Actually, not quite. You are assuming that because she made the same claim, that I do so because she said so. Granted she is a source...
I spent a year in Muslim Culture as well: Bosna i Herzegovina.
Is Islam a good religion?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
I spent a year in Muslim Culture as well: Bosna i Herzegovina.
As what? A part of a US military mission?
Can I point out the mobs of people that show up to lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia?
or this:
Pew researchers found that 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion...
Note that not all Egyptians are Muslim, so the number must be higher among Muslims alone.
As I said before that's not a defense, it's an admonition of defeat. Try being an unbeliever in the South, their religious prejudices are plain and often violent.
But what exactly is wrong with that? Does not might make right?
Then those who are mighty, are, apparently right. Again, might makes right.
Indifference is a weapon of mass destruction.
The apparently mighty can fall if they aren't right about their worldview. The apparently weak may prosper and become mighty if they perceive the world accurately.
If we were all indifferent, there would be nothing around to destroy.wynn said:
And the very next sentence reads
"In another survey, Pew found that 90 percent of Egyptians say they believe in freedom of religion. Pew also found that a majority of Egyptians think democracy, with protections of free speech and assembly, is "preferable to any other kind of government."
That article is not so much about the standard belief of egyptian muslims but the conflicted political turmoil it experienced.
So once again, looking at the population of several billion muslims, we can see who is making foolish statements
And yet - What exactly is wrong with endorsing the physical destruction of those who don't hold the same religion as oneself?
Can you explain?
Several major religions are evangelical, proselytizing religions: they seek to eliminate whatever other religions or other worldviews there may be.
Physically eliminating those who refuse to convert is simply the next step in the process of evangelizing.
But it takes so long, and it is so flimsy!
And we live in the now, in the now having to deal with whoever may be in the position of power (over us).
After a period of indifference, there is nothing left to destroy.
In most parts of the modern world it tends to destroy social stability.
People generally act to preserve their day to day existence and would prefer a somewhat secure family life as opposed to running down the street with a molotov cocktail or whatever
Physical elimination is a natural consequence of threat to security - Hence administrators implementing new draconian social measures and demagogues appealing to fanatic elements enjoy a unique sort of symbiosis
:shrug:
So? Who said that peace is the "natural state" or "normal state" of humans?
And yet they beat their wives, and children.
Do theists preach because they feel insecure?
Do theists feel threatened by non-theists?
Freedom for everyone except those who choose not to follow Islam, apparently. So it's a very limited kind of freedom, simply that which the Quran advocates, in that they can accept people of other religions as long as they are demure and submissive, and don't question Islam. Which in my opinion isn't really freedom.
Freedom for everyone except those who choose not to follow Islam, apparently. So it's a very limited kind of freedom, simply that which the Quran advocates, in that they can accept people of other religions as long as they are demure and submissive, and don't question Islam. Which in my opinion isn't really freedom.
That's what I want.
Yes. Does that somehow make a difference?
Hmm, good point. Yet, in Indiana- quite religious, that violent behavior is much less. Why is that? It's the same religiousness, still humans involved, so why is the social behavior that different? I'd suggest that there are other factors involved than just the one influence of religion.
Take away the one influence of religion and the violent crime rate would decrease by only the amount of fanatics that wouldn't have as much influence from that one factor.
They may find that influence somewhere else- it is something that they want. They are fanatics. Many, would also not be fanatics having not been indoctrinated from an early age and being susceptible to be one.
What you're left with is a small portion of those religious fanatics may be influenced into less violence.
It's probably a different flavor of religion in Indiana. There are also fewer religious people. Perhaps there is some threshold above which people feel empowered to enforce their religion through social stigmatization.
I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything? I grew up around Catholics. If my own personal experience were to count for all Christians, then I would have to say Christianity is an utterly non-violent religion. But we both know that isn't true. There is a world beyond your own backyard. I'm sure your time in the military in Bosnia and Herzegovina would would make you think that they're equally gross religions--and in many ways they are--but there's a larger picture you're not seeing.
spidergoat:
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.
