KevinM1 Wrote:The point is that people don't become radicalized on a whim.  Radicalization is the symptom of other problems.  A big problem is Islam itself, and those indoctrinated in it from an early age/the start of their lives.

But, the people who come from decent lives to become ISIS are very obviously trying to fill some kind of void.  And that's what we need to figure out.  I mean, it's one thing for people living in the shithole that is the Middle East to become radicalized.  It's, sadly, something to be expected given the last 50-100 years of conflict in the region.  But what makes ISIS not just palatable, but desirable to certain people living in the West?

You don't just decide to blow yourself up, or run the risk of suicide by cop without there being a deeper issue.  And it's intellectually lazy to lay that at the feet of Islam, which strikes me as being no more credible than any other religion.  We need to figure out and address those underlying problems that cause people here to fly to the Middle East, drink the Kool-Aid, get training/equipment/money, and decide to kill people.  Because that's the actual threat.  Not the assholes fighting over land in the Middle East, but the nice quiet neighbor down the street who decides to kill 10-20 people in glorious Jihad.

I think a lot of it has to do with Al Qaeda and DAESH's success in persuading an appalling number of Americans that Muslims are all terrorists waiting for the right moment to stop taqiyya-ing around and do us all in. Open bigotry against Muslims, a demographic that was pretty innocuous in American prior to 9/11 has increased dramatically. Convince Muslim Americans that they're hated by government and the citizenry, make them listen to Muslim-bashing long enough. let them experience it...and some of them are going to snap. And the people who see themselves as brave critiquers of Islam are contributing to this when they focus on the religion instead of the radical extremists.

(December 7, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:Not to mention South America, where I come from. It's also a 3rd world continent with corrupt governments, drug problems, education problems, and lots of poverty. But we don't get Catholic people over there (since it is mostly very Catholic) running around the streets constantly killing each other in the name of Jesus. To say all this nonstop bloodshed in the name of "Allah" has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental nature/culture of Islam is just dishonest.

South American Catholics are pretty homogenous compared to Shia, Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmadis, and Ismailis. Muslims are generally not running around killing people who agree with them either. DAESH ideology is so different from the typical Sunni's that it ought to be counted as a separate sect.

To pretend the European wars of religion (1524-1648) had absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental nature/culture of Christianity is just dishonest.

You kind of have to take them both or take neither, but you don't get to pick one or the other. If over a hundred years of bloody war between different Christian sects doesn't speak to the fundamental nature/culture of Christianity, the mere fact that the Islamist troubles are more current does not make them more relevant if the topic is fundamental nature/culture.

This argument would only kind of make sense if 100% of people in South America are Catholic. Then you could say "Of course Catholics in South America are not killing anyone - they're all the same religion!" I can assure you, the fact that there is no denomination amongst Catholics is not the reason why there is no "Catholic Isisi", if you will. 65% of people in Brazil are Catholic. The rest are protestants, Mormons, Jews, atheists, etc etc.  

I get that Christianity, which has been around for over 2000 years, has gone through its dark times. But they were just that - times. Every group has had its bad times with very bad people, including American history. It's only normal. But its the extent of how much it happens within Islam that causes pause. Christianity hasn't been non stop bloodshed and fighting since Jesus till now a days, like it is with Islam. Islam has existed for 1400 years. Since Mohammed himself until now, it's been violent.    

I don't have anything against Muslim people, let me make that perfectly clear. But I do think it's foolish to pretend that Islam, as an ideology, is not extremely problematic and a big part of the reason why there is so much violence amongst its members. I'm not saying good Muslim people should stop being Muslim, either. I just think Islam needs a major reform so that we can get to the point where we don't have all the non stop bloodshed anymore.

It's still going through it's dark times, you've merely exported that misery to Africa.  Tell your church to get it's shit together in Africa, then you can swing from the high horse..which, in context, is awfully fucking low since we're discussing religious integrity in an institutional setting to begin with.

Erase from your mind any fantasy in which your religion is superior to islam or has exorcised it's demons. It is not and has not. You know what catholicism is minus all the issues? Quiet atheism, as the church has noted, itself.

(December 7, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I get that Christianity, which has been around for over 2000 years, has gone through its dark times. But they were just that - times. Every group has had its bad times with very bad people, including American history. It's only normal. But its the extent of how much it happens within Islam that causes pause. Christianity hasn't been non stop bloodshed and fighting since Jesus till now a days, like it is with Islam. Islam has existed for 1400 years. Since Mohammed himself until now, it's been violent.    

