|
Post by fixit on Feb 24, 2015 0:07:06 GMT -5
Yes and when it's over and people start to get their minds back, they look back at what they have done, horrified that they got caught up in the fear mongering etc. That is what happened to German people with Hitler and for a long time they have bore that knowledge of what was done. People can be whipped up into a frenzy and do things they would never have done otherwise. I just hope this doesn't happen in this case. We have two huge religions at each other's throats at the moment. That is desperately dangerous. I'm not seeing that Christianity has much to do with it. It's radical Islam against secularism, democracy and human rights including freedom of religion. Islamists teach that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs, but they're just as happy cutting the heads off of atheists and Syrian/Iraqi Muslim soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 5:39:30 GMT -5
It's sad, but saying it's the Imams might not be the reason. I think social media and the internet are a factor, but the excerpts from Islamic sermons that I posted would go a long way towards radicalisation. Did you watch those clips? I'd like to know what you think of these sermons of "the religion of peace". The Imams should stay out of politics altogether. The non-Islamic public have had to sacrifice some freedoms as a result of Islamist attacks, so it's only reasonable to restrict the Imams from preaching anti-western them-and-us hate sermons. Where extremist Islam has been driven underground, eg. Turkey, it hasn't worked. This doesn't mean nothing should be done, but outright suppression won't work, and may appeal to the revolutionary impulse in young Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 5:44:48 GMT -5
Yes and when it's over and people start to get their minds back, they look back at what they have done, horrified that they got caught up in the fear mongering etc. That is what happened to German people with Hitler and for a long time they have bore that knowledge of what was done. People can be whipped up into a frenzy and do things they would never have done otherwise. I just hope this doesn't happen in this case. We have two huge religions at each other's throats at the moment. That is desperately dangerous. I'm not seeing that Christianity has much to do with it. It's radical Islam against secularism, democracy and human rights including freedom of religion. Islamists teach that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs, but they're just as happy cutting the heads off of atheists and Syrian/Iraqi Muslim soldiers. The strongest prejudice against Muslims overall comes from Christians, based on how I read Pew Research. Conflicts don't escalate through one side; it takes two. If there had been no American evangelicals, the Iraqi invasion may have never happened.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 5:50:08 GMT -5
Which of these statements do you think is more accurate? - The bombing was caused by Boko Haram. - The bombing was caused by Muslims. The first statement, the second, or both are equally accurate? I expect the Islamic culture the girl was raised in convinced her that Allah needed her services. That's ambiguous and doesn't answer what I'm trying to understand. Let me ask a follow-up. Do you think the Islamic culture this girl was raised in is the exception within Islam, broadly speaking, or the rule?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 24, 2015 7:04:53 GMT -5
What kind of evil brainwashing is needed to make a seven year old girl kill herself for Allah? It starts way back with a supreme being telling a father to kill his son. Or telling an army to kill every living thing. When there is no limit to what people will do for god, killing yourself is a short step.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 24, 2015 9:31:39 GMT -5
What kind of evil brainwashing is needed to make a seven year old girl kill herself for Allah? It starts way back with a supreme being telling a father to kill his son. Or telling an army to kill every living thing. When there is no limit to what people will do for god, killing yourself is a short step. Without adversely affecting "the drift" of the conversation, I would like to "pop" in again. Rational, I understand your two important roles here on this board, as both a skeptic and spokesperson for rational reasoning. For the following question, I would like you to assume your rational reasoning role (not the role of skeptic). OK? Begin with the premise that the context of human experience has not always been a constant. Suppose for the purposes of this brief conversation that there was a time (for argument's sake, let's say 1500 BCE) when most inhabitants of the planet lived without TV, radio, cell phones, newspapers, magazines and other means of interactive technologies that grace our present day societies. It has been suggested that societies in that era were organized around and enjoyed what today is called an oral tradition, they told each other stories. These stories were told for fun, they were told for instruction, they were told to establish codes of conduct et cetra. The Greeks for example told stories about gods who did funny things, and strange things, happy things and sad things. Some of these stories have come all the way down through history (Homer's stories for example) and are read and studied by very learned persons in very austere and revered institutions called University Classics Departments. From these stories of those ancient days we learn many things, some of those things we find useful even today in our everyday lives 3000, 4000 even 5000 years later. The Greeks would sit around together and tell stories, for example, about Phonoi that were male spirits of murder, killing and slaughter. It was normal for them