"But what about the moderates?"

[Chas]

What? ISIS has been condemned by some Muslim leaders; ISIS has condemned nothing.

That was me mis-typing, obviously; if you peruse the link you'll garner the point, despite my error.

You did read the link ... right?

I think your gross misreading of your own link above demonstrates your confirmation bias.

It obviously wasn't a "misreading", I was multitasking and mistyped. I trust that you can read the intent of the post, and not flog what is an obvious typo.

Clearly, the moderates in that link condemned the brutalities performed in Iraq and Syria.

They claim that sobriquet for themselves. So, there's that.

Yes, and he put that into a reply to me, so I felt the need to clear up any confusion. Is there a problem with me making clear that I don't buy that line of bullshit?

I am happy to hear that, but your 'obvious typo' was anything but obvious.

[Minimalist]

This information is not hard to find ... but you have to want to find it.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or not. When some guy posted a cartoon of fucking mohammed they were rioting in the streets all over the world.

I don't give a flying fuck what some self-proclaimed "leader" says. Where is the general outrage at what these fucks are doing? Maybe you can find it. It seems to me from recent studies in Tunisia and Egypt that these ISIS motherfuckers are regarded as heroes because they are...what? Standing up to the West? They've been getting the shit blown out of themselves since they started that. Overrunning Maliki's army? That was a foregone conclusion to anyone who watched the South Vietnamese Army collapse in 1975.

Merrily wrap your head in a towel if you like. Don't try to sell me on this 'religion of peace' shit.

[DeistPaladin]

The be-nice-to-Islam crowd is totally out of control.

The latest round on Bill Mahar, Rula Jebreal says that criticizing Islam is just like being an anti-Semite.





She actually said this:

"Listen, would you accept an openly anti-Semetic person to give a commencement speech to Jewish students?"

How do you even begin to reason with people like this? This is someone who actually says that criticizing bad ideas during a discussion is just like promoting systematic discrimination, persecution and violence against a race without the slightest clue as to why its as offensive as it is absurd.

Once again, Islam shows it has little to distinguish itself from it's sibling, Christianity. "Boo hoo, we're so oppressed because people are saying mean things about our religion."

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am happy to hear that, but your 'obvious typo' was anything but obvious.

Had you read the link, my point would have been clear to you.

---

This information is not hard to find ... but you have to want to find it.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or not. When some guy posted a cartoon of fucking mohammed they were rioting in the streets all over the world.

SOME were. Are you actually thinking that they represent the currents of Muslim thought?

I don't give a flying fuck what some self-proclaimed "leader" says.

Wait, you were just asking where the denunciations were, and I linked you some ... and now you're saying you don't care what "some self-proclaimed leader says" (as if you are the arbiter of who speaks for Muslims, lol).

Maybe you should make up your mind what it is you want. From this vantage, you appear to be implacable, never pleased with what is offered.

Where is the general outrage at what these fucks are doing? Maybe you can find it. It seems to me from recent studies in Tunisia and Egypt that these ISIS motherfuckers are regarded as heroes because they are...what? Standing up to the West? They've been getting the shit blown out of themselves since they started that. Overrunning Maliki's army? That was a foregone conclusion to anyone who watched the South Vietnamese Army collapse in 1975.

I don't see "general outrage" in the West, either -- just the indiscriminate flinging of bombs at brown people as if they're all the same lump. You should be ashamed of yourself for playing into the hands of Hannity/Cheney/neocons in general, instead of using your critical-thinking skills.

You are just more evidence that "atheist" is not equal to "rational" -- your willingness to generalize about all Muslims in the face of evidence in this thread is clear.

Also, you've got to settle down your moving goalposts. First you're asking for moderates to stand up, then you're wanting them to inform about plans they probably don't know about, now you're asking for them to be marching in the streets against this terror. Say what it is you really want, and stop moving those goalposts.

Merrily wrap your head in a towel if you like. Don't try to sell me on this 'religion of peace' shit.

Again, I've never used that term, because I don't buy it myself. If you're going to try and paste that on me, I'll challenge you to find one post of mine, anywhere online, using this name or "Thumpalumpacus", where I say that.

Otherwise, you're simply trying to strawman me. That shit ain't flying. Use your head.

[robvalue]

I agree that "moderates" are providing cover and validation to extremists and that is a big problem. I also agree that it's an absurd position to take. They think that they have a holy book which is divinely inspired, but that they pay it so little attention as to pretty much ignore it. It seems to me they want to hang on to the culture and the vague notions behind it, but to not think about what the point of it is or whether it makes the slightest bit of sense.

It would be like if I started a new religion, and I "found" a holy book, and went around saying this was the word of god and we should follow it; then proceeded to ignore 99% of what I just showed everyone. I would be laughed off the planet.

It would be great if "moderates" could agree that they like certain aspects of the culture, and certain ideas that (they think) the religion stands for, but that the religion itself is just insane. Maybe they could then retain these good aspects, without all this extra baggage and meaningless books that they have to keep doing mental gymnastics in order to not follow, and just have a culture. Then the crazy extremists (who are in fact the ones are taking the religion seriously!) would stand out much more for what they are, without validation from anyone, and hopefully they could be stopped without worrying about stepping on other people's eggshells.

[ThomM]

[quote='xpastor' pid='784428' dateline='1414523033']
This is a very tricky issue.

