What's wrong with the Muslim world?

[Smokey]

Disclaimer: If you are a Muslim, let it be known that I am not, repeat, NOT singling you out from any non-Muslim members, but let it also be known that I won't go out of my way to avoid stepping on your toes. No one does such a thing for Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, etc, and I'm sick of the bull**** hypocrisy.


I caught this (http://uuddlrlrba.co.uk/node/188) on Blokey's website, and I was pissed off. I'm not too invested in Little Big Planet, as I don't personally own a PS3, but I would like to play it if I ever got the chance. But because some Muslim decided that there was something that could possibly be Muslim scripture, LBP is being delayed.

By itself, this is an annoyance, the degree being dependent on the rabidness of the fan. However, taken with all the other things that the Muslim world has bitched and moaned about in recent months/years, this was the final straw for me. I'm sick and tired of the idea that because it doesn't fit with their tender sensibilities, the Muslim church can bitch loud enough to make the offending party back off and apologize for something minor and harmless in nature.

What I propose is that, as a whole, the Muslim people shut the **** the up and man the **** up. Nobody raises a ****ing finger when the sacred beliefs, items, or persons of the Christian faith is mocked or blasphemed against. Don't even get me started on the Jews. Muslims have had their sacred items mocked for a relatively short period of time. What the bloody hell makes them think that they're somehow better than the rest of us and don't have to put up with the same goddamn **** that the rest of us poor non-Muslims have to deal with?

I'm ****ing shaking here. That is how pissed off I am about this.

[Tanooki]

Now that's not fair because some fringe Christian nuts do whine like children, but the end result unlike with muslims rarely ends up in violence. The problem with muslims is the religion in the print of the Koran/Quran preaches violence against all that aren't of their religion, though it does say to show tolerance too which is contradictory in itself. I guess it's like be nice and try to convert, when it fails...wipe em out as infidels as I understand it.

On the matter though I totally agree and said it elsewhere in that LBP thread in that I feel they need to shut up, man up, and stop threatening violence on anyone who dares speak a word or draw a pic of mohammad publicly. The majority of those in the religion aren't insane, aren't jerk offs, don't whine and get all PC and/or violent(blow your ass up.)

Want a laugh? I read already on the subject that the person who made this clip, which is only a few sec and only plays twice in the game IS A MUSLIM. HMMMM on that eh?

I'm with you smokey, but it's just a larger piece of the proof that muslim insanity has gotten well out of control right along with the open ability to PC up everything and coddle anyone to make it all better. Damn I miss 15years ago and back when PC didn't exist as a whole and as acceptable in society as it disgusts me.

[Smokey]

I realize that fundamental Christians bitch and moan about different things. The difference is that no one takes them seriously. And again, I'm sick of the bull**** hypocrisy.

And I did read that the creator of that clip was Muslim. Honestly, though, I'm not even sure that he intended to put Muslim holy words in there, or that he was even aware that it might be construed as such.

[Smokey]

There is a huge difference between proselytizing and bitching because someone realized you wear your heart on your shoulder and stabbed you accordingly, whether said stabbing actually occurred or not.

[Smokey]

Yeah, you did. But it's cool. As long as you get what I'm saying.

[Lizzaroni]

I realize that fundamental Christians bitch and moan about different things. The difference is that no one takes them seriously.
Gay marriage? Intelligent design?

And it's not just "fundamentalists." The morals and values crowd have made their mark on video game ratings, movie ratings, TV censorship, libraries, etc etc. They're everywhere. It's stupid to delay the game because of Muslim sensitivities, but it's even dumber to limit your complaints to the Muslim world. It's simply more apparent to you in this situation because it deviates from your own sensitivies.

[Tanooki]

Or perhaps he has a wider point over all the overkill levels of complaining muslim extremists and pacifiers do these days like that european satire cartoon of mohammed as bomb head which had had the artist get attempts on his life. While that's one extreme and kind of baiting the issue, others like this guy just put a couple words into a track on a game and it's like the next end of the world. It's really quite sad anyone pacifies this crap and allowed it to get to this point.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Smokey, you don't understand the Muslim world. Very few people do. I've lived in an Islamic country for a majority of my lifetime and there is such an intricate relationship between Muslims and their faith that has been bound for thousands of years. It's so funny when people who have no ****ing clue about another people make assumptions as if it's so simple or you're in some kind of position to judge. So I suggest that you shut the **** up and man the **** up yourself, coz you're being ignorant and a little immature.


(love you tho)

[Rensa]

There seems to be a general consensus here that when Muslims get pissed off they are more violent than people of other religions. I'm sure nobody believes that other groups aren't violent at all - if we're going to compare Muslims to Christians, you need only look to Irish history over the last fifty years to see how religion can divide people (not to argue that religion was the single principal factor in The Troubles; only that it was a very significant one). There are also examples (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD173BF936A15753C1A96E9482 60) against the more specific case being argued here - that Muslims exclusively are violently defensive when their beliefs or sacred elements are questioned or parodied.

[Tanooki]

Wow nice to see someone from an islamic country call everyone ignorant and try and excuse very bad behavior and killings of others over touching on their religion. But hey they're tied to it for a couple thousand years so that makes it ok...oh wait Christianity and Judaism are pretty damn old too and you don't have too many of them threatening the same levels of harm and revenge over something as simple as having a few words placed, a cartoon or 'nice' depiction of the wrong image, and so on. Yum for doublestandards, but I guess that's how it works with muslims. They're off bounds, but jews and christians aren't. Fancy that.

Rensa you hit the point exactly. This isn't about ripping on muslims in general, just the fact they're whiny and overly touchy about anything that depicts something of their religion in the negative, neutral, and even sometimes positive light and when it happens violence ensues vastly more often in comparison to other similarly long standing world religions.

[bountyhunter]

Now that's not fair because some fringe Christian nuts do whine like children, but the end result unlike with muslims rarely ends up in violence. The problem with muslims is the religion in the print of the Koran/Quran preaches violence against all that aren't of their religion, though it does say to show tolerance too which is contradictory in itself. I guess it's like be nice and try to convert, when it fails...wipe em out as infidels as I understand it.


If you're going to make a statement like that you better be ready to man up and ****ing show me.

The reason Muslims respond in such violent ways probably has more to do with the wars most of them grew up in than their religion.

This isn't about ripping on muslims in general

This thread is titled "What's wrong with the Muslim world?." Did you miss that or something?

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Wow nice to see someone from an islamic country call everyone ignorant and try and excuse very bad behavior and killings of others over touching on their religion. But hey they're tied to it for a couple thousand years so that makes it ok...oh wait Christianity and Judaism are pretty damn old too and you don't have too many of them threatening the same levels of harm and revenge over something as simple as having a few words placed, a cartoon or 'nice' depiction of the wrong image, and so on. Yum for doublestandards, but I guess that's how it works with muslims. They're off bounds, but jews and christians aren't. Fancy that.

Woah, woah, woah, woah. Did you just say that Christians have never been off bounds? I believe the Christian people as a whole have been WAY more violent throughout history than the Muslim people have. Don't let your skewed attitude hide that fact.

But really I wasn't even talking about violence, I was talking about the Western perception of the Middle East. Religion in the west is an incredibly casual part of life in relation to many parts of the Muslim World. Many Muslims devote their entire lives to prayer and their faith. Muslims on average are ALOT more versed and involved in their faith; it's what runs their lives, their government and their behavior. You cannot even begin the understand that point, because you'll never witness it. I don't support violence of any kind, but you have to look at the Muslim world in a more complex way than just "they're whiny and violent all because of a stupid religion". While Christianity and Judaism have become less prominent in the lives of the people who practice it, especially in more advanced nations, Islam has always remained the central element to Muslims' lives. When you understand that point, maybe you'll realize just why there's always been violence and tension between Muslims and Christians, Muslims and Jews, and Muslims with other Muslims.

I think most of you know that I don't believe in God and think religion is a waste of time, but you're all out of your league trying to take on something as complex as Islam. We all are.

But it's sorta sad that everybody's hating on the Muslim world because of a freaking GAME that's been delayed a few weeks.

[JValone]

I understand the reasoning behind increased sensitivity to the use of Islamic symbolism within nations where that is the predominant religion. Your statement about how ingrained it is in the lives of nearly everyone there makes that easy to go along with.

