Name the Poison

[woolfe9999]

So Woolfe.... two American citizens who converted to Islam were arrested today for planning a terrorist attack on American soil.

Doesn't that kind of kill your whole "fundies in America are a minority in a greater society that has liberal values." theory right out the window?

Do the actions of two or ten people kill any theory of collective attitudes and behavior on a societal scale? Absolutely not.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not debating what is or isn't in one set of scriptures or another. I am debating the importance of them. Christianity has had the same scriptures for 2000 years, and for the most part, Christians behaved barbarically in the name of their religion for the vast majority of that time. That right there totally invalidates your argument that this is about the content of scriptures. In fact, it turns the argument on its head. Since the Christian scriptures are more peaceful, as you say, why then did so many Chrisitans behave barbarically in the name of their religion for so long?

Most people didn't have access to the scriptures for the longest time and most were illiterate. Things started changing when the printing press came about and people started looking at the texts themselves. That is when reform came about. Muslims don't have this obstacle today.

Sure, you can say that bad things were done, but I would say they were in spite of Christian teachings. (And this is like you saying that the law doesn't deter anybody because people are still committing crimes. It's common sense but impossible to prove that some crimes aren't being committed because of the law.) And none of that shows that Muslims behave badly _in spite_ of Islamic teachings. You'd have to look at the scriptures determine that and you don't want to.

This is a complicated issue. To say it "happened from within" is true in the technical sense since essentially everyone was a Christian. That, however, begs the question of WHY it happened. Did it happen because of or in spite of Christianity? How much or how often did Chrisitanity support or oppose progress in science, arts, culture, politics? How often was Christianity on the wrong or right side of history? Any honest view of history will acknowledge that the answers to the those questions are mixed, but on balance, the changes would likely have happened sooner but for the existence and predominance of Christianity.

I don't really want to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity in history. All I'm saying is that there was a clear internal voice of reform from within Christianity. People, believers and non-believers, questioned the religion. This was a useful process. All I'm saying is that the kind of silliness Red Dawn types is not helpful. If you or Red Dawn had been in middle-ages telling Christians that they shouldn't be worried about corruption in the church because other religions were just as corrupt, do you think that would have been helpful?

We bash Islam for hating homosexuals and distriminating against them, and as well we should, but what do our evangelicals thinks about homosexuality?

They think it's evil. They try to "help" gays with therapy. Is that what Muslims fundies do?

We bash Islamic fundies for wanting to impose Sharia (religious law), but what do our fundies think about the relationship between religion and politics?

I don't think it's as clear as you seem to think it is. Sure I hear them complain about wanting prayer in schools but I also hear them quote scriptures about leaving unto Caesar. There is no built-in system of government in Christianity like there is in Islam.

You think my view on scripture being important is absurd and I think your view on it being irrelevant is absurd as well. It just goes against most of my interactions with religious people. They actually refer to their scriptures. There's room for interpretation but there are also clear guiding principles and distinctions between the religions.

Just look at the latest Seattle plot. Where is your culture there? The terrorists were American converts, which we have seen before. Where is the commonality with the culture in the Middle-East? I don't see it. I do see a common religion though.

 

[nick1985]

Do the actions of two or ten people kill any theory of collective attitudes and behavior on a societal scale? Absolutely not.

I'll bet you $1000 right now that the next terrorist attack/foiled plot in this country will be perpetrated by Muslims.

Want to take my bet?

 

[woolfe9999]

I'll bet you $1000 right now that the next terrorist attack/foiled plot in this country will be perpetrated by Muslims.

Want to take my bet?

Nope, and me not wanting to take that bet has no impact on the points I have made thus far. In fact, I'd bet with you on that one rather than against you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Woolfe, why are American Muslims committing one terrorist attack after another on American soil, but Christians are not?

Since 2001 we have had ONE abortion murder and 17 Muslim terrorist related murders (and that excluded the beltway sniper attacks)

According to what you have said in this thread these attacks should not be happening. Muslims who grew up in a secular humanist society and yet they are killing in the name of their religion.