to do so. That was how they thought, that was how they learned, that was how they taught, that was how they interacted one with another. Responsible (and I submit rational) people can sit around and read these stories today, they can reflect on these stories, they can speculate and wonder how these stories might or might not relate to their lives and experiences. But these responsible people generally do not feel the need to act out the literal interpretation of these stories. So my question to you, rational, is not about your personal assessment of the oral traditions of ancient peoples but about the conscious and willful acts of our fellows in this day and age, on this earth, at this time. Arguing from a rational perspective, why is it that the apparently illogical interpretations and presumably anti-social actions of some the basis for ridicule of all who choose to reflect on the "wisdom literature" of ancient peoples? To reduce the ridiculous to the absurd, if individuals were to commit ritual murder in the name of Dionysus would you feel compelled to ridicule all classicists or would you exercise more personal judgment and comment on the behavior of those committing the acts of murder?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 24, 2015 11:36:39 GMT -5
It starts way back with a supreme being telling a father to kill his son. Or telling an army to kill every living thing. When there is no limit to what people will do for god, killing yourself is a short step. Without adversely affecting "the drift" of the conversation, I would like to "pop" in again. Rational, I understand your two important roles here on this board, as both a skeptic and spokesperson for rational reasoning. For the following question, I would like you to assume your rational reasoning role (not the role of skeptic). OK? Begin with the premise that the context of human experience has not always been a constant. Suppose for the purposes of this brief conversation that there was a time (for argument's sake, let's say 1500 BCE) when most inhabitants of the planet lived without TV, radio, cell phones, newspapers, magazines and other means of interactive technologies that grace our present day societies. It has been suggested that societies in that era were organized around and enjoyed what today is called an oral tradition, they told each other stories. These stories were told for fun, they were told for instruction, they were told to establish codes of conduct et cetra. The Greeks for example told stories about gods who did funny things, and strange things, happy things and sad things. Some of these stories have come all the way down through history (Homer's stories for example) and are read and studied by very learned persons in very austere and revered institutions called University Classics Departments. From these stories of those ancient days we learn many things, some of those things we find useful even today in our everyday lives 3000, 4000 even 5000 years later. The Greeks would sit around together and tell stories, for example, about Phonoi that were male spirits of murder, killing and slaughter. It was normal for them to do so. That was how they thought, that was how they learned, that was how they taught, that was how they interacted one with another. Responsible (and I submit rational) people can sit around and read these stories today, they can reflect on these stories, they can speculate and wonder how these stories might or might not relate to their lives and experiences. But these responsible people generally do not feel the need to act out the literal interpretation of these stories. So my question to you, rational, is not about your personal assessment of the oral traditions of ancient peoples but about the conscious and willful acts of our fellows in this day and age, on this earth, at this time. Arguing from a rational perspective, why is it that the apparently illogical interpretations and presumably anti-social actions of some the basis for ridicule of all who choose to reflect on the "wisdom literature" of ancient peoples? To reduce the ridiculous to the absurd, if individuals were to commit ritual murder in the name of Dionysus would you feel compelled to ridicule all classicists or would you exercise more personal judgment and comment on the behavior of those committing the acts of murder? If the source is considered to be from an omnipotent omniscient being and people use that source to justify their behavior then I think the lessons that are contained within that source, no matter how absurd they are, need to be brought into the light of day. In the case of Abraham it is not a matter of interpretation but the fact is that this story is help up to the congregation as a positive story thereby encouraging the believers to obey without question, even if the command has been to kill your child. Sure, in the Abraham story there is no human sacrifice but the fact that it is recorded as the word of god means that for some believers doing whatever you hear the voice of god say is to be followed. You might view then as oral traditions and I do as well but to many it is the word of god and looking at the whole picture cannot do any harm. The original question was regarding how you get children to sacrifice themselves to their god. The answer is to teach them from an early age tales from the word of god saying this is what god likes. As it says in John - Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 11:46:45 GMT -5
