds of individuals. You really don't get the point, and that's fine. I won't badger you any more about it after this post.

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: Just as I know many Christians support LGBT rights;
I am not blaming them for the gaybashing that other Christians might have done.

But here's what you said:

Quote:but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

You say you're not "blaming" them yet you wish to remove any protection they might have regarding freedom of conscience.

Forgive my skepticism, but it looks like you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: But I am saying to them:

You know these atrocious things have been done in the name of your religion, yet you are a good person.

How can you stand to remain part of the same club,
and doesn't it grate at you that your holy book can't be all that Divine
if it is open to such appalling misinterpretation?

Apparently you haven't been raised in a religion, and don't understand how hard it is to break the programming one receives in one's youth.

(November 5, 2015 at 4:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Apparently you haven't been raised in a religion, and don't understand how hard it is to break the programming one receives in one's youth.

And most of all that there are societies where you are shunned, banished or punished if you break away from religion. One of the prime examples being our very best friend Saudi Arabia.

But it doesn't stop there. Even in Western societies you can lose friends and family, if you happen to be brought up as an Ultra Orthodox jew, Mormon or any other of the more fundamentalist christian sects.

(November 5, 2015 at 4:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: Now who is guilty of a lack of nuanced thinking?

Can you really not differentiate between OUTRIGHT BLAMING a moderate, everyday American muslim for 9/11,

vs

Respecting the rights of an everyday muslim in every way,
UNTIL they engage me on the subject,
and only THEN asking them why they continue to be part of a religion that is so convoluted and violent???

Unless they themselves have been violent, you yourself are being an asshole.

Judge people based on their behavior, not because someone else cherry-picks the same fucking book in a different manner.

lol. 

But Thump, I am basing it on THEIR behavior.

I am basing it on their choice to be not only remain aligned with something evil,
but to make efforts to recruit for that evil.

moving on.

Quote:

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: Just as I know many Christians support LGBT rights;
I am not blaming them for the gaybashing that other Christians might have done.

But here's what you said:

Quote:but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

You say you're not "blaming" them yet you wish to remove any protection they might have regarding freedom of conscience.

Forgive my skepticism, but it looks like you're trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

I kind of take issue with your accusation that I object to freedom of conscience.

I don't.

I object to freedom of religion.

I don't know about the States....but in Canada, this is not necessarily the same thing.

If someone wants to act according to their conscience, fine.
If someone wants to organize politically, based on their moral code, fine.

but in an earlier post, I asked for clarification on something you said about American law,
and I didn't get an answer;

Quote:MTL:

you said,

Quote: Wrote:Organizing for the sake of politics is the right of every American,
and we are free to do it on whichever basis we wish, including a religious basis. 

(bold, mine)  and then said,

Quote: Wrote:They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law.

(bold, mine)

....okay, then I'll need some clarification, here, because those two statements seem opposing to me.

So I still don't understand how people could be Constituitionally-protected
in their right to "organize, politically" based on their religion
....yet be prevented from enacting their religion-based politics into Civil Law.

In any event, I absolutely stand by my original point:

Religion should not be constitutionally protected, IMO.

Freedom to believe in God (as long as it doesn't hurt or detract from society in any way),
without risk of persecution for it?  Fine, yes, absolutely.  Protect that by all means.
(note:  Freedom to NOT believe in any God should also be protected).

Freedom of Conscience, which could occur without Religion...yes, certainly.

But to specifically protect Religion, carte blanche,
when the dogma of a said religion
could require of its followers to "kill all infidels" (just for example)....no.

Freedom to practice religious dogma, right across the board, should not be protected, IMO.
There's no reason to protect it,
and there are good reasons NOT to protect it.


That is not the same thing as freedom of thought, or freedom of conscience.

And protecting freedom of religion could quite arguably result in religions
placing themselves above reproach;

IE:  the Charlie Hebdo incident.