The thing that I do not understand, and I can't excuse, is that same sensitivity being being brought to the forefront in nations that are clearly not predominantly Muslim. Comedy Central can't run a South Park episode with Mohammed in it, cartoonists getting threatened for doodling his image, one of Van Gogh's descendants being murdered for producing a film critical of the faith's treatment of women, and many other examples are what makes many of us wonder aloud about if it is a bit too much. Clearly Christians, Jews, Hindus, and basically any other religious group have there share of extremists and violent factions as well but if people were getting threatened on a regular basis for lampooning Jesus the USA would be missing a ton of great comedians.

The Little Big Planet thing is just another example of an irritating trend that treats Muslim sensitivities more delicately than other groups in the Western world, it's a double standard and there is no way around that. I mean, the song in question was written and produced by a man who is a devout Muslim and meant the quotation of text to be a tribute. Heck, his album even won a Grammy so it isn't just some obscure artist. If you have to censor that for fear of backlash the situation is a bit out of hand don't you think? I can totally understand removing that from versions of the game that appear in the Middle East or other areas where Islam is the majority religion but delaying it anywhere else is just too much pampering in my opinion. I'm not hating on the Middle East, I'm hating on the double standard that people here in the West have when it comes to this sort of thing. If they want to censor it in that area, fine, great, it may even be necessary, but in the US and Europe it most certainly is not.

It's just an extremely unfair situation when you can crap all over Christianity in the United States, and basically any other faith, but you don't dare stick Mohammed in anything lest you step on overly sensitive toes. Everyone should be treated equally because there are extremely devoted followers of every faith. Who's to say which of them have greater devotion and need to be coddled more?

And for the record anyone saying "X religion has done worse things than Y religion" is not going to be able to back up that statement. They've all been guilty of terrible things, extremists generally, so it's pointless to try to compare atrocities.

[Tanooki]

Haha seems I struck a nerve, good. I think JV there made the point on what I was thinking pretty well in his write up. All the religions have their nutcakes that do some pretty bad stuff, but it seems these days you get a lot of strongarm tactics by the fanatics of the muslim faith such as the few things he listed there (south park, dead van gogh relative, etc.) There just needs to be fairness in non-majority muslim nations/territories where people can feel free to doodle an image or say something jokingly without getting assassinated for it just like you can do with jews and christians. Double standards can go to hell essentially.

[HGW XX/7]

Uh-oh guys, we'd better get Rock Band and Rock Band 2 off store shelves/patch/rerelease the games, because some of those songs mention a Christian God, or even mimick/play on Christian prayers.

And get this. In those games you're actually actively participating in the songs. Sometimes even SINGING them too. Gasp. I'm sure the Pope is PISSED.

That'd be the equivalent anyway.

I don't think the choice made in this situation was the right one. Release the game as is. Muslims can boycott it if they're so offended.

[Darc Requiem]

A more appropriate thread would be whats wrong with organized religion. They can all disappear as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even an atheist and I despise the rampant hypocrisy and I know better than you BS that all religions spout. Organized religion is a money pilfering, believe as I do or suffer eternal damnation scam.

[HGW XX/7]

^What he said.

[Rensa]

Rensa you hit the point exactly. This isn't about ripping on muslims in general, just the fact they're whiny and overly touchy about anything that depicts something of their religion in the negative, neutral, and even sometimes positive light and when it happens violence ensues vastly more often in comparison to other similarly long standing world religions.
Actually, I'm arguing that this is not the case; other religions do it just as much :)

[Lizzaroni]

There seems to be a general consensus here that when Muslims get pissed off they are more violent than people of other religions. I'm sure nobody believes that other groups aren't violent at all - if we're going to compare Muslims to Christians, you need only look to Irish history over the last fifty years to see how religion can divide people (not to argue that religion was the single principal factor in The Troubles; only that it was a very significant one). There are also examples (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD173BF936A15753C1A96E9482 60) against the more specific case being argued here - that Muslims exclusively are violently defensive when their beliefs or sacred elements are questioned or parodied.
Did I miss Smokey's mention of violence? My issue was not with the extent to which folks get angry, just that this is an issue specific or only relevant to the Muslim world.

Because, yeah, the whole cartoon thing was retarded. You don't see Jews getting pissy because people have the 'gall' to print the name of God. Also, I think it needs to be pointed out that Judeo-Christian 'values' already dominate in the Western world, so there's barely ever a need to get flat-out violent to violently force them upon people (we use the threat of it through government instead.)

[Smokey]

Gay marriage? Intelligent design?

Not sure why you're bringing these up. Sure, Judeo-Christian values used to influence decisions regarding these two subjects, but that's ceased to be the case, or is ceasing.

And it's not just "fundamentalists." The morals and values crowd have made their mark on video game ratings, movie ratings, TV censorship, libraries, etc etc. They're everywhere. It's stupid to delay the game because of Muslim sensitivities, but it's even dumber to limit your complaints to the Muslim world. It's simply more apparent to you in this situation because it deviates from your own sensitivies.

Smokey, you don't understand the Muslim world. Very few people do. I've lived in an Islamic country for a majority of my lifetime and there is such an intricate relationship between Muslims and their faith that has been bound for thousands of years. It's so funny when people who have no ****ing clue about another people make assumptions as if it's so simple or you're in some kind of position to judge. So I suggest that you shut the **** up and man the **** up yourself, coz you're being ignorant and a little immature.

You guys are missing my point. Sure, in countries that are predominantly Christian, it used to be that whenever the backlash from the Church was severe enough, people backed off, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. Today, when Christians or Jews complain that Jesus or Moses or the Bible or the Torah is mocked, the people responsible for said mocking tell them exactly what they can do with that complaint. But Muslims seem to be getting some kind of special treatment here, and I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and a load of bull****.

I don't care who's been more violent, or how devout members of certain religions may be. I'm just sick of the bull**** hypocrisy. Each religion should be dealt with equally across the board.

[Tanooki]

^That I can agree with...tolerances should be balanced out. But as Darc said all 'organized' religion is crap. Organization leads to pilfering, corruption, and manipulation of the masses who follow it and eat up the stupidity from select higher-ups. The problem here though why this topic is focused on Muslims is in TODAY'S world it appears to be by a large percentage those tied to that religion who go out of their way no matter how trivial something is to overreact at the levels of violence including murder. Often you hear the old jokes about 'A rabbit, a priest, and a ... walk into a ...' and it goes downhill from there. Do you see a bunch of christians when they hear that hollow out the wannabe comedians skull? Do you see a pissed off pile of jews quietly go outside and rig up a car bomb to get even for committing sacrilege? No and no. For some reason muslims though feel even if it's highly galling to something as small as drawing a pro-muslim image or having a couple words in the language popped into a game and it's time to start some crazy rage tripping crap going anywhere from threats to death.

[Rensa]

Did I miss Smokey's mention of violence? My issue was not with the extent to which folks get angry, just that this is an issue specific or only relevant to the Muslim world.

Because, yeah, the whole cartoon thing was retarded. You don't see Jews getting pissy because people have the 'gall' to print the name of God. Also, I think it needs to be pointed out that Judeo-Christian 'values' already dominate in the Western world, so there's barely ever a need to get flat-out violent to violently force them upon people (we use the threat of it through government instead.)
Oops... going back, I realise it was only Jeff who mentioned violence. Guess I mixed the posts up.

Still, the example I posted still illustrates that other religions get riled up too. I'm sure everybody remembers the reactions to the Da Vinci Code... there's nothing 'wrong' with Muslims that makes them, as a whole, more inclined to protest things. But everybody takes their religious icons seriously.

I suspect this is more a problem with people's attitudes towards Muslims. Really, the most probable people at fault here are Sony for not taking a more defensive stance toward Media Molecule's (or its soundtrack licensee's) creative freedoms. The trouble is that we don't know whether Sony reacted to a specific threat against the company or to a perceived attitude among Muslims, mainstream or otherwise. We really have no idea what fraction of Muslims would actually take offense to the lyrics and how many of those (if any) would be incensed enough to act on that offense.
You guys are missing my point. Sure, in countries that are predominantly Christian, it used to be that whenever the backlash from the Church was severe enough, people backed off, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. Today, when Christians or Jews complain that Jesus or Moses or the Bible or the Torah is mocked, the people responsible for said mocking tell them exactly what they can do with that complaint. But Muslims seem to be getting some kind of special treatment here, and I find that to be incredibly hypocritical and a load of bull****.
Remember how Liz mentioned Intelligent Design earlier? That's relevant here. Religious icons weren't being mocked or parodied as with this case, but you might consider that ID advocates felt their beliefs weren't being respected. It's not the same thing, obviously, but it resulted in the same thing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html): religious protest that resulted in change.