Oh, please! This is really pissing me off, since it's that ignorant. Get some history lessons, damn it. Look at the Middle Ages and tolerance towards other religions. Want to make a bet where society was more tolerant in general? Towards jews, especially? Want to make a bet, where science flourished and where people were even too ignorant to keep the Roman aqueducts in shape? Do you have any idea what numbers you're yotting down and where they have their origin?

Also, since you're so proud of your South America - might want to look at all the conflicts, the Contras and every other brand of violent terrorists wanting to overthrow one government or the other. True, they don't do it in the name of Jesus, but the Contras, being as despicable as they come, fought the godless regime of the Sandinistas.

Maybe, just maybe, the spread of Islam, which was never a homogeneous mass, but a set of warrying kingdoms and territorries, was mainly political in nature too. But to understand that, one has to look over the rim of the comfy teacup of public opinion and get an informed opinion.

(December 7, 2015 at 10:57 am)Irrational Wrote:

(December 7, 2015 at 10:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Not to mention South America, where I come from. It's also a 3rd world continent with corrupt governments, drug problems, education problems, and lots of poverty. But we don't get Catholic people over there (since it is mostly very Catholic) running around the streets constantly killing each other in the name of Jesus. To say all this nonstop bloodshed has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of Islam is just dishonest.

That's South America. Different times and environments yield different patterns of behaviour. You want recent examples where Christians have killed in the name of Jesus, there's the Middle East (and specifically Lebanon, if you want a specific example). Even after the civil war long gone in Lebanon, Christian party members still have not gotten over their lust to fight and kill, and they have certainly done so "in the name of Jesus". For the record, in Lebanon, there is not much difference in privilege and rights between Christians and Muslims. And so it makes sense they do not really behave all that differently from each other there. Even Hizballah is not more extreme than, say, Lebanese Forces or SSNP (both Christian groups).

You don't think that Islam has shaped the environment and culture of the middle east?

(December 7, 2015 at 5:18 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 7, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I get that Christianity, which has been around for over 2000 years, has gone through its dark times. But they were just that - times. Every group has had its bad times with very bad people, including American history. It's only normal. But its the extent of how much it happens within Islam that causes pause. Christianity hasn't been non stop bloodshed and fighting since Jesus till now a days, like it is with Islam. Islam has existed for 1400 years. Since Mohammed himself until now, it's been violent.    

Oh, please! This is really pissing me off, since it's that ignorant. Get some history lessons, damn it. Look at the Middle Ages and tolerance towards other religions. Want to make a bet where society was more tolerant in general? Towards jews, especially? Want to make a bet, where science flourished and where people were even too ignorant to keep the Roman aqueducts in shape? Do you have any idea what numbers you're yotting down and where they have their origin?

Also, since you're so proud of your South America - might want to look at all the conflicts, the Contras and every other brand of violent terrorists wanting to overthrow one government or the other. True, they don't do it in the name of Jesus, but the Contras, being as despicable as they come, fought the godless regime of the Sandinistas.

Maybe, just maybe, the spread of Islam, which was never a homogeneous mass, but a set of warrying kingdoms and territorries, was mainly political in nature too. But to understand that, one has to look over the rim of the comfy teacup of public opinion and get an informed opinion.

I don't know how you think it can be mainly political in nature and yet separate from Islam. Islam (Not all of them!) is a political system as well as a religion. There was never meant to be a separation of Church and State in Islam and in the early days there certainly wasn't. You guys always talk about it like Muslims (Not all of them!) just happen to come from these conflict areas and that Islam itself has nothing to do with it. That's just plain wrong. While some Muslim countries have separation of church and state, Islam has influenced the politics and culture of these areas for hundreds of years. It's not like they grew up somehow separate from one another and Islam and Muslims (Not all of them!) are just unforunate to have shitty cultures/economies/etc. Islam is essential to all of that and to act as though it isn't is pretty mind boggling.

(December 7, 2015 at 5:18 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 7, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I get that Christianity, which has been around for over 2000 years, has gone through its dark times. But they were just that - times. Every group has had its bad times with very bad people, including American history. It's only normal. But its the extent of how much it happens within Islam that causes pause. Christianity hasn't been non stop bloodshed and fighting since Jesus till now a days, like it is with Islam. Islam has existed for 1400 years. Since Mohammed himself until now, it's been violent.    