And yet Christians in the same society are not committing the same acts. But you still think Christians and Muslims are similar??

 

[ProfJohn]

Nope, and me not wanting to take that bet has no impact on the points I have made thus far. In fact, I'd bet with you on that one rather than against you.

So you are admitting that Muslims are more likely to commit a terrorist act than a Christian even though Christians out number Muslims 97 to 1 in this country?

 

[nick1985]

BTW dont get me wrong, I think Christianity is also retarded (and so does Pat Condell). I just recognize Islam for what it is, a backwards and violent religion.

 

[Zorkorist]

Have ya'll ever seen "Fiddler on the Roof?," where the Father is trying to keep his household in line, while following his Religion?

It's silly to blame a Religion, or people that follow that Religion, for things.

It's obviously a human diorama we live in. Everything is one person to another.

Religion is one tiny bit of the human diorama.

So... in the hell that is stoning women for adultery, when they were raped, you can blame humans for that... not a Religion.

Religion is just as small a part of the human diorama.

-John

 

[ProfJohn]

Have ya'll ever seen "Fiddler on the Roof?," where the Father is trying to keep his household in line, while following his Religion?

It's silly to blame a Religion, or people that follow that Religion, for things.

It's obviously a human diarama we live in. Everything is one person to another.

Religion is one tiny bit of the human diarama.

So... in the hell that is stoning women for adultery, when they were raped, you can blame humans for that... not a Religion.

Religion is just as small a part of the human diarama.

-John

Sounds great, except all humans don't stone women for adultery, only those of a certain religion do.

 

[Zorkorist]

What most of the Muslim States need, is no more than what African States, or other 3rd world countries need...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Sounds great, except all humans don't stone women for adultery, only those of a certain religion do.

There are hellacious things going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, if you want to talk about SCALE of hellaciousness.

But they are just people, like you and I?

-John

 

[woolfe9999]

Woolfe, why are American Muslims committing one terrorist attack after another on American soil, but Christians are not?

Since 2001 we have had ONE abortion murder and 17 Muslim terrorist related murders (and that excluded the beltway sniper attacks)

According to what you have said in this thread these attacks should not be happening. Muslims who grew up in a secular humanist society and yet they are killing in the name of their religion.

And yet Christians in the same society are not committing the same acts. But you still think Christians and Muslims are similar??

Those numbers do not surprise me if true. Wider context: since 9/11 we are perceived by some Muslims as being at war with the religion of Islam. Christians do not believe our country is at war with Christianity. And it is, of course, folly to believe that no Muslims in this country are influenced by culture outside the US, that they do not have family and friends outside the US, and many are recent immigrants.

Two comparisons are also instructive here: how many Muslims Americans committed murders in the name of Islam prior to 9/11 and our "war on terror"? I'd be surprised if there were 17 murders in the THREE decades prior to 9/11. Second: how many murders are attributable to Islamic terrorism in Pakistan on a daily basis? Would you be surprised if 17 people are dying every DAY from it there, as opposed to a period of 10 years here?

Yet why is it that opinion polls have American Muslims supporting AQ at about one-third the rate that they do in most Muslim countries? I thought their scriptures compelled them to support Jihad. If this is really about the scriptures rather than the culture, they should all be supporting it, no?

 

[ProfJohn]

There are hellacious things going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, if you want to talk about SCALE of hellaciousness.

But they are just people, like you and I?

-John

I don't think their actions are motivated by their religion.

 

[Zorkorist]

Neither are the actions of the people of Muslim States.

They couldn't care less about Religion (as evidenced by the majority of the people) and it's only the fruitcakes/terrorists/religous and government leaders, that make the news.

-John

 

[woolfe9999]

Most people didn't have access to the scriptures for the longest time and most were illiterate. Things started changing when the printing press came about and people started looking at the texts themselves. That is when reform came about. Muslims don't have this obstacle today.