EDIT: actually, that's not as strong if you consider that it was less a case of impartial board members caving to religious protest as the board being made up of religious people. But it still shows that people of other religions will kick up a fuss.

[bountyhunter]

For some reason muslims though feel even if it's highly galling to something as small as drawing a pro-muslim image or having a couple words in the language popped into a game and it's time to start some crazy rage tripping crap going anywhere from threats to death.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Muslims do no such thing.

[Tanooki]

Sorry for not being specific enough for you as I'm not PC enough to tend to bother doing that unless forced. I know it's the islamofascist minority who get all crazy like that.

[bountyhunter]

Sorry for not being specific enough for you as I'm not PC enough to tend to bother doing that unless forced. I know it's the islamofascist minority who get all crazy like that.

That wouldn't be pc....it would be concise.

[Rorshach]

I know this is only mildly relevant, but...

http://kotaku.com/5066218/islamic-group-weighs-in-on-lbp-recall

At least some people are sensible.

[JValone]

I know this is only mildly relevant, but...

http://kotaku.com/5066218/islamic-group-weighs-in-on-lbp-recall

At least some people are sensible.

Most Muslims are sensible I assume, the problem is that Sony bowed to the wishes of a minority who didn't have a valid complaint.

[Tanooki]

Yup most muslims who follow the Islamic faith are fairly reasonable in many ways (but let's not get into the whole covered up females and them being property bit here.) It's the fringe bastards that are just drastically more violent than the modern fringe scumbags from the other large religions. The other two will go legal on you, whine like babies, protest, boycott, etc...but the crazy fringe of Islam will go into Terminator mode which is sad.

[JValone]

We've been agreeing a lot through this thread but I think I should point out that we're not totally on the same page here. I do not believe that Muslims have more violent tendencies, even on the outermost fringe of the faith, than other religious groups. What I do believe is that their faith gets coddled by the PC police in the West to a degree that Christians/Jews/etc. do not which is clearly unfair.

The fringe of any faith is filled with nuts, it happens with all groups and it's unavoidable. Someone will always manage to take a fairly positive message and distort it to fit their own cruelty or violent motivations. Have you seen what certain groups in Israel do to Palestine? It isn't all a one way war though much of the American media, and politicians, might want you to believe that. I don't see quite as much of that violence from Christians these days but I believe that is only because that faith is in a position of strength at the moment. Christians run the most powerful military on the planet, if they want to make a point they lobby Congress as hard as they can.

Islamic people, particularly in the Middle East, are in a relative position of weakness. Sure the oil barons are getting theirs but the average person in those countries is oftentimes in a very unfortunate situation. They don't have a strong organized group to make themselves heard. What they do have is guys like Osama bin Laden running around telling them that they should be angry as hell and here's what they can do about it: an eye for an eye. People in desperate situations are far more susceptible to this sort of fanaticism, it's historically proven. The fanatical Christians aren't desperate, fanatical Muslims are and I think that creates the disparity.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Yup most muslims who follow the Islamic faith are fairly reasonable in many ways (but let's not get into the whole covered up females and them being property bit here.) It's the fringe bastards that are just drastically more violent than the modern fringe scumbags from the other large religions. The other two will go legal on you, whine like babies, protest, boycott, etc...but the crazy fringe of Islam will go into Terminator mode which is sad.

Same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) with Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)). Same with Jews, Hindus, communists, Americans, and just about any other large idealistic group you can think of, religious or not.

[Tanooki]

JV that's basically the thing of it as you said in the tail end of your post. Fanaticism in the muslim world is just much more charged towards violence due to the fact of people like Bin Laden with the eye for an eye bit considering most of them are in such a bad spot nothing else to them (and likely true too) will ever work to get heard.

[Smokey]

We've been agreeing a lot through this thread but I think I should point out that we're not totally on the same page here. I do not believe that Muslims have more violent tendencies, even on the outermost fringe of the faith, than other religious groups. What I do believe is that their faith gets coddled by the PC police in the West to a degree that Christians/Jews/etc. do not which is clearly unfair.

Um, I'll have to go with Jeff on this one. I DO believe that fanatical Muslims are much worse than fanatical Christians in that, whereas Christians and devotees of other Western-based theologies set a very specific focus for their outrage, Muslims (and devotees of other Eastern-based theologies, to a much lesser degree) have a very general focus, if there's a focus at all. Take suicide bombers for example. There is no focus, except to find the biggest concentration of infidels possible and take them with you. They don't care about their own life or the lives of others. Say what you will about Christian fanatics, but concern for themselves sets some restrictions on what they're willing to do, making them less dangerous.

So, while the capability for outrage and violence is no different among religions, fanatical Muslims have far fewer inhibitions against taking lives in defense of their ideals.

[Rensa]

Go have another look at Kouji's post; there are plenty of examples of other organisations, both religious and non-religious, that partake in violent activities. Suicide bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber) are as a good example of this this as anything else; they've been employed by many, many groups over the years.

Another bad assumption I feel people are making is that an increase of suicide bombers by Islamic organisations as of late necessarily correlates to a more violent disposition. That an Islamic organisation takes responsibility for a bombing does not necessarily mean that the bomber was an Islamic extremist - or even Islamic at all.

I can't argue that a violent disposition isn't required for terrorism; I'm not qualified at all to talk about the nature of extremist psychology. But the coercion and group psychology tactics that extremist organisations use noted (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.001) before (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00013.x). These are groups that usually recruit among youth and target people in vulnerable circumstances or of a vulnerable mindset. Just look at the places a lot of these groups: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan... not exactly the most stable of countries. Many people in these areas are very vulnerable; they're in the middle of conflicts and occupations. By themselves most of these people don't resort to violence, but when an extremist group comes along and corners some of them, it's not exactly hard to talk them into doing things they may not have considered or wanted to do.

I'm not Islamic saying suicide bombers aren't guilty of anything, just that they don't have some switch on in their head that disposes them toward violent behaviour.

[Smokey]

Go have another look at Kouji's post; there are plenty of examples of other organisations, both religious and non-religious, that partake in violent activities. Suicide bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber) are as a good example of this this as anything else; they've been employed by many, many groups over the years.

You will note that the further east you go, the regard for life warps and twists more dramatically. The only reason you hear more about Muslim suicide attacks than those of other religions is that religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc, promote peace and understanding, while there is not nearly so much of an emphasis in Muslim scripture. Sure it's there, but most of the leading clerics tend to ignore those parts in favor of the parts that call for fulfillment of justice (and the interpretation that states that said justice takes the form of destroying infidels). Several clerics have even said that those who destroy themselves in such suicide operations will be recorded amongst the greatest martyrs in the history of Islam.

Another bad assumption I feel people are making is that an increase of suicide bombers by Islamic organisations as of late necessarily correlates to a more violent disposition. That an Islamic organisation takes responsibility for a bombing does not necessarily mean that the bomber was an Islamic extremist - or even Islamic at all.

Again, when the top clerics of several predominantly Muslim countries call for suicide bombings in the name of Allah, it's hard not to make that assumption. It's not the organizations like al Qaeda that are so much to blame as the actual clerical bodies that hold most of the power in the eyes of the average Middle Eastern Muslim.

I can't argue that a violent disposition isn't required for terrorism; I'm not qualified at all to talk about the nature of extremist psychology. But the coercion and group psychology tactics that extremist organisations use noted (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.001) before (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00013.x). These are groups that usually recruit among youth and target people in vulnerable circumstances or of a vulnerable mindset. Just look at the places a lot of these groups: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan... not exactly the most stable of countries. Many people in these areas are very vulnerable; they're in the middle of conflicts and occupations. By themselves most of these people don't resort to violence, but when an extremist group comes along and corners some of them, it's not exactly hard to talk them into doing things they may not have considered or wanted to do.

I think this is a bit off-topic, but I can't argue with you there. However, the real issue is not the radical Muslim organizations, but the radical Muslim churches, which seem to be quite prevalent in the Middle East. Al Qaeda and Hamas would have absolutely no legitimacy in the eyes of the people were it not for the backing of the clerics.