Oh, please! This is really pissing me off, since it's that ignorant. Get some history lessons, damn it. Look at the Middle Ages and tolerance towards other religions. Want to make a bet where society was more tolerant in general? Towards jews, especially? Want to make a bet, where science flourished and where people were even too ignorant to keep the Roman aqueducts in shape? Do you have any idea what numbers you're yotting down and where they have their origin?

So, are you saying Christianity, like Islam, has been non stop violent and bloodshed since Jesus himself (in their case, Mohammed) and still now? Because that's the claim I made. I never said Christianity hasn't had dark times. In fact, I acknowledged that they did.   

Quote:Also, since you're so proud of your South America - might want to look at all the conflicts, the Contras and every other brand of violent terrorists wanting to overthrow one government or the other. True, they don't do it in the name of Jesus, but the Contras, being as despicable as they come, fought the godless regime of the Sandinistas.

The strawmen are getting annoying. I never said I was proud of South America. I said it is filled with drug problems, corrupt government, poverty, lacking in education, etc. I'm not sure how that translated to me saying I was proud. My point was that even with all those problems, people there don't go around killing each other in the name of Jesus. Which you just said youself here too, so I don't see what your problem is.

(December 7, 2015 at 6:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I don't know how you think it can be mainly political in nature and yet separate from Islam. Islam (Not all of them!) is a political system as well as a religion. There was never meant to be a separation of Church and State in Islam and in the early days there certainly wasn't. You guys always talk about it like Muslims (Not all of them!) just happen to come from these conflict areas and that Islam itself has nothing to do with it. That's just plain wrong. While some Muslim countries have separation of church and state, Islam has influenced the politics and culture of these areas for hundreds of years. It's not like they grew up somehow separate from one another and Islam and Muslims (Not all of them!) are just unforunate to have shitty cultures/economies/etc. Islam is essential to all of that and to act as though it isn't is pretty mind boggling.

So riddle me this. Do you think the 30 years war was purely religious in nature? Do you think the crusades were?

That's why I urge you to learn some history. It's multifacetted and there are many aspects you obviously fail to understand. That's why some of you always come over as ugha, ugha, Islam bad, muslim bad.

I for one would never make the claim that any of the so called religious wars, christian or muslim, was purely motivated by religion. Christians were butthurt when Mehmed II conquered Constantinople, but Mehmed's motivations weren't religious in nature. He just wanted a strategic point for his growing empire. Same goes for the later Osmanic inavsions of Southeastern and Eastern Europe. Religion was used as tool to gather as many troops as possible, but to take the example of the Osman empire, the actual rule was pragmatic and not in any way compareable to what ISIL stands for. Christians as well as jews could rise to high ranks in the administration.

Same goes for the old Islamic realms, who waged wars against each other, rather than turning towards the West, which, for a long time didn't hold any appeal for them. Other than the gothic territories in Northern Africa, since they held rich farmland as well as other valuable resources.

The list could go on, but let's leave it at that. Suffice to say that not even Urban IIs call to the first crusade was an entirely religious endeavor. It was a spontaneous call to arms after he had travelled to Clermond Ferrand and had witnessed Europe falling into a deep state of unrest, with christian dominions waging war against each other. He saw the call for a crusade as a uniting factor to remove some pressure from the kettle.

As I said, get some history lessons and look a little bit deeper than the paint on the surface.

CapnAwesome has a history degree, yet you're talking to him like he has no idea what he's talking about.

(December 7, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So, are you saying Christianity, like Islam, has been non stop violent and bloodshed since Jesus himself (in their case, Mohammed) and still now? Because that's the claim I made. I never said Christianity hasn't had dark times. In fact, I acknowledged that they did.   

As I said, learn some history. Look at the medieval Islamic realms, their administration, their tolerance towards other religions. Look at the Iberic Kalifats and compare them to their christian counterparts. And then come back making the statement of constant violence sionce Muhammeds age, if you still think so. Informed opinions are accepted, uninformed opinions aren't. Also try making a distinction between defense and offense.

Also note, that I don't feel, the so called christian religious wars are mainly motivated by religion. They aren't. And I'm making that statement because it's the general consensus among historians. Religion was used as a tool by both sides, as a motivating factor.