Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[S.A.M.]

Yes, it is wrong, it continues, and you defend it with every fiber of your being, to the point of defending it with propaganda. It is a religious issue, as the politics of Islam are governed by the religion, hence it is religious, no matter how much you refuse to accept it, along with all the other problems of Islam you've refused to accept and continue to defend.

And since you continue to defend it, you are obviously doing nothing about it, hence you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Only someone completely indoctrinated into a religion would continue to follow it regardless of the horrors the religion exhibits.

Are they free to kill people for leaving the religion? Are they free to treat people like second-class citizens having no human rights?

I can't believe you do not get this!

Yes I do agree it is wrong and there are several moderate Muslims who are concerned about this and other human rights issues in the Middle East

http://www.speroforum.com/site/arti...nesian+leader+speaks+out+on+Islamic+extremism

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013650.php

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1255

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/689




The total corruption and hegemony in the Middle East as well as the political turmoil makes it increasingly difficult to initiate any social reform.

Here is something I got off a blog that expresses it very accurately:

"Therefore, in transparent regimes what is regarded as 'corruption,' is the essence of the regime in just about all Arab lands. In transparent regimes, the borders between [public] and private funds are clear, and the rules for financial dealings are defined. The ruler is no more than an official of the people, and a defined salary is set for him in exchange for his services. The budget is known, and is widely published, and the people determine its clauses through their representatives in the elected parliament."

"The people demand accountability from the ruler, the ministers, and the other officials on their function, through parliament, the courts, and an independent oversight apparatus. The press, the media, and civil society institutions carry out additional oversight of [government] function, and uncover every suspicion of mixing public and private [funds]. While serving his term, the ruler must not perform private work for gain..."

"Yet the Arab regimes that claim to be fighting corruption customarily destroy the oversight apparatuses. New laws are enacted to suppress the press, which is from the outset obedient. Similarly, they falsify parliamentary elections, destroy civil society institutions, and silence any free voice. In this framework, accusations of corruption, treason, and bribe-taking serve to silence 'deviant' voices and those who violate the pact with the ruler and start demanding freedoms and so on, and similar forbidden and abhorrent things." .

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3757


I do not deny that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and that it will have to be Muslims who will need to bring about this change; but anti-Islam propaganda by some of the Western media destroys all credibility for the moderate Muslims who endeavor to educate and eliminate fundamentalists. There is a real need for people in Western countries to recognize the difference between Islam and militant Islam and that they are incompatible in principle. Fuelling the fire gains nothing and loses what ground is covered.

Can you understand what I am trying to say here?

If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.

 

[(Q)]

Yes I do agree it is wrong and there are several moderate Muslims who are concerned about this and other human rights issues in the Middle East

What you don't appear to understand is that the doctrines of Islam require serious changes, which ultimately means they are false, which means they are not the words of a god, but are the words of men.

The total corruption and hegemony in the Middle East as well as the political turmoil makes it increasingly difficult to initiate any social reform.

Please make it clear that anything 'political' in an Islamic state is religious in nature as the religion dictates the politics.

I do not deny that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and that it will have to be Muslims who will need to bring about this change; but anti-Islam propaganda by some of the Western media destroys all credibility for the moderate Muslims who endeavor to educate and eliminate fundamentalists. There is a real need for people in Western countries to recognize the difference between Islam and militant Islam and that they are incompatible in principle. Fuelling the fire gains nothing and loses what ground is covered.

Can you understand what I am trying to say here?

Of course, but you are also mired in religious propaganda, as you attempted to put forth here on a number of occassions only to be refuted. You don't appear to want to connect the problems of Islam with the doctrines of Islam, you seem to think they are unrelated.

If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.

We've been a society ruled by religion for centuries. It is only recently that people are beginning to realize the folly of religion and the fact that it is all myth and fairy tales. Most of the people who still believe in such things are poorly educated. It has been shown that the more one is educated, the less likely they are to be religious.

Educating people instead of indoctrinating them into religion IS the answer. It may take generations to shed the bonds of religion, but it MUST be done if mankind is to survive.

And please remember, no one is interested in doing harm to Muslims or any other religious person, it is not people which are the issue, it is the religion, and that is what needs to dissapear.

I abhor harming people, for any reason, especially reasons as trivial as leaving a faith, which imo, is one of the lowest forms of barbarism currently existing on the planet. And anyone who is foolish enough to follow such a faith has no place to further the existence of mankind, but instead, defends its extinction.

Can you understand what I am trying to say here?

 

[S.A.M.]

Please make it clear that anything 'political' in an Islamic state is religious in nature as the religion dictates the politics.

We are clearly never going to agree on this.