I'm not Islamic saying suicide bombers aren't guilty of anything, just that they don't have some switch on in their head that disposes them toward violent behaviour.

Right, it's not a switch. It's a programming. They have a long history of war and bloodshed. Europe and the United States does too, but we have managed to rise above that. They've spent millenia killing each other, and they're so hidebound and buried in tradition that they have absolutely no desire to change. They'll just keep killing and killing until there's no one left to kill. Islam was born in this environment, and it promotes many of the ideals that are inherent to the region.

[Rensa]

The only reason you hear more about Muslim suicide attacks than those of other religions is that religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, etc, promote peace and understanding, while there is not nearly so much of an emphasis in Muslim scripture.
There are more Muslim suicide bombings because of current relative instabilities in many predominantly Muslim regions. But other Muslim countries, like the United Arab Emirates, are quite stable and have none of the problems associated with instabilities in unstable regions.

I presume you've read the Qu'ran and can hence justify saying that it doesn't promote peace and understanding as much as other holy texts? Me, I have no idea...
Sure it's there, but most of the leading clerics tend to ignore those parts in favor of the parts that call for fulfillment of justice (and the interpretation that states that said justice takes the form of destroying infidels).
Just like extremist Christian groups manage to interpret the Bible as God hating gays? Anyway, perhaps we're not reading the same news (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C10%5C15%5Cstory_15-10-2008_pg1_2)... there are just as many Muslim leaders standing up to condemn this behaviour.
Al Qaeda and Hamas would have absolutely no legitimacy in the eyes of the people were it not for the backing of the clerics.
How do you know this?
Right, it's not a switch. It's a programming. They have a long history of war and bloodshed. Europe and the United States does too, but we have managed to rise above that. They've spent millenia killing each other, and they're so hidebound and buried in tradition that they have absolutely no desire to change.
As you said, so have Europe and the US. And 'millennia' is hardly fair; Muhammad didn't even pop up 'til the 7th century. I don't want to do a direct comparison of early Christian and Islamic history; as you said, no group's entirely clean. But during the Islamic Golden Age it's my understanding that medieval Muslims were world leaders in a broad range of fields. As for its birth, well, it is an Abrahamic religion :P

Also, Islam's a religion, not a race; there's no genetic mechanism for passing down such 'programming'.

[bountyhunter]

*snip*

The reason suicide bombings (and furthermore, anything that occurs in the Muslim world) has such a religious emphasis on it has to do with the religion's place in the culture. It isn't because our texts are more violent or promote said kind of behavior (check them out- they don't), it's because Islam is fully ingrained into the Muslim's life. It permeates every part of the culture- it's always an issue.

[Smokey]

There are more Muslim suicide bombings because of current relative instabilities in many predominantly Muslim regions. But other Muslim countries, like the United Arab Emirates, are quite stable and have none of the problems associated with instabilities in unstable regions.

Those countries are also ones that are not as strongly influenced by the religion as the others are.

I presume you've read the Qu'ran and can hence justify saying that it doesn't promote peace and understanding as much as other holy texts? Me, I have no idea...

In its entirety? No, I have not. Of the text I have had opportunity to read, however, I have found little to no reference to brotherly love, understanding, or peace in general. Could I just be reading the wrong text? Possibly, but I have yet to see anything that contradicts my earlier statement.

Just like extremist Christian groups manage to interpret the Bible as God hating gays? Anyway, perhaps we're not reading the same news (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C10%5C15%5Cstory_15-10-2008_pg1_2)... there are just as many Muslim leaders standing up to condemn this behaviour.

I haven't seen any Christian groups condoning the mass murder of gays and lesbians, though. Guess what groups- no, sorry, COUNTRIES- have done that? Also, there are some Muslim leaders condemning it. Not nearly as many of them are widely respected in the Muslim world as the clerics promoting suicide bombings are.

How do you know this?

Religion is everything to just about everyone in the Middle East. Thus, the clerics wield as much power as the Catholic Church held in the Middle Ages, if not more. If the clerics told the people that al Qaeda was a band of heretics and that they were to be killed on sight, we'd finally be seeing videos of Osama bin Laden's mangled, bullet-ridden carcass.

As you said, so have Europe and the US. And 'millennia' is hardly fair; Muhammad didn't even pop up 'til the 7th century. I don't want to do a direct comparison of early Christian and Islamic history; as you said, no group's entirely clean. But during the Islamic Golden Age it's my understanding that medieval Muslims were world leaders in a broad range of fields. As for its birth, well, it is an Abrahamic religion :P

Europe and the US have managed to stop for the most part, however, while the Middle East is still going strong. And "millenia" is quite fair; Arab-Jew and Arab-Arab conflict was going on for quite a while before Mohammad drew his first breath. I am also aware that Muslim scholars were leaps and bounds ahead of their European counterparts in several areas, like medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. This was also a time of excessive militaristic expansion, and the Muslims used their superior knowledge to craft several new weapons to kill European Christian infidels.

Also, Islam's a religion, not a race; there's no genetic mechanism for passing down such 'programming'.

I understand that. I said that with the understanding that Islam and the inhabitants of the Middle East are so tightly interwoven that it hardly makes a difference.

The reason suicide bombings (and furthermore, anything that occurs in the Muslim world) has such a religious emphasis on it has to do with the religion's place in the culture. It isn't because our texts are more violent or promote said kind of behavior (check them out- they don't), it's because Islam is fully ingrained into the Muslim's life. It permeates every part of the culture- it's always an issue.

What exactly is the difference? If it's so influential in the society, wouldn't the texts have something to say about it one way or the other? If it's happening with this much frequency among religious fanatics, they're drawing it from somewhere in the text.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

In its entirety? No, I have not. Of the text I have had opportunity to read, however, I have found little to no reference to brotherly love, understanding, or peace in general. Could I just be reading the wrong text? Possibly, but I have yet to see anything that contradicts my earlier statement.

It could be (read: it's probably the case that) you are only seeing the verses that back up your view because that's what you want to see. I'm reading the Qur'an back to front (though it's pretty dry so I'm not too far yet) and I have yet to find anything like what you're talking about. Actually, in the first 3 Surahs I have seen plenty of verses calling for mutual peace and tolerance between Muslims and "the People of the Book" (Jews and Christians). Sure, they may not be right with Allah, but they are people too, and from what I've read so far, Muslims are called to abstain from violence except in cases of self defense.

Consider the Bible. Sure, there are verses telling people to kill all witches, gays, rebellious children, and heathens; telling believers to "dash the little ones against the rocks," and stories of God "delivering" entire societies to the Israelites, who slaughter all of the men and take the women as (sex) slaves. But nobody besides absolute cynics would say that's what the whole Bible is about, because it clearly isn't. And as such, Judaism and Christianity don't have murder and ethnic cleansing as part of their core tenets. Neither does Islam, despite the fact that there may also be some violence in verses here and there in the Qur'an.


Also, to your comment about the UAE not being as religious as other Middle Eastern countries: What? Are you just saying things? About 76% of the population is Muslim, and Sharia is the law of the land. You can be deported just for being gay there. I'd say religion has a pretty firm grip. It's militant extremism that doesn't have much of a foothold there.

[Tanooki]

I have to give him the point there above on the single point that the islamic religion does promote piece in those passages he's vaguely referring to.

I think the issue here though is that going off what bounty said, islam is so so buried deeply into the lives of muslims that IT is being used basically as the bitch and scapegoat of islamic extremists trying to excuse their disgusting behavior they impose on others from denying rights to murder.

[Smokey]

It could be (read: it's probably the case that) you are only seeing the verses that back up your view because that's what you want to see. I'm reading the Qur'an back to front (though it's pretty dry so I'm not too far yet) and I have yet to find anything like what you're talking about. Actually, in the first 3 Surahs I have seen plenty of verses calling for mutual peace and tolerance between Muslims and "the People of the Book" (Jews and Christians). Sure, they may not be right with Allah, but they are people too, and from what I've read so far, Muslims are called to abstain from violence except in cases of self defense.

I will freely admit that I have not done extensive reading on the Quran, but from what I've read (take that for what it's worth), abstinence from violence doesn't seem to extend to martyrdom, which is what these suicide bombings are all about, or at least partly.