Reform started coming about with literacy, no doubt, but there is no evidence that it is because people could read the Bible in particular. Most Christian barbarism was led by people who *could* read it. To think that allowing people to read it would suddenly make them realize that Christianity was peaceful after all and cause them to lay down their arms is rather naive. One of the first consequences of religious literacy was, btw, the protestant reformation. Should we go in to how protestants behaved toward Catholics, Jews and others for the first couple hundred years of their existence?

Sure, you can say that bad things were done, but I would say they were in spite of Christian teachings.

Yes, we do disagree on that.

I don't really want to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity in history. All I'm saying is that there was a clear internal voice of reform from within Christianity. People, believers and non-believers, questioned the religion. This was a useful process. All I'm saying is that the kind of silliness Red Dawn types is not helpful. If you or Red Dawn had been in middle-ages telling Christians that they shouldn't be worried about corruption in the church because other religions were just as corrupt, do you think that would have been helpful?

You're mistaking the purpose of my comments. It is not to bash Christians in particular. It is to point out something important: that the barbarism is cultural, and culture can change. Scripture cannot. We demonstrated it here in the west, where our scriptures stayed the same but our culture changed. The Islamic world is on a different cultural timeline. Their barbarism is not eternal merely because their scriptures won't change. This has important implications in how to approach the problem.

They think it's evil. They try to "help" gays with therapy. Is that what Muslims fundies do?

And 200 years ago they executed them for sodomy. And women had to cover up every square inch of their bodies (but not their faces!) and were totally subservient to men, were scorned for being raped (indeed, in the laws of some states in the 19th centure there was no crime of rape if the woman did not put maximum effort into physical resistence of the act.)

Are the similarities of these things with Islam merely coincidental? Well if it's all about the scriptures, they really ought to be, but we both know they aren't.

Think it's as clear as you seem to think it is. Sure I hear them complain about wanting prayer in schools but I also hear them quote scriptures about leaving unto Caesar. There is no built-in system of government in Christianity like there is in Islam.

You and I differ on this. I think the fundies here want 100% of their religiously informed morality legislated through the apparatus of the state. They probably want to still call it a democracy and claim it is constitutional. So they have no equivalent term for "Sharia."

You think my view on scripture being important is absurd and I think your view on it being irrelevant is absurd as well. It just goes against most of my interactions with religious people. They actually refer to their scriptures. There's room for interpretation but there are also clear guiding principles and distinctions between the religions.

I think scripture is relevant, not the main determining factor. The *fact* of extreme religosity is important. The scriptures are subject to excrutianingly wide ranges of interpretation, as well as selective attention. Mother Theresa and Torquemada both acted on behalf of the same set of scriptures.

Just look at the latest Seattle plot. Where is your culture there? The terrorists were American converts, which we have seen before. Where is the commonality with the culture in the Middle-East? I don't see it. I do see a common religion though.

Addressed in another post. Among other things, I believe the bulk of Muslim American terrorists -and there aren't many as a percentage - maintain strong connections to wider Muslim culture. In fact, it's quite obvious that they do.

 

[Infohawk]

And 200 years ago they executed them for sodomy. And women had to cover up every square inch of their bodies (but not their faces!) and were totally subservient to men, were scorned for being raped (indeed, in the laws of some states in the 19th centure there was no crime of rape if the woman did not put maximum effort into physical resistence of the act.)

Are the similarities of these things with Islam merely coincidental? Well if it's all about the scriptures, they really ought to be, but we both know they aren't.



You and I differ on this. I think the fundies here want 100% of their religiously informed morality legislated through the apparatus of the state. They probably want to still call it a democracy and claim it is constitutional. So they have no equivalent term for "Sharia."



I think scripture is relevant, not the main determining factor. The *fact* of extreme religosity is important. The scriptures are subject to excrutianingly wide ranges of interpretation, as well as selective attention. Mother Theresa and Torquemada both acted on behalf of the same set of scriptures.