Yes and when it's over and people start to get their minds back, they look back at what they have done, horrified that they got caught up in the fear mongering etc. That is what happened to German people with Hitler and for a long time they have bore that knowledge of what was done. People can be whipped up into a frenzy and do things they would never have done otherwise. I just hope this doesn't happen in this case. We have two huge religions at each other's throats at the moment. That is desperately dangerous. I'm not seeing that Christianity has much to do with it. It's radical Islam against secularism, democracy and human rights including freedom of religion. Islamists teach that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs, but they're just as happy cutting the heads off of atheists and Syrian/Iraqi Muslim soldiers. Yes, the extremists do seem to view anyone that doesn't believe as they do with equal hatred. We need to be very careful we don't lump everyone into the same pile like they do. That can do more harm than good. Awareness is good and must be there for change. But it has become excessive, more generalized to all Muslims instead of just ISIS and we are seeing the start of more protests and retaliations against the innocent. While they do threaten atheists and other Muslims just as much as Christians, it seems to be the Christians that are getting the most agitated by it all. How long before they start striking out in their prejudice and fear because of broad brushing of Muslims?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 24, 2015 13:16:56 GMT -5
Snow. How would one seemingly conclude that Christians are getting more agitated than other groups ? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 13:50:03 GMT -5
Snow. How would one seemingly conclude that Christians are getting more agitated than other groups ? Alvin Snow, might have another answer, but Pew Research provided a demographic breakdown of Americans who believe that Islam is more violent than other religions, generally. This is an interesting stat because it indicates concern, not about the behaviour of Boko Horom, ISIS or al Qaeda, but concern about the Muslim religion in a general way. Here is a link to the poll. www.people-press.org/2014/09/10/growing-concern-about-rise-of-islamic-extremism-at-home-and-abroad/9-10-2014_10/You'll notice that the highest percentage is found in the category "White evangelical Protestant". 70% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The lowest percentage is found in those unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic. Only 35% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The difference is startling and rather interesting since I don't think one group has any information that the other does not. We don't all think alike, do we?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 24, 2015 14:14:06 GMT -5
If you notice it was Christians who were targeted in Lybia this last week. It is the Quran that says kill Christians and Jews but I would say that Christians and non Christians are as agitated about the killings. Muslims believe anyone who is not a Muslim is a Christian. They do not distinguish between Atheist or Christian. Ahtiests are just as at risk as Christians.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 24, 2015 14:32:20 GMT -5
Interesting stats. I wonder what other countries stats might be. Here is response of Christian church in Germany to the anti Islam protests there. Probably very poor strategy to divide all people against extremism even more , by pointing fingers at them ,"hey, you guys group are worse than us" , you Christians , jews, americans , atheists............................... Imagine how challenging it is for Jordanian , Muslim to work together with "Christian" against extremists in their group, or for Christian to work together with muslim to fight against extremism in theirs , atheist against................................insert any group) www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/02/christian-clergy-are-fighting-against-germanys-anti-islam-protests/Alvin alvin
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 24, 2015 15:49:59 GMT -5
You'll notice that the highest percentage is found in the category "White evangelical Protestant". 70% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The lowest percentage is found in those unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic. Only 35% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The difference is startling and rather interesting since I don't think one group has any information that the other does not. We don't all think alike, do we? What Hat would you mind expanding on your comment about the results being startling? I presume you are referencing the low percentage of unaffiliated who consider Islam more violent. Is that correct? I have no experience reading the "internals" of surveys like this, however, there might be some questions worth considering. Were the sample sizes for all groups comparable. "Unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic" is a rather vague category. Might that category include Muslims? Were Muslims surveyed? That would certainly be an interesting category to include in the discussion. Based on discussions on this thread, I believe it would be reasonable to suggest that individuals unaffiliated with any organized religion "tend" toward a rather unified view of all organized religions. A question therefore that asked for a qualitative distinction (less than, more than) between different religions might be expected to score at a level little different from a random response. Statistics was never a strong subject for me but I have a recollection that 30-odd per cent is roughly what would be expected for a random response, is that correct? The uniformity of response across categories is what surprised me. My tendency would be to think that all groups surveyed are responding to comparable information sources (a rather rare phenomena). Thanks for the link, interesting data.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 24, 2015 15:59:44 GMT -5
A backlash against the Islamisation of the West is inevitable.