Consider the Bible. Sure, there are verses telling people to kill all witches, gays, rebellious children, and heathens; telling believers to "dash the little ones against the rocks," and stories of God "delivering" entire societies to the Israelites, who slaughter all of the men and take the women as (sex) slaves. But nobody besides absolute cynics would say that's what the whole Bible is about, because it clearly isn't. And as such, Judaism and Christianity don't have murder and ethnic cleansing as part of their core tenets. Neither does Islam, despite the fact that there may also be some violence in verses here and there in the Qur'an.

I really don't think the two can be compared in such a manner. The parts you refer to are a history, these examples do not hold true for either Christ's time nor our time, and ought to be taken in such a context. I am unaware of such a distinction in the Quran; I was under the impression that it was written in, more or less, one sitting and was composed as one whole piece, not several pieces as the Bible is.

Also, to your comment about the UAE not being as religious as other Middle Eastern countries: What? Are you just saying things? About 76% of the population is Muslim, and Sharia is the law of the land. You can be deported just for being gay there. I'd say religion has a pretty firm grip. It's militant extremism that doesn't have much of a foothold there.

A country as capitalistic as the UAE can't be fervently religious; the two systems would constantly be at odds, and I think capitalism won out over religion. Sure, Islam is the dominant religion, but I don't think religion is much of an issue over there. And Sharia is supposedly the law of every predominantly Muslim country, but I'm sure you realize that adherence to Sharia varies from nation to nation.

[Rensa]

Well, I'll concede on history; I don't have enough knowledge of it to really argue the point properly (although I will point out that you seem to be switching views between basing Muslim violence on the scripture of Islam and on the Arab genetics). But the rest of my argument holds firm.
I haven't seen any Christian groups condoning the mass murder of gays and lesbians, though
Are you joking? o_O
I really don't think the two can be compared in such a manner. The parts you refer to are a history, these examples do not hold true for either Christ's time nor our time, and ought to be taken in such a context. I am unaware of such a distinction in the Quran; I was under the impression that it was written in, more or less, one sitting and was composed as one whole piece, not several pieces as the Bible is.
So let's just ignore the half of the Bible that doesn't really count?
A country as capitalistic as the UAE can't be fervently religious; the two systems would constantly be at odds, and I think capitalism won out over religion. Sure, Islam is the dominant religion, but I don't think religion is much of an issue over there. And Sharia is supposedly the law of every predominantly Muslim country, but I'm sure you realize that adherence to Sharia varies from nation to nation.
Kouji laid it down; UAE is fervently religious. And since, as of your second-last post, you're arguing that 'Arab-Jew and Arab-Arab conflict was going on for quite a while before Mohammad drew his first breath', UAE should be fanatical too (it does stand for United Arab Emirates) regardless of its religiousness.

[Smokey]

Are you joking? o_O

I misspoke. I haven't seen any fanatical Christian groups CARRYING OUT mass murder of gays and lesbians.

So let's just ignore the half of the Bible that doesn't really count?

I'm saying the two can't be directly compared, unless the Quran was written in sections and over a period of somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000-6000 years and had about thirty or forty-odd authors.

Kouji laid it down; UAE is fervently religious. And since, as of your second-last post, you're arguing that 'Arab-Jew and Arab-Arab conflict was going on for quite a while before Mohammad drew his first breath', UAE should be fanatical too (it does stand for United Arab Emirates) regardless of its religiousness.

I don't have much else but personal opinions to offer, so I'll concede on this point.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

I really don't think the two can be compared in such a manner. The parts you refer to are a history, these examples do not hold true for either Christ's time nor our time, and ought to be taken in such a context. I am unaware of such a distinction in the Quran; I was under the impression that it was written in, more or less, one sitting and was composed as one whole piece, not several pieces as the Bible is.

Well first off, the Qur'an was compiled over a period of about 25 years, not all one sitting, and is made up of 114 Surahs (about equivalent to "books" in the Bible) on various topics.
Secondly, does this mean you believe that the verses and commands I brought up are still relevant in Judaism, since it doesn't have the convenience of the real Bible as enunciated by Jesus/Paul?

A country as capitalistic as the UAE can't be fervently religious; the two systems would constantly be at odds, and I think capitalism won out over religion. Sure, Islam is the dominant religion, but I don't think religion is much of an issue over there. And Sharia is supposedly the law of every predominantly Muslim country, but I'm sure you realize that adherence to Sharia varies from nation to nation.

The US is a very capitalist nation, yet we have Sarah Palin and people like her in office and/or running for office. We have people trying to amend the constitution to fit with their religious views, and an Office of Pandering to the Religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives) in our government. We have psychos like the Westboro Baptist Church running amok, and a president who believes God told him to start a couple wars. I think money and religion can not only exist together, but actually go hand-in-hand quite often and quite well.

[Lizzaroni]

An economic system and a religion are not two interchangeable concepts. Christ.

[Smokey]

Well first off, the Qur'an was compiled over a period of about 25 years, not all one sitting, and is made up of 114 Surahs (about equivalent to "books" in the Bible) on various topics.
Secondly, does this mean you believe that the verses and commands I brought up are still relevant in Judaism, since it doesn't have the convenience of the real Bible as enunciated by Jesus/Paul?

Still, 25 years compared to 4000 years is one sitting. And I would expect there to be various topics, but are there specific divisions, like books of history, books of prophecy, etc?

As for Judaism, it may very well be relevant, though there's the set of laws (the name of which escapes me at the moment) that may say otherwise. Frankly, I don't know. I do know, however, that Christianity derives its principles from the New Testament, not the Old Testament.


The US is a very capitalist nation, yet we have Sarah Palin and people like her in office and/or running for office. We have people trying to amend the constitution to fit with their religious views, and an Office of Pandering to the Religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives) in our government. We have psychos like the Westboro Baptist Church running amok, and a president who believes God told him to start a couple wars. I think money and religion can not only exist together, but actually go hand-in-hand quite often and quite well.

And look where all this has gotten us. A deficit of a few trillion dollars, lack of respect around the world, and our gov't is a veritable cesspool in more ways than one. Conversely, take a gander at the UAE. They're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, if not the wealthiest. The leaders of that country don't really flaunt their religion like some leaders over here do. Seems to me that they're more interested in profit than in religion.

Also, something I neglected to mention on the subject of Sharia law and the deportation of gays from the UAE. That alone pretty well shows that the UAE is pretty lax in its enforcement of certain points of Sharia law, if not Sharia law in general. Sharia law calls for the execution of gays, not their deportation.

[Rensa]

And look where all this has gotten us. A deficit of a few trillion dollars, lack of respect around the world, and our gov't is a veritable cesspool in more ways than one. Conversely, take a gander at the UAE. They're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, if not the wealthiest. The leaders of that country don't really flaunt their religion like some leaders over here do. Seems to me that they're more interested in profit than in religion.
Hang on a sec, lemme get this straight... you're arguing that UAE is an exception from generally violent Islamic tendencies because it's 'not really religious like the US and the rest of the Middle East are'. Surely the only conclusion one could draw following this logic is that American Christians have at least as much of a violent tendency as Arab Muslims?

[Smokey]

No, no. I don't really consider the US to be all that religious. There is a religious presence, and the majority of US citizens claim to be Christian, but the United States is not a Christian country. I mean, would a really religious country pass something like Roe v Wade and keep it in place?

[Rensa]

Well, you said it. Obviously this is a matter of degree and unquantifiable at that, but I'd say significant parts of the US are very religious. The thing is that it's a damned big place and other parts of it aren't so much. But what really protects the US is that it was deliberately set up with a strong judicial system and a constitution that came with cool stuff like separation of church and state.

[HGW XX/7]

Well, you said it. Obviously this is a matter of degree and unquantifiable at that, but I'd say significant parts of the US are very religious. The thing is that it's a damned big place and other parts of it aren't so much. But what really protects the US is that it was deliberately set up with a strong judicial system and a constitution that came with cool stuff like separation of church and state.

You're makin' me all warm and fuzzy about bein' American, 'cause we have cool stuff.

[Rensa]

Speaking of warm and fuzzy... :)
It seems that the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are not the only Muslim group bothered by Sony's recent decision to delay the worldwide release of LittleBigPlanet due to Qu'ran references; the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia also had some things to say to Sony:

"My son is doing Islamic studies over in Lebanon, he is a gamer, and he was very upset that the lines were being taken out. He said "why are we Muslims always overreacting?" He thought that it was perfectly OK, these lines could be taken from anywhere – from a heavy metal song, from the Bible even."