Addressed in another post. Among other things, I believe the bulk of Muslim American terrorists -and there aren't many as a percentage - maintain strong connections to wider Muslim culture. In fact, it's quite obvious that they do.

What if someone told you, "Laws don't matter. We know that law doesn't change anything because even though we have laws on the books, people still commit murder." How would you respond to that? Would you agree that laws don't matter? Or would you point out that laws probably deter a lot of people and that without it there would be more murder.

Do you disagree that there is nothing in the New Testament that condones stoning of women? Do you disagree that the Hadith condones stoning? Would it be that surprising to you because of that there are/have been more stonings in Islamic countries than there are/have been in Christian countries?

You may be splitting hairs when it comes to the religion/culture distinction. When you talk about Islamic culture that is also what many of the critics on this board are talking about when they talk about Islam as a religion. If you have the term "Islam" in there that is the distinguishing factor, whether it be a culture or a religion. Because I don't think you really mean the problems are related to Middle-Eastern or Arab or South Asian culture. As the guy in the video suggested, it would be an insult to "Asians" to suggest that it was an "Asian" problem when it's a Muslim one.

Anyway, let's take this back to my initial post to Red Dawn. My point was that acting like all religions/cultures are just as bad is useless when faced with the problem that the original video was talking about. In fact, it makes sense to focus on Islam. If you want to focus on the culture of Islam that is fine. In my opinion, I think it is also useful to shine as much light on as many aspects of the problem.

With regard to our area of disagreement, I think shining light on the religious texts is certainly useful, considering the texts foster what is being complained about. For example, by pointing out that the Hadith is in many ways more barbaric than the Quran, perhaps some Muslims might eventually decide that the Hadith is much like catholic catechism. This would in turn affect the culture (if that's what you want to call it) and more Muslims might try to treat women better.

Religious texts are usually not positive texts. They are largely normative. There's no reason that discussing the "oughts" of a religion / culture can't be useful in reforming it. In fact, it seems like it's crucial.

 

[woolfe9999]

What if someone told you, "Laws don't matter. We know that law doesn't change anything because even though we have laws on the books, people still commit murder." How would you respond to that? Would you agree that laws don't matter? Or would you point out that laws probably deter a lot of people and that without it there would be more murder.

Do you disagree that there is nothing in the New Testament that condones stoning of women? Do you disagree that the Hadith condones stoning? Would it be that surprising to you because of that there are/have been more stonings in Islamic countries than there are/have been in Christian countries?

You may be splitting hairs when it comes to the religion/culture distinction. When you talk about Islamic culture that is also what many of the critics on this board are talking about when they talk about Islam as a religion. If you have the term "Islam" in there that is the distinguishing factor, whether it be a culture or a religion. Because I don't think you really mean the problems are related to Middle-Eastern or Arab or South Asian culture. As the guy in the video suggested, it would be an insult to "Asians" to suggest that it was an "Asian" problem when it's a Muslim one.

Anyway, let's take this back to my initial post to Red Dawn. My point was that acting like all religions/cultures are just as bad is useless when faced with the problem that the original video was talking about. In fact, it makes sense to focus on Islam. If you want to focus on the culture of Islam that is fine. In my opinion, I think it is also useful to shine as much light on as many aspects of the problem.

With regard to our area of disagreement, I think shining light on the religious texts is certainly useful, considering the texts foster what is being complained about. For example, by pointing out that the Hadith is in many ways more barbaric than the Quran, perhaps some Muslims might eventually decide that the Hadith is much like catholic catechism. This would in turn affect the culture (if that's what you want to call it) and more Muslims might try to treat women better.

Religious texts are usually not positive texts. They are largely normative. There's no reason that discussing the "oughts" of a religion / culture can't be useful in reforming it. In fact, it seems like it's crucial.