It doesn't necessarily mean there will be a bloodbath, but clearly the generosity of the West to Islamic immigration has to end. It's not working for the immigrant communities, and it's not working for the host populations.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 16:02:15 GMT -5
If you notice it was Christians who were targeted in Lybia this last week. It is the Quran that says kill Christians and Jews but I would say that Christians and non Christians are as agitated about the killings. Muslims believe anyone who is not a Muslim is a Christian. They do not distinguish between Atheist or Christian. Ahtiests are just as at risk as Christians. How can you say "that Christians and non Christians are as agitated about the killings" when What Hat just gave you stats that say the opposite?Of course We are all concerned, but why does the stats show "White evangelical Protestants" consider Islam is more violent than those of us who are unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic religion? "White evangelical Protestant". 70% think Islam is more violent than other religions.
The lowest percentage is found in those unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic. Only 35% think Islam is more violent than other religions.
That is quite a large difference.!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 24, 2015 16:04:54 GMT -5
Interesting stats. I wonder what other countries stats might be. Here is response of Christian church in Germany to the anti Islam protests there. Probably very poor strategy to divide all people against extremism even more , by pointing fingers at them ,"hey, you guys group are worse than us" , you Christians , jews, americans , atheists............................... Imagine how challenging it is for Jordanian , Muslim to work together with "Christian" against extremists in their group, or for Christian to work together with muslim to fight against extremism in theirs , atheist against................................insert any group) www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/02/christian-clergy-are-fighting-against-germanys-anti-islam-protests/Alvin alvin Considering 20th century German history, the response to the anti Islam protests in Germany seems quite understandable. The photo essays and stories of current events in that country do cause me some angst. Alvin, I agree with your larger point, however. Finger pointing at this juncture strikes me as somewhat unseemly. A more direct series of questions such as "Is there a problem of global concern?" (I tend toward the affirmative on this question), "How is the problem best defined/described?" and "What is the appropriate global response to the identified and defined problem?".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 16:36:45 GMT -5
A backlash against the Islamisation of the West is inevitable.It doesn't necessarily mean there will be a bloodbath, but clearly the generosity of the West to Islamic immigration has to end. It's not working for the immigrant communities, and it's not working for the host populations. Well, when the backlash against the Islam doses occurs, it certainly can't be said of you that you didn't do your part.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 16:41:41 GMT -5
You'll notice that the highest percentage is found in the category "White evangelical Protestant". 70% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The lowest percentage is found in those unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic. Only 35% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The difference is startling and rather interesting since I don't think one group has any information that the other does not. We don't all think alike, do we? What Hat would you mind expanding on your comment about the results being startling? I presume you are referencing the low percentage of unaffiliated who consider Islam more violent. Is that correct? I have no experience reading the "internals" of surveys like this, however, there might be some questions worth considering. Were the sample sizes for all groups comparable. "Unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic" is a rather vague category. Might that category include Muslims? Were Muslims surveyed? That would certainly be an interesting category to include in the discussion. Based on discussions on this thread, I believe it would be reasonable to suggest that individuals unaffiliated with any organized religion "tend" toward a rather unified view of all organized religions. A question therefore that asked for a qualitative distinction (less than, more than) between different religions might be expected to score at a level little different from a random response. Statistics was never a strong subject for me but I have a recollection that 30-odd per cent is roughly what would be expected for a random response, is that correct? The uniformity of response across categories is what surprised me. My tendency would be to think that all groups surveyed are responding to comparable information sources (a rather rare phenomena). Thanks for the link, interesting data.