"The game [LittleBigPlanet] is not promoting any kind of religion, it takes more than four words to quote from the Qu'ran – these are concepts not exclusive to Islam, or any religion for that matter. It comes from a genuine fear of not just offending Muslims, but people in general. That being said though, it does Sony some good – the game has gotten a lot of publicity as a result."

"But I understand Sony's concern, because there are some extreme groups out there that misinterpret these things and take it the wrong way." -- Keysar Trad, to Gameplayer (http://gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/081023LBPKoran.aspx?Page=1)
Although am I a bit surprised to see this, given some of the prats he's defended (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1774182.htm). Guess you can't judge people on single incidents, huh?

[bountyhunter]

I think the issue here though is that going off what bounty said, islam is so so buried deeply into the lives of muslims that IT is being used basically as the bitch and scapegoat of islamic extremists trying to excuse their disgusting behavior they impose on others from denying rights to murder.

What I've really been trying to say is that Islam is buried so deeply into the lives of Muslims that every act of a Muslim, in a Muslim society, must be tied back down to the religion. It isn't a matter of making the religion anyone's bitch or scapegoat, or even using it as an excuse to promote violence. It's simply necessity to live in complete accordance with the religion....

[Tanooki]

Well then that's kind of saying you're taking the parts of the religion a little too far in finding that suicide attacks and the rest are acceptable if you do it in the name of the islamic gods and prophets. Most of them are so so tied into it and live their values by the book and do good and no harm, just some can't have any form of self control and take it way too far (death.)

[Smokey]

Well, you said it. Obviously this is a matter of degree and unquantifiable at that, but I'd say significant parts of the US are very religious. The thing is that it's a damned big place and other parts of it aren't so much. But what really protects the US is that it was deliberately set up with a strong judicial system and a constitution that came with cool stuff like separation of church and state.

No question there. Lucas and I, and probably Jeff as well, could probably tell some horror stories about just how up-in-arms people around here in the south can get when it comes to religion. But again, as a whole, the US isn't a very religious country. One look at MTV or Spike will tell you that.

Speaking of warm and fuzzy... :)

Although am I a bit surprised to see this, given some of the prats he's defended (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1774182.htm). Guess you can't judge people on single incidents, huh?

Yikes. Just...wow.

[bountyhunter]

Well then that's kind of saying you're taking the parts of the religion a little too far in finding that suicide attacks and the rest are acceptable if you do it in the name of the islamic gods and prophets. Most of them are so so tied into it and live their values by the book and do good and no harm, just some can't have any form of self control and take it way too far (death.)

Are you that thick man?

They aren't fitting their lives to the religion, they're fitting the religion to their lives. The religious is a serious cultural influence, not something everyone takes seriously.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

But again, as a whole, the US isn't a very religious country. One look at MTV or Spike will tell you that.

Hmmm, I smell the makings of a no true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of religious people who watch, love, and (I'm certain) help create Spike and MTV. The fact that one type of religious person does/doesn't do something, doesn't render irreligious everyone who behaves differently when it comes to that activity/belief/behavior/etc.

Besides, according to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, and 76.5 - 78.5% of adult U.S. citizens identify themselves as Christians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_USA) So you're wrong.

[Tanooki]

No not thick I just have a total disregard, dislike, and outright contempt for religious fundis who do the awful stuff from mental manipulation to murder over stupid things.

[Smokey]

Hmmm, I smell the makings of a no true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of religious people who watch, love, and (I'm certain) help create Spike and MTV. The fact that one type of religious person does/doesn't do something, doesn't render irreligious everyone who behaves differently when it comes to that activity/belief/behavior/etc.

This pretty well contradicts your other statement about the majority of Americans being Christians. Christians don't go in for most of what those networks peddle. How can you expect them to have a hand in creating them?

Besides, according to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, and 76.5 - 78.5% of adult U.S. citizens identify themselves as Christians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_USA) So you're wrong.

You chose a Wikipedia article to back your claim? And one that isn't even up to Wikipedia's standards? Moreover, you chose a six-year old survey. Finally, it's one thing to claim you're a Christian. It's quite another to be a practicing Christian.

[Tanooki]

You could also argue there's a difference between the American concept of 'very important' and the minority islamic extremist concept of importance too since the end results are different.

[Smokey]

That, too. Even the Christian extremists here don't go to such extremes as Muslim extremists do. They, as are the majority of Americans in general, are too materialistic to get to that level of fanaticism.

[Rensa]

That, too. Even the Christian extremists here don't go to such extremes as Muslim extremists do. They, as are the majority of Americans in general, are too materialistic to get to that level of fanaticism.
No, they just don't do it right now.

Mostly.

[Smokey]

I have yet to see a case of a Christian suicide bomber at any point in the last fifty years, even in the Middle East.

[Lizzaroni]

Only the past fifty years counts?

[Smokey]

I figured that's about how long religious suicide bombings have been going on.

[Lizzaroni]

Well, if you limit it to bombings, you necessarily limit it to the time bombs have been around. Personally, I don't think there is a statue of limitations on violence or threat of violence.

[MR EPIC]

I don't think that Christian behavior can be compared directly to Muslim behavior because we're not talking about two clear-cut philosophies. A lot of religions in the US label themselves as "Christians" yet their belief system can be vastly different from one another. Some believe in simply praying Jesus into your heart while others insist that baptism is necessary before labeling yourself a Christian, and even others believe in observing the Sabbath. On the contrary, Muslims largely believe the same thing and are basically broken into two groups: The violent and the non-violent. That is not an apples to apples comparison.

[Smokey]

Well, if you limit it to bombings, you necessarily limit it to the time bombs have been around. Personally, I don't think there is a statue of limitations on violence or threat of violence.

That was pretty much the point. It's been established that members of both religions have committed acts of violence in the name of God. Suicide bombings, however, or even suicide attacks in general, are a whole new dimension that Christians have yet to enter.

I don't think that Christian behavior can be compared directly to Muslim behavior because we're not talking about two clear-cut philosophies. A lot of religions in the US label themselves as "Christians" yet their belief system can be vastly different from one another. Some believe in simply praying Jesus into your heart while others insist that baptism is necessary before labeling yourself a Christian, and even others believe in observing the Sabbath. On the contrary, Muslims largely believe the same thing and are basically broken into two groups: The violent and the non-violent. That is not an apples to apples comparison.

Bingo.

[Rensa]

I have yet to see a case of a Christian suicide bomber at any point in the last fifty years, even in the Middle East.
I'm in a hurry, but Google "Loula Abboud". She did it on behalf of the Lebanese Communist Party, but she was Christian. Killed six people in 1985, I think.

[Smokey]

Communists are atheistic. She might have been born into an Orthodox Christian family, but she couldn't have been a practicing Christian and a Communist.

[Lizzaroni]

I don't think that Christian behavior can be compared directly to Muslim behavior because we're not talking about two clear-cut philosophies. A lot of religions in the US label themselves as "Christians" yet their belief system can be vastly different from one another. Some believe in simply praying Jesus into your heart while others insist that baptism is necessary before labeling yourself a Christian, and even others believe in observing the Sabbath. On the contrary, Muslims largely believe the same thing and are basically broken into two groups: The violent and the non-violent. That is not an apples to apples comparison.
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects/sunni.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects/ahmadiyya.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects/shia.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects/sufi.htm

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Communists are atheistic. She might have been born into an Orthodox Christian family, but she couldn't have been a practicing Christian and a Communist.

Totally untrue. Just absolutely wrong. Communism (a socioeconomic system) and Christianity (faith in a god and his son/human self) are in NO way mutually exclusive. Equality, classless society, and the sharing of wealth and property for the benefit of all: sounds pretty Jesusy to me. Then there are monastic orders in Christianity and every other religion, in which property is shared and everyone is equal.

Hell, take a look at this:
"All who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need." (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47).

I almost want to say communism is the most ideal setup for "real" or "practicing" Christians, free from greed and selfishness.

[Rensa]

Communists are atheistic. She might have been born into an Orthodox Christian family, but she couldn't have been a practicing Christian and a Communist.
Lawl, not quite. The People's Republic of China is officially atheist and the Soviets supressed religion, but that doesn't mean that communists are necessarily atheist.