Of course, but you are also mired in religious propaganda, as you attempted to put forth here on a number of occassions only to be refuted. You don't appear to want to connect the problems of Islam with the doctrines of Islam, you seem to think they are unrelated.

And I cannot seem to make you understand that politically motivated hegemonies use Islam as a tool to enforce laws which will maintain their absolute control over a populace; this is true not only for law but also for education, freedom of expression and freedom of religion

We've been a society ruled by religion for centuries. It is only recently that people are beginning to realize the folly of religion and the fact that it is all myth and fairy tales. Most of the people who still believe in such things are poorly educated. It has been shown that the more one is educated, the less likely they are to be religious.

You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity. Moreover, the world is limited in resources and whoever has the ability to control these resources has power.

Educating people instead of indoctrinating them into religion IS the answer. It may take generations to shed the bonds of religion, but it MUST be done if mankind is to survive.

Education is a must, I agree. All educated people are free to choose what they believe, is something you must understand as well.

And please remember, no one is interested in doing harm to Muslims or any other religious person, it is not people which are the issue, it is the religion, and that is what needs to dissapear.

Can you see the irony in that statement?

I abhor harming people, for any reason, especially reasons as trivial as leaving a faith, which imo, is one of the lowest forms of barbarism currently existing on the planet.

Absolutely ( OMG I agreed with you )

And anyone who is foolish enough to follow such a faith has no place to further the existence of mankind, but instead, defends its extinction.

Sorry we change paths here.

Can you understand what I am trying to say here?

Yes and thank you.

 

[(Q)]

We are clearly never going to agree on this.

No, you refuse to accept it. Big difference.

And I cannot seem to make you understand that politically motivated hegemonies use Islam as a tool to enforce laws which will maintain their absolute control over a populace; this is true not only for law but also for education, freedom of expression and freedom of religion

More reason to rid the world of Islam, but you'll continue to defend it, nonetheless.

If you can show the separation of state and church in your argument, I'll change my tune.

You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity. Moreover, the world is limited in resources and whoever has the ability to control these resources has power.

You're living in the past. Eradication of religion will bring an end to religious based wars, most of which now and in the past have plagued mankind. If we can eliminate those wars and begin educating people, perhaps all wars will come to an end. But, with religion in place, wars will never end.

And at least, changes are occuring in regards to color, sex and ethicity, which I'm not surprised you failed to mention.

Education is a must, I agree. All educated people are free to choose what they believe, is something you must understand as well.

Or disbelieve, which is the point. Educated people don't believe in myths.

Can you see the irony in that statement?

The irony being religion is manmade? Yes, I see it.

Absolutely ( OMG I agreed with you )

Sorry we change paths here.

No, this is where you refuse to accept the realities of your religion, and the doctrines of Islam that are meant to harm people. So, it appears you don't agree.

 

[KennyJC]

You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity.

Isn't descrimination based on ethnicity, sex, colour of skin one of the key factors in a country with strong religious beliefs? Isn't Intolerance of new ideas, new people, new beliefs and a progressive integrated society a key factor in conservative religious values?

 

[S.A.M.]

If you can show the separation of state and church in your argument, I'll change my tune.

I have no contention with that.

You're living in the past. Eradication of religion will bring an end to religious based wars, most of which now and in the past have plagued mankind. If we can eliminate those wars and begin educating people, perhaps all wars will come to an end. But, with religion in place, wars will never end.

I wish I could believe that, but history negates you.

And at least, changes are occuring in regards to color, sex and ethicity, which I'm not surprised you failed to mention.

Yes, and are being replaced by economic differences.

No, this is where you refuse to accept the realities of your religion, and the doctrines of Islam that are meant to harm people. So, it appears you don't agree.

If you believe the doctrine of Islam is to harm people, then you are right.

 

[SnakeLord]

If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.

The solution can only ever be the death of religion. You won't find atheists going to war over the 'belief' of their unbelief. "Which god is it that you don't believe in? Damn, I disbelieve in a different god you heathen!". No my friend, the intolerance, the war, the damnation and evil comes from those that believe in one sky daddy or another.

 

[S.A.M.]

Isn't descrimination based on ethnicity, sex, colour of skin one of the key factors in a country with strong religious beliefs?

Are you claiming it is absent in secular societies?

Isn't Intolerance of new ideas, new people, new beliefs and a progressive integrated society a key factor in conservative religious values?

No only in fundamentalist societies.

 

[S.A.M.]

The solution can only ever be the death of religion. You won't find atheists going to war over the 'belief' of their unbelief. "Which god is it that you don't believe in? Damn, I disbelieve in a different god you heathen!". No my friend, the intolerance, the war, the damnation and evil comes from those that believe in one sky daddy or another.

No but they can still go to war for money power land resources and against theist societies.