You have an interesting point. My use of the term "Islamic culture" is problematic here because I AM referring to "Asian culture" or more particularly, "oriental" versus "occidental" culture(s). For examples, what are the attitudes toward women in far eastern cultures, even Japan, which is, economically and technologically, a first world country? I would suggest that it isn't coincidental that eastern cultures tend to be behind western cultures in several areas - including treatment of women - while they encompass several different religions.

Honor killings are another example. Not in Islamic scriptures IIRC and practiced by people of several different religions all within certain geographic boundaries.

You mention that the Hadith endorses stoning women. I believe you. It was written a long time ago and reflects the culture of that age. The fact is, partriarchy, male domination, mysogeny, have been features of virtually every culture and civilization since at and well before the dawn of anything called civilization. It goes back to the cave men. So yes, they probably got the idea for "stoning" women from the Hadith. Without it they be clubbing them to death, or drowning them, instead. Relating sexism in particular to religion is highly problematic because it has been too ubiquitous and predates the formation of any of these religions too much. It is only very recently in occidental culture that we have even begun to reduce it.

I think we're winding down here. It's been an interesting discussion all around.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

You have an interesting point. My use of the term "Islamic culture" is problematic here because I AM referring to "Asian culture" or more particularly, "oriental" versus "occidental" culture(s). For examples, what are the attitudes toward women in far eastern cultures, even Japan, which is, economically and technologically, a first world country? I would suggest that it isn't coincidental that eastern cultures tend to be behind western cultures in several areas - including treatment of women - while they encompass several different religions.

First of all, it's odd to try to mix near-eastern culture with far eastern culture. They really don't have a lot in common. If anything Europe and the Middle-East have more in common in many ways . And am I understanding correctly that you think Japanese society is as misogynistic as Muslim society? I just don't see the community-approved beatings of women. Overall I think this example actually undermines your general position that its culture. (And btw in case you didn't know in Britain "Asian" means south Asian and generally not East Asian. That's what the guy was referencing in the article. If you take his word for it, you don't see Hindus in Britain behaving the same ways towards women.)

 

[woolfe9999]

First of all, it's odd to try to mix near-eastern culture with far eastern culture. They really don't have a lot in common. If anything Europe and the Middle-East have more in common in many ways . And am I understanding correctly that you think Japanese society is as misogynistic as Muslim society? I just don't see the community-approved beatings of women. Overall I think this example actually undermines your general position that its culture. (And btw in case you didn't know in Britain "Asian" means south Asian and generally not East Asian. That's what the guy was referencing in the article. If you take his word for it, you don't see Hindus in Britain behaving the same ways towards women.)

What I claim, to be more precise, is that attitudes toward women in both the far east and near east are worse than in Europe or the United States. For that matter, they are also worse in largely Catholic latin America. I would agree that while the middle east is probably 150 years behind the west, at present Japan is closer to 50 years behind, though China is probably somewhere in between the two.

I also think it's quite clear that barbaric practices toward women predate the texts of any of these various religions we are discussing, and in fact, I see no evidence that any of these religions made it any worse. In some areas of the world, it's just taking longer for it to get any better. If that is really about religious scriptures, I'd expect a close correlation between the religious teachings in each culture and it's current practices. For example, I wasn't aware that Shinto was a miscogenystic religion, but then again I have read much on that particular religion.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

What I claim, to be more precise, is that attitudes toward women in both the far east and near east are worse than in Europe or the United States. For that matter, they are also worse in largely Catholic latin America. I would agree that while the middle east is probably 150 years behind the west, at present Japan is closer to 50 years behind, though China is probably somewhere in between the two.

I also think it's quite clear that barbaric practices toward women predate the texts of any of these various religions we are discussing, and in fact, I see no evidence that any of these religions made it any worse. In some areas of the world, it's just taking longer for it to get any better. If that is really about religious scriptures, I'd expect a close correlation between the religious teachings in each culture and it's current practices. For example, I wasn't aware that Shinto was a miscogenystic religion, but then again I have read much on that particular religion.