[Lizzaroni]

FYI, no, the ideal for Christianity is not communism. The onus for sharing and charity is supposed to be on the individual, not the state.

[Darc Requiem]

Seems to be a lot of foot in mouth disease going on in this thread. You know, Google can be your friend sometimes...

[Smokey]

Totally untrue. Just absolutely wrong. Communism (a socioeconomic system) and Christianity (faith in a god and his son/human self) are in NO way mutually exclusive. Equality, classless society, and the sharing of wealth and property for the benefit of all: sounds pretty Jesusy to me. Then there are monastic orders in Christianity and every other religion, in which property is shared and everyone is equal.

Hell, take a look at this:
"All who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need." (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47).

I almost want to say communism is the most ideal setup for "real" or "practicing" Christians, free from greed and selfishness.

Liz is right, you're wrong.

Lawl, not quite. The People's Republic of China is officially atheist and the Soviets supressed religion, but that doesn't mean that communists are necessarily atheist.

Is there a communist country that has an official religion? I haven't seen any influential communist theorists encouraging religion, either.

[bountyhunter]

Liz is right, you're wrong.

No, and your post is ****. Since this is all theoretical, Kzk would be right. There is no such thing as a communist state.



Is there a communist country that has an official religion? I haven't seen any influential communist theorists encouraging religion, either.

There aren't any communist countries.

[Smokey]

Oh, for the love of God, we've been through this before. If a state is run by the Communist party, it is a Communist state.

[Rensa]

Is there a communist country that has an official religion? I haven't seen any influential communist theorists encouraging religion, either.
A quick wiki (I know this is naughty, lawl) tells me that 'The [Lebanese Communist Party] was aligned with the mostly-Muslim LNM-Palestinian coalition, despite its mainly Christian membership (in particular, Greek Orthodox and Armenian).'

But that's not the point. I never said that the organisation this girl blew herself up for was Christian; only that she was. Which is quite enough to refute your idea that Christians can't be suicide bombers.

[Smokey]

A quick wiki (I know this is naughty, lawl) tells me that 'The [Lebanese Communist Party] was aligned with the mostly-Muslim LNM-Palestinian coalition, despite its mainly Christian membership (in particular, Greek Orthodox and Armenian).'

Bad Rensa. No more wiki!:no:

But that's not the point. I never said that the organisation this girl blew herself up for was Christian; only that she was. Which is quite enough to refute your idea that Christians can't be suicide bombers.

I never said that they couldn't; obviously there are exceptions to every rule.

[Rensa]

So, what, you're saying that although there are some suicide bombers of other religions, they're not typically as violent as Muslims? We've given you examples of non-Muslim suicide bombers - take the primarily Shinto kamikaze, if you need another one - and we've given you examples of primarily Muslim states that are not embroiled in violence and war. You've changed your position to evade each of those refutations. What exactly would it take to change your opinion?

[Smokey]

So, what, you're saying that although there are some suicide bombers of other religions, they're not typically as violent as Muslims? We've given you examples of non-Muslim suicide bombers - take the primarily Shinto kamikaze, if you need another one - and we've given you examples of primarily Muslim states that are not embroiled in violence and war. You've changed your position to evade each of those refutations. What exactly would it take to change your opinion?

1) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm fully aware that each religion has the same capacity for violence as Islam. In today's world, however, no religion has shown such a propensity for violence as proponents of Islam.

2) The kamikaze didn't act on religion. Theirs was not a divine mandate. It was a deeply ingrained devotion to ruler and country. Plus, Shintoism is on somewhat of a decline in Japan, and has been since shortly after the Tokugawa period began, when Buddhism became the official religion and Tokugawa officials began enforcing it.

3) There's a difference between a Christian/Muslim/Hindu state and a state with a population that is predominantly Christian/Muslim/Hindu. The former is when the government's state religion is Islam, e.g. Iran. The latter is when a country, though its population is 75% Muslim, does not have a state religion. To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think extremely capitalistic states like the United States and the United Arab Emirates can be Christian or Muslim states.

4) I haven't changed my stance. I have clarified statements that I have held to be true since the beginning of the thread, but I have changed nothing. And as far as changing my opinion, it would take something pretty extensive, such as a major Christian or Jewish or other such religion's organization not only condoning atrocities such as massacres of homosexuals or suicide bombings, but carrying them out. Which, as far as I know, hasn't happened.

[Rensa]

1) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm fully aware that each religion has the same capacity for violence as Islam. In today's world, however, no religion has shown such a propensity for violence as proponents of Islam.

2) The kamikaze didn't act on religion. Theirs was not a divine mandate. It was a deeply ingrained devotion to ruler and country. Plus, Shintoism is on somewhat of a decline in Japan, and has been since shortly after the Tokugawa period began, when Buddhism became the official religion and Tokugawa officials began enforcing it.
Firstly, Shinto was the official religion of Japan right up until its surrender to Allied forces in 1945. In fact, it was the new constitution of 1947 that buried it by introducing the separation of church and state.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's look at examples of specifically religious groups carrying out violent acts.

Well, the first example I mentioned (back on page one) was the Troublesm which everyone conveniently managed to ignore. I don't think anyone can argue that Irish history has nothing to do with religion, even if it was religion mixed with nationalism. Burning of buildings, murders and bombings were all justified because each group thought the other had deviated from Christian teachings.

If you want to go furhter back in history, what about the Albigensian crusade? Pope Innocent III led a force of French Roman Catholics to go take down the Cathari. But in fact, in the resulting crusade (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99473/Cathari#ref26938), both Cathari and Catholic were indiscriminately killed.
3) There's a difference between a Christian/Muslim/Hindu state and a state with a population that is predominantly Christian/Muslim/Hindu. The former is when the government's state religion is Islam, e.g. Iran. The latter is when a country, though its population is 75% Muslim, does not have a state religion. To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think extremely capitalistic states like the United States and the United Arab Emirates can be Christian or Muslim states.
I was somewhat mistaken on my earlier figures: according to NationMaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Islam-in-the-United-Arab-Emirates), 75% of total population of UAE is Muslim, but 80% of the total population is made up of non-citizens. Nearly 100% of its citizenry is Muslim.

Furthermore, UAE's official religion, as stated in its constitution, is Islam.

[Hottotty]

Oh, for the love of God, we've been through this before. If a state is run by the Communist party, it is a Communist state.

Am I the only one who feels like when a country is called a "state", that's a thinly veiled insult? It's like, South Korea is a beautiful country, but North Korea is only a communist state. Weird.

[Rensa]

^ Hehe, I see what you mean. But in this context the use of the word 'state' is significant because Smokey's distinction defense of the UAE involves distinguishing the policy of its administrative authority with the beliefs of its population.

[Smokey]

Firstly, Shinto was the official religion of Japan right up until its surrender to Allied forces in 1945. In fact, it was the new constitution of 1947 that buried it by introducing the separation of church and state.

http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/japan/religion.htm

There was a long period of time when Buddhism was the official religion, roughly about a thousand years. Shintoism might have become the state religion afterward, the link's not clear on that count, but from that point on, most Shintoists were also Buddhist. That's irrelevant, though. The reason for the kamikaze was the intense devotion to the state and to the ruler felt by the people of Japan, not religious inspiration.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's look at examples of specifically religious groups carrying out violent acts.

Well, the first example I mentioned (back on page one) was the Troublesm which everyone conveniently managed to ignore. I don't think anyone can argue that Irish history has nothing to do with religion, even if it was religion mixed with nationalism. Burning of buildings, murders and bombings were all justified because each group thought the other had deviated from Christian teachings.

I checked the Wiki entry for the Troubles. It does mention that one side is principally Roman Catholic and the other is Protestant. However, it is not thought of as a religious war.

The Troubles[3] have been variously described as terrorism,[4] ethnic conflict,[5] a many-sided conflict, a guerrilla war,[6] a low intensity conflict, and even a civil war.

Note the absence of the term "holy war" or anything remotely related to it.

If you want to go furhter back in history, what about the Albigensian crusade? Pope Innocent III led a force of French Roman Catholics to go take down the Cathari. But in fact, in the resulting crusade (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99473/Cathari#ref26938), both Cathari and Catholic were indiscriminately killed.

That very link says that the Pope proclaimed a crusade. He led nothing, and he had no control over the barons that invaded the area. The barons didn't care who they killed.