Balerion:
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.
No. It doesn't say "Ye may conquer" in any translation of this verse. You can clearly see that from the dozen or so translations you presented. I don't understand why are you fixated on this point; you said something incorrect and I corrected you, and that should have been the end of it.
As someone has already pointed it out, your report is contradicting itself and proves nothing except how inefficient it is. When you know that 95% of Egyptians are Muslims and you present them with a question whether or not they will accept a penalty of Islam, whichever it is, and the result comes that 85 or 90 percent favour it, the only surprise would be why those 5 or 10 % didn't.
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.
Balerion:
Let me refer you to .. you:
Apparently the onus was on you to begin with, but you managed to forget you presented the claim originally.
The Palestinians fight, not the Jews, but the Israelis; the ones that occupied their country and killed their people. It's not a religion-driven conflict, it's a land-driven one. Jews were living in Palestine unmolested, before 1948, for more than a century, first under the Ottomans rule then the British. Read this and this if you want more information. The Iraqi and Afghani conflicts have little to do with religion and much to do with the fact that they are under occupation, fighting for the freedom of their country. 'Spurned by religious violence by Muslims" you say ?! First, please, enlighten me on how Iraq came to the equation. Second, what are those violent acts, and how do you know they were done by Muslims ?!.
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.
Or perhaps there are other cultural influences involved. An example might be Pakistan compared with Dubai.
Same religion.
Just as many religious.
Yet, Pakistan's culture strongly influences restrictions and Dubai's culture is much less restrictive in many of those regards due to the economies of each.
I'm sorry, but it refuted your claim in spite of you pretending that it didn't.
spidergoat:
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.
Balerion:
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.
No. It doesn't say "Ye may conquer" in any translation of this verse. You can clearly see that from the dozen or so translations you presented. I don't understand why are you fixated on this point; you said something incorrect and I corrected you, and that should have been the end of it.
As someone has already pointed it out, your report is contradicting itself and proves nothing except how inefficient it is. When you know that 95% of Egyptians are Muslims and you present them with a question whether or not they will accept a penalty of Islam, whichever it is, and the result comes that 85 or 90 percent favour it, the only surprise would be why those 5 or 10 % didn't.
And yes, please, do point out the mobs that lynch unbelievers in Egypt and Indonesia.
Balerion:
Let me refer you to .. you:
Apparently the onus was on you to begin with, but you managed to forget you presented the claim originally.
The Palestinians fight, not the Jews, but the Israelis; the ones that occupied their country and killed their people. It's not a religion-driven conflict, it's a land-driven one. Jews were living in Palestine unmolested, before 1948, for more than a century, first under the Ottomans rule then the British. Read this and this if you want more information. The Iraqi and Afghani conflicts have little to do with religion and much to do with the fact that they are under occupation, fighting for the freedom of their country. 'Spurned by religious violence by Muslims" you say ?! First, please, enlighten me on how Iraq came to the equation. Second, what are those violent acts, and how do you know they were done by Muslims ?!.
Now, in all fairness, my question to you, in response to your question to me, was not whether Islam is responsible for the conflicts in the middle east or not, but rather whether there was any religious influence responsible at all, Islamic or any other. With that in mind, we may attribute the conflict in Palestine as a religious conflict from the Jewish side of the equation. Namely, that they claim Palestine is their promised land and it's rightfully theirs. Even though this shouldn't explain or cause for any bloodshed at all, and we know that every massacre the Israelis committed in Palestine could have been avoided with every regard to their religion taken into account; and even though, without the promise of Jerusalem in the Torah which they take as their excuse, they would have still come to Palestine if nothing but for the fact they were persecuted in every other part of the world and jumped on the first chance they got; but you may go ahead and consider this conflict caused by religion since it began in it's name.