- wolf

You're reasoning is a little off in this regard: Just because A increases B, doesn't mean that B's existence necessarily requires the existence of A. Applied here, just because a religion might increase violence towards women, it doesn't mean that a society with violence towards women requires a misogynistic religion. What I'm getting at is that you're statement about Shinto not being misogynistic doesn't negate what I've been saying about Islam.

But I guess we've reached an impasse. Neither of us is going to be able to prove in this thread that with or without a religion, a certain society would have had more or less crimes against women, for example. However, I do think common sense is on my side. Again, and maybe I missed your response to this, I don't see how you're any different than a person who says that the murder laws on the books in 19th century America didn't decrease the number of murders. We can't go back and do an experiment in 19th century America where murder was not prohibited. But common sense suggests that at least some people did not murder because they didn't want to be punished. Similarly, common sense dictates that some people are going to try to behave in accordance with the rules of their religion.

 

[woolfe9999]

You're reasoning is a little off in this regard: Just because A increases B, doesn't mean that B's existence necessarily requires the existence of A. Applied here, just because a religion might increase violence towards women, it doesn't mean that a society with violence towards women requires a misogynistic religion. What I'm getting at is that you're statement about Shinto not being misogynistic doesn't negate what I've been saying about Islam.

I think I already responded to this point when I said, above:

I also think it's quite clear that barbaric practices toward women predate the texts of any of these various religions we are discussing, and in fact, I see no evidence that any of these religions made it any worse.

I'm no expert on ancient history so I can't say that this is true for sure, but what I have read about ancient history suggests that treatment of women in the polytheistic and pre-theistic eras was no better than during the monotheistic era. Remember, this all started with the caveman bonking the proverbial female over the head with the proverbial club and dragging her into the cave. Male dominance and miscogeny are undoubtedly in some way related to evolution and biology, which is to say they are cultural epi-phenomena of an evolutionary process.

But I guess we've reached an impasse. Neither of us is going to be able to prove in this thread that with or without a religion, a certain society would have had more or less crimes against women, for example. However, I do think common sense is on my side. Again, and maybe I missed your response to this, I don't see how you're any different than a person who says that the murder laws on the books in 19th century America didn't decrease the number of murders. We can't go back and do an experiment in 19th century America where murder was not prohibited. But common sense suggests that at least some people did not murder because they didn't want to be punished. Similarly, common sense dictates that some people are going to try to behave in accordance with the rules of their religion.

The analogy with laws is problematic for a number of different reasons. Laws tend to be written more clearly and are subject to narrower ranges of interpretation. As well, penalties are more clearly set forth. And courts don't just allow you to be "sorry" and all is well. I don't think religious people are very consistent in expressing what their laws even are, let alone in following them. No doubt the content of scriptures has an influence on some individuals, in varying ways depending on how they desire to interpret them, but the degree of religiosity in a culture - and hence its tendency toward magical thinking - is a more important factor than the specific architecture of said delusions.

Great discussion BTW.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

The analogy with laws is problematic for a number of different reasons. Laws tend to be written more clearly and are subject to narrower ranges of interpretation. As well, penalties are more clearly set forth. And courts don't just allow you to be "sorry" and all is well. I don't think religious people are very consistent in expressing what their laws even are, let alone in following them. No doubt the content of scriptures has an influence on some individuals, in varying ways depending on how they desire to interpret them, but the degree of religiosity in a culture - and hence its tendency toward magical thinking - is a more important factor than the specific architecture of said delusions.

Great discussion BTW.

- wolf

You seem to think religion is like a team color in that it matters but doesn't change behavior. Your view flies in the face of my experience with just about any religious person I've met. They all think their religious texts have real meaning and most of their fellow faithful have remarkably similar beliefs about them. They do believe they will go to hell if they behave badly. It's real to them.

Maybe they're just lying about it? Then why do they make big sacrifices. Especially Muslims. They have to pray five times a day at specific times for example. This isn't just a "be nice to your neighbors" rule this is a purposefully burdensome rule.