No - it is NO a tricky issue at all

It is actually black and white - either their statements are COMPLETELY true - or they are not.

The problem is this: Is it worth thumping liberals over their attachment to scripture? I must confess I have done that more than once. Yet liberal believers do a lot of good in the world.

Sorry - lots of people do lots of good in the world - but it is the PEOPLE who are doing the good -not the god - not the religion.

Scripture has already proven to be nonsense -

I recently had a woman who claimed her 9 year old son could prove to me that their religion is true - I told her he could not - nor could SHE - nor could her minister.

So - They came to my house - where first I had Her son read 1 Timothy 2 - where it is claimed the christ is saying (I do not accept that the christ was real) - I do not allow any woman to have any authority over a man - a woman must be SILENT - and submissive to men because it was EVE who sinned (Shortened - but accurate to the passage). So - I said to her that SHE could not talk about religion - she must be silent and refer to the two men for the rest of the afternoon. SHe immediately attacked the passage and being "OUT OF DATE" and o longer being of use.

All I said was - for the SAME reasons you reject parts of the bible - I reject the WHOLE thing. IF you do not accept it completely - then WHY should I listen to your rantings about "select portions".

So - Prove your statement without using the BIBLE - at all.

OF course - they argued for a minute - after which the young man said to me - "Can you (I) prove that a god does not exist"

I replied actually there are over 11,000 different gods - as defined by their religion - and we have absolute proof that dozens of then actually exist - and YOU cannot even argue against it. When he tried to - I said - that there are millions of people on earth who still worship the SUN - either as their god - or one of their gods. THere is absolutely no question that the sun DOES exist - you could not possibly argue otherwise. THe sun is just one of dozens of naturally occurring things and events that humans worship that are all easily proven to exist.

Egyptians worshipped their Pharaohs as living gods - as did Mayans and Aztecs - and other populations - and we CAN prove that many of the Pharaohs did exist - we have their remains - often remains of extended families - writings from them - writings from their times about them - buildings built during their reigns that are inscribed about them - and many other proofs. It simply cannot be argued that these "gods" did not exist.

So - give me THAT LEVEL proof - of your god - proof that cannot be argued with - EVERYTHING you have that can be dated to the time of your supposed christs life.

NONE - at all

[RobbyPants]

So, you're saying that jesus was full of shit?

That's actually a stance gaining popularity with liberal Christians. I don't know if you've seen those Love Wins bumper stickers on cars, or not, but that's the name of a book written by a pastor who makes that exact claim.

He deals with the whole cognitive dissonance issues of hell and an all-loving god by simply removing hell. Obviously, the son of this god said the exact opposite, so he has to use some rather creative interpretation combined with the (uncorroborated) writings of a twelfth century rabbi to assert that Hell was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, Jesus meant it as a metaphor, and people back then would have gotten that.

Of course, his assertion is as nonfalsifiable and unsupported as his religion is*, so, there's that. Still, it makes a lot of the liberal Christians feel better, so they go along with it.



* I loled very hard when I read a Christan's review of Love Wins complaining that the author didn't have any evidence supporting his point. Pot, meet kettle.

[tjakey]

Being an ex-fundametalist my take on moderation and religion is probably a bit skewed. For the most part though, it looks to me like moderation and religion don't play well together. Beliving in a god is an immoderate leap of faith to begin with, and it only gets worse from there. The good news is that most people don't actually take their religion all the seriously, cherry picking it to support some particular prejudice or to nurce some particular hatred that they already hold. But it rarely leads to new prejudices or hatreds. Others might cherry pick it to support some political or economic position (liberal or conservative, both sides do it). Again, such don't take their religion all that seriously.

[DeistPaladin]

...to support some particular prejudice or to nurce some particular hatred that they already hold. But it rarely leads to new prejudices or hatreds. ...

The one danger of this aspect of "moderate" is that it offers "God's Seal of Approval" and allows them to say, "hey, it's not me, it's God".

Of the three most homophobic guys I've ever known, two were atheists and one was a Christian. So lacking a belief in any god will not inoculate you from prejudice. However, the two that were atheists had no easy out as the moderate Christian did.

One was forced to own his prejudice ("Look, I just don't like fags") or while the other chose to soft/back peddle whenever it came up (*cracks a fag joke, then realizes the social faux paus* "...um, not that there's anything wrong with that of course").

As a side note, I think I've been asked how a "moderate" Christian can be bigoted against gays, women, etc. My definition of "moderate Christian" or "moderate Muslim" is one who accepts science, attempting to reconcile it with his/her faith, and occasionally (though not always) supports separation of Church and State. It does not mean that the "moderate" won't be a political conservative or even advocate prejudice being written into the law.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Being an ex-fundametalist my take on moderation and religion is probably a bit skewed. For the most part though, it looks to me like moderation and religion don't play well together. Beliving in a god is an immoderate leap of faith to begin with, and it only gets worse from there. The good news is that most people don't actually take their religion all the seriously, cherry picking it to support some particular prejudice or to nurce some particular hatred that they already hold. But it rarely leads to new prejudices or hatreds. Others might cherry pick it to support some political or economic position (liberal or conservative, both sides do it). Again, such don't take their religion all that seriously.

[Emphasis added --Parks]

There's a bit of a contradiction going on, it seems to me. Cherry-picking can be in either direction, moderation or fanaticism.

If moderation and religion don't play well together, can you explain why some quite religious countries have low levels of religious violence?