This doesn't prove anything. It's no different than any other religiously-backed purging. Like I said before, I'm quite aware that Christians are just as capable of senseless violence as anyone else. Muslims, however, have a greater propensity for taking indiscriminate violence to an extreme.

I was somewhat mistaken on my earlier figures: according to NationMaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Islam-in-the-United-Arab-Emirates), 75% of total population of UAE is Muslim, but 80% of the total population is made up of non-citizens. Nearly 100% of its citizenry is Muslim.

Furthermore, UAE's official religion, as stated in its constitution, is Islam.

Even so, it's not as religious as Iran or other such fundamentalist countries. Like I said before, Sharia calls for the execution of homosexuals; the UAE deports them. Still, this isn't a very relevant point and I don't want to pound this one into the ground, so I'll concede on this one.

Am I the only one who feels like when a country is called a "state", that's a thinly veiled insult? It's like, South Korea is a beautiful country, but North Korea is only a communist state. Weird.

State and country are pretty well synonymous. That perception has been twisted a bit here in the US (and apparently in Canada, I suppose), for obvious reasons, so it could look like there's an insult, but there's really no insult there.

[Rensa]

I checked the Wiki entry for the Troubles. It does mention that one side is principally Roman Catholic and the other is Protestant. However, it is not thought of as a religious war.[

[...]

Note the absence of the term "holy war" or anything remotely related to it.
I would call that an extremely simplistic interpretation of the events. The reason why you haven't seen the words 'holy war' is because they're being used to directly reference Islamic terrorism (a poor translation of 'jihad'). But I assure you, although The Troubles were principally nationalistic, they were driven by a good 300 hundred years of religious conflict and were frequently expressed in religious terms. A big part of the reason why Northern Irish nationalists wanted to break off from the UK was so that they would be free to practise Cathlocism, as many laws passed restricted the rights of Catholics (eg. restricted property trading rights). And, as I said before, many attacks were justified religiously - take thew guy who interrupted John Paul II's speech by calling him the Anti-Christ. By the time it really got going, each side was convinced that theother had deviated from Christian teachings.

Besides, if you think Islamic terrorism is entirely religious, well, you're wrong. Like The Troubles, it has nationalistic components, especially in Iraq where they're dealing with an occupation.
Even so, it's not as religious as Iran or other such fundamentalist countries. Like I said before, Sharia calls for the execution of homosexuals; the UAE deports them. Still, this isn't a very relevant point and I don't want to pound this one into the ground, so I'll concede on this one.
Just as well, because you're drifting toward circular logic: UAE isn't as dangerous because it isn't as religious, and it isn't as religious because it isn't as dangerous. But it is relevant, because we have a whole country full of Muslims here that aren't in any sort of conflict.

[Smokey]

I would call that an extremely simplistic interpretation of the events. The reason why you haven't seen the words 'holy war' is because they're being used to directly reference Islamic terrorism (a poor translation of 'jihad'). But I assure you, although The Troubles were principally nationalistic, they were driven by a good 300 hundred years of religious conflict and were frequently expressed in religious terms. A big part of the reason why Northern Irish nationalists wanted to break off from the UK was so that they would be free to practise Cathlocism, as many laws passed restricted the rights of Catholics (eg. restricted property trading rights). And, as I said before, many attacks were justified religiously - take thew guy who interrupted John Paul II's speech by calling him the Anti-Christ. By the time it really got going, each side was convinced that theother had deviated from Christian teachings.

I googled the Troubles, and I checked a few links, including Wikipedia. None of them point out the conflict in Ireland to be religious in nature. Religion could be among the grievances (in fact, I'd put money on it), but it is not a religious conflict. The Irish have plenty of other reasons to hate the English and those that like them than religion.

Besides, if you think Islamic terrorism is entirely religious, well, you're wrong. Like The Troubles, it has nationalistic components, especially in Iraq where they're dealing with an occupation.

I never said that. Even so, it's like Bounty said, Islam is so deeply ingrained in their culture that it influences everything they do. Are there terrorists that strike in the name of ethnic independence? Sure, but their claims are backed by religious fervor and resolve.

Just as well, because you're drifting toward circular logic: UAE isn't as dangerous because it isn't as religious, and it isn't as religious because it isn't as dangerous. But it is relevant, because we have a whole country full of Muslims here that aren't in any sort of conflict.

Again, you're twisting what I'm saying. I'm saying that the UAE isn't as religious as other Middle Eastern countries because it is an intensely capitalistic state.

[Rensa]

I googled the Troubles, and I checked a few links, including Wikipedia. None of them point out the conflict in Ireland to be religious in nature. Religion could be among the grievances (in fact, I'd put money on it), but it is not a religious conflict. The Irish have plenty of other reasons to hate the English and those that like them than religion.
Look harder. Religion was entangled with nationality to the extent that they effectively became one and the same... in fact, religion is arguably a larger factor, as the nationalistic division was only perceived because the Protestant majority came about because of Britain's push away from Cathlocism throughout the UK.
The constitutional revisions of 1920–22 succeeded in creating a parliament in Northern Ireland that was acceptable to the approximately one million Protestant unionists of the six counties. However... More important, they did not satisfy the concerns of the half million Roman Catholic nationalists who resided within the six counties. Under the leadership of James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon, who served as prime minister of Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1940, the Northern Ireland Parliament was dominated by a Protestant majority, which governed in its interest and which was dedicated to maintaining the union with Great Britain. Most Roman Catholics were never reconciled to their status within Northern Ireland, though their opposition was politically ineffective, and they suffered discrimination in employment, public housing, education, and social services. In addition, unionists ensured their political hold over Northern Ireland through the manipulation of electoral boundaries, which minimized the representation of Catholics.
By the end of the 19th century, Belfast was Ireland’s largest city, with a population of nearly 350,000 and with numerous jobs in the textile industries and in shipbuilding. Although Protestants were overrepresented, often unfairly, in skilled jobs and managerial positions, Belfast’s economic magnet drew lower-class Catholics from the impoverished countryside. The city experienced sectarian violence; its housing was highly segregated (with Catholics generally occupying much poor housing stock); and religious intolerance was rampant—all of which worsened already-difficult living conditions for Catholics—but its economic appeal endured even through the Great Depression of the 1930s and the doldrums of the 1960s and ’70s.
By the mid-1960s the fragile stability of Northern Ireland had begun to erode. The demographic majority that Protestants enjoyed ensured that they were able to control the state institutions, and these powers were more often than not used in ways that disadvantaged the Catholic minority in the region, though the extent and even the existence of discrimination in Northern Ireland remain a matter of heated debate. An active civil rights movement, partly inspired by the achievements of African Americans in the United States, emerged in the late 1960s, and incidents of communal violence increased.

The British government sent troops “in aid of the civil power” at Stormont, Northern Ireland’s parliament... In 1969 the Provisional movement of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) emerged out of this communal disorder. The IRA acquired arms and explosives and initiated a campaign of bombings and shootings in order to protect Roman Catholics, destabilize Northern Ireland’s institutions, weaken British resolve to maintain the union, and achieve Irish unity.
Hope I didn't break fair use there, but oh well.
I never said that. Even so, it's like Bounty said, Islam is so deeply ingrained in their culture that it influences everything they do. Are there terrorists that strike in the name of ethnic independence? Sure, but their claims are backed by religious fervor and resolve.
No more than in the Troubles. This is what I'm getting at: there are always other factors involved - socioeconomic, political - even when religion comes into it. These guys might scream "In the name of Allah!" but I don't believe that religion alone starts these things. You need some sort of dissatisfaction with the local environment to start it; the religious fervour just frames it.
Again, you're twisting what I'm saying. I'm saying that the UAE isn't as religious as other Middle Eastern countries because it is an intensely capitalistic state.
You're just making ad hoc modifications to your argument to make it conform to the stats Kouji and I provided. UAE is as religious as other countries in question, but it doesn't conform to your theory. Why should UAE be special? What magical power does capitalism have that should extinguish zealotry? The fact is that UAE is exactly as religious as it appears and that acceptance of Islam does not correlate with violent acts.

[Lizzaroni]

I would never, ever, ever tell an Irish person the conflict was absent from religion. The folks alive today in my family didn't even get off the boat and we still use "Protestant" as an insult. I can't really imagine the amount of eye rolling (or perhaps even beating) you'd receive from someone actually Irish (as opposed to mere descent.)