 

[S.A.M.]

So, (Q), Snakelord and KennyJC, if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?

(Just Curious...)

 

[KennyJC]

So, (Q), Snakelord and KennyJC, if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?

(Just Curious...)

Firstly a secular society does not consist of all atheist, although the percentage of non-religious is certainly high. Since non-religious values are tolerant, a person would be free to be religious. This would also result in a stable society which would not be prone to starting wars for questionable reasons like the war in Iraq.

Don't confuse secular society with communism here.

 

[S.A.M.]

Firstly a secular society does not consist of all atheist, although the percentage of non-religious is certainly high. Since non-religious values are tolerant, a person would be free to be religious. This would also result in a stable society which would not be prone to starting wars for questionable reasons like the war in Iraq.

Don't confuse secular society with communism here.

I asked about a hypothetical atheist society not a secular ot communist one; or do you mean that the atheist society would include agnostics?

I still want to know the position of a man who wanted to propagate an organized religion

 

[KennyJC]

An ideal society for me would be one were although people are free to be religious, religion must not indoctrinate children in state schools, be involved with politics, law or intruding on everyone else's freedom. People would be religious through their own choice, and not be forced on defenceless children.

We are pretty close to that in Europe right now so I'm not even considering a society were everyone is atheist.

 

[S.A.M.]

KennyJC:

One more question. You say that people will be free to follow their religion ( or be religious) yet (Q) says all religion must be eradicated. How do you square the two concepts?

 

[S.A.M.]

An ideal society for me would be one were although people are free to be religious, religion must not indoctrinate children in state schools, be involved with politics, law or intruding on everyone else's freedom. People would be religious through their own choice, and not be forced on defenceless children.

We are pretty close to that in Europe right now so I'm not even considering a society were everyone is atheist.

Well surprise! surprise! this woud be my ideal society too.

Do you live in Europe?

 

[KennyJC]

One more question. You say that people will be free to follow their religion ( or be religious) yet (Q) says all religion must be eradicated. How do you square the two concepts?

I think by banning the indoctrination of children that would be the first step in erradicating religious fundamentalism as a serious threat. But that means nothing if there are still other parts of the world were regions like America and the Middle East see it ok to encourage fundamentalism... which is dangerous.

Well surprise! surprise! this woud be my ideal society too.

If the Quran is anything to go by, then you have given in to the infidels. And that is most certainly not encouraged by Allah if my knowledge of the Quran is correct.

Do you live in Europe?

Yes, I live in Scotland.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think by banning the indoctrination of children that would be the first step in erradicating religious fundamentalism as a serious threat. But that means nothing if there are still other parts of the world were regions like America and the Middle East see it ok to encourage fundamentalism... which is dangerous.

True

If the Quran is anything to go by, then you have given in to the infidels. And that is most certainly not encouraged by Allah if my knowledge of the Quran is correct.

There are no rules against living in a mixed society and there are certainly no rules against following the law of the land.

"In the modern era, Europe and America have been regarded by the vast majority of Muslim scholars as the Dar al-Sulh , or “the abode of treaty.” This means that a Muslim can engage with this world on many levels and should abide by the laws of the land if he or she chooses to live there or to visit. Using this distinction, Muslim scholars have even declared that Muslims can serve in the Army, even when combating other Muslim countries. "

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam-3.html

Yes, I live in Scotland.

Its a beautiful country; I know about Edinburgh and Glasgow, but is the rest of the country as multi-cultural?

 

[SnakeLord]

No but they can still go to war for money power land resources and against theist societies.

I guess so, but at least they would be honest about it. Theist wars - which constitutes pretty much all of them - were about money, power, land and resources, they just claimed it was the will of gods.

if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?

It's exactly that way now, except instead of one its's a billion or two. However, the outcome is still the same. We ask for evidence to support those claims. Why is this always too much for a believer? Hell, I'm sure you'd be the very first asking for evidence if a few billion people claimed the flying spaghetti monster was real. Imagine your disgust if this person, (or two billion), wanted to then "educate" your children about the reality of the flying spaghetti monster. You'd rightfully be appalled.

 

[S.A.M.]

I guess so, but at least they would be honest about it. Theist wars - which constitutes pretty much all of them - were about money, power, land and resources, they just claimed it was the will of gods.

Well its still the small percent of people in power who decide what the majority should do.

 

[(Q)]

I wish I could believe that, but history negates you.

Hahaha! That is by far the most ridiculous thing you've said.

Yes, and are being replaced by economic differences.

I'm not disagreeing there are other problems in the world, but let's just consider the religious aspect for now, shall we?

If you believe the doctrine of Islam is to harm people, then you are right.

Are you being sarcastic?