I'm of the opinion that the differences arise from the history of the long standing discord between the two religions, Christianity & Islam.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 24, 2015 18:01:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 24, 2015 18:53:43 GMT -5
Interesting stats. I wonder what other countries stats might be. Here is response of Christian church in Germany to the anti Islam protests there. Probably very poor strategy to divide all people against extremism even more , by pointing fingers at them ,"hey, you guys group are worse than us" , you Christians , jews, americans , atheists............................... Imagine how challenging it is for Jordanian , Muslim to work together with "Christian" against extremists in their group, or for Christian to work together with muslim to fight against extremism in theirs , atheist against................................insert any group) www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/02/christian-clergy-are-fighting-against-germanys-anti-islam-protests/Alvin alvin Considering 20th century German history, the response to the anti Islam protests in Germany seems quite understandable. The photo essays and stories of current events in that country do cause me some angst. Alvin, I agree with your larger point, however. Finger pointing at this juncture strikes me as somewhat unseemly. A more direct series of questions such as "Is there a problem of global concern?" (I tend toward the affirmative on this question), "How is the problem best defined/described?" and "What is the appropriate global response to the identified and defined problem?". . Great observations and questions, yknot. Obviously lots of concern amongst every group, which would seem to answer your first question to the affirmative. The next two are not so easy to answer. If I needed or was seeking "ammunition" to point towards elderly people in this very very limited survey, globally speaking, then I'd take the 65 plus age number results and "fire away " to "prove" why you guys are the bad ones. Oops, well I just making it under 65 yet so "my" group is home free. NOT. We are in this world together . Thanks for your thoughts. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 23:37:57 GMT -5
Snow. How would one seemingly conclude that Christians are getting more agitated than other groups ? Alvin So far, as far as I know, they are the only groups that are standing outside of mosques picketing. Everyone is upset, but there are signs that Christian groups are taking it a step further. That is worrisome for those Muslims that are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 23:40:21 GMT -5
You'll notice that the highest percentage is found in the category "White evangelical Protestant". 70% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The lowest percentage is found in those unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic. Only 35% think Islam is more violent than other religions. The difference is startling and rather interesting since I don't think one group has any information that the other does not. We don't all think alike, do we? What Hat would you mind expanding on your comment about the results being startling? I presume you are referencing the low percentage of unaffiliated who consider Islam more violent. Is that correct? I have no experience reading the "internals" of surveys like this, however, there might be some questions worth considering. Were the sample sizes for all groups comparable. "Unaffiliated with Protestant or Catholic" is a rather vague category. Might that category include Muslims? Were Muslims surveyed? That would certainly be an interesting category to include in the discussion. Based on discussions on this thread, I believe it would be reasonable to suggest that individuals unaffiliated with any organized religion "tend" toward a rather unified view of all organized religions. A question therefore that asked for a qualitative distinction (less than, more than) between different religions might be expected to score at a level little different from a random response. Statistics was never a strong subject for me but I have a recollection that 30-odd per cent is roughly what would be expected for a random response, is that correct? The uniformity of response across categories is what surprised me. My tendency would be to think that all groups surveyed are responding to comparable information sources (a rather rare phenomena). Thanks for the link, interesting data. My view of it is that many Christians see what is wrong with everyone else, especially Muslims, and think there is not much wrong with themselves. So, if a Christian is asked, do you think Muslims are more violent than other religions, you're asking him, in effect, do you think Muslims are more violent than your religion? Of course, they will say yes. It's called the mote/ plank effect. Atheists tend to see negative effects as the product of religion, in general, not so much the product of a specific religion. Which was your conclusion, also. So they won't think Islam, in general, worse than any other religion. The 30% thing I don't know. I don't think it applies here. I know things like you can achieve a certain service level on inventory on a purely random prediction. Or 50% on a true/false test just by guessing. It's all fuzzy now.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 23:42:05 GMT -5
Here is another poll to put Muslim extremism in perspective compared to mainstream Islam. For example, Boko Haram is reviled in all Nigeria by Muslims and Christians together. And the Muslim countries are increasingly worried about Muslim