It could be interpreted as freedom to assimilate or oppress, depending on the dogma.

Quote:

(November 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm)MTL Wrote: But I am saying to them:

You know these atrocious things have been done in the name of your religion, yet you are a good person.

How can you stand to remain part of the same club,
and doesn't it grate at you that your holy book can't be all that Divine
if it is open to such appalling misinterpretation?

Apparently you haven't been raised in a religion, and don't understand how hard it is to break the programming one receives in one's youth.

I'm quite frankly disappointed in some of your techniques, Thump.

In this thread, you have accused me of a lack of nuanced thinking,
yet you obstinately refuse to acknowledge the repeated examples I have given
of the rather vast difference between outright blaming someone for the actions of another,
versus questioning the integrity of cherry-picking and choosing to remain part of a hateful religion.

Also, in this thread, you have repeatedly put words in my mouth:

"Blame" "Punish" "Outlawed".

...which is, I believe, called the Strawman technique
(from a guy who loves to accuse me of Strawmen).

I never knowingly or intentionally use a Strawman.

And now you are resorting to flagrant presumptuousness about my upbringing.

I was raised in a devout Baptist home and was heavily indoctrinated, thank you.

And it may have taken me 25 years or so to do it thoroughly,
but I broke the programming on my own,
without any mentoring of any kind,
without reading any Skeptic authors or websites;
but just by my own critical  thought.

I know from personal experience
how extremely difficult it can be, for someone raised with Theism
to simply separate the concept of God, from the concept of Religion,
but that was the Eureka moment for me.

Hence, when you talk about de-fanging religion,
that is my approach:

to point out the concept of Deism (which many Theists are oblivious to)

to point out how not only is Religion not necessarily a BRIDGE to God,

but that, if God exists at all,
Religion may well be the single greatest OBSTACLE between Man and God.

Now, Thump,
You accused me of being bigoted right across the board, towards all Believers.

While I wouldn't mind if every Theist on Earth woke up tomorrow and decided to be Atheist or Agnostic,
but I don't require that, whatsoever....I'd be quite happy with Deism.

My approach doesn't seek to destroy their faith in God, at all.

It merely questions the integrity of belonging to a Religion;

both from the social perspective of how responsible it is to continue to promote and patronize a violent institution;

and from the personal, spiritual perspective of the Believer, themselves:

Religion doesn't actually serve God.

Religion serves Religion.

(November 4, 2015 at 2:32 am)ignoramus Wrote: Do you guys despise anyone who disowns their own child once finding out that the child no longer believes in their pet fantasy?
We know religion does this. It has the power to completely distort an otherwise healthy persons mind to the point of destroying/breaking up families.

I hate ALL these types of people whether they be middle America or the Middle East.
It's the illogical way of thinking we hate, nothing else.
Islam, Christianity, etc are all subsets of corrupt thinking, as are thieves, pedophiles, rapists.
It's all about satisfying that deluded ego where if the parent disowns a child who doesn't want to believe, then what does the parent think is going to happen?
The parent thinks that in the next life they will be treated favourably as they chose to not live among heathens. Again, the ultimate form of arrogance and selfishness.

I think this is where MTL is coming from. Call that word whatever you want.

That's certainly part of it.

My views on religion brought the ire of multiple family members down on me,
and my grandparents refused to talk to me simply after finding out I defended LGBT rights,
and then came down heavily on my father, as if it was his fault that I have a mind of my own.

I basically believe in personal accountability for using your head.

I find religion largely repugnant but yet I respect people's right to believe in it.

However, if a Theist is determined to engage me on the subject,
and won't take advantage of my repeated evasive answers
or the opportunities I give them to back-out of the discussion they've opened
(said opportunities being presented because I think they're a nice person and I know this will be harsh for them)...

...so be it.

They will be confronted with the horrors of their religion
and the hypocrisy of the fact that they eschew those horrors
yet ultimately choose to not only remain part of the organization,
but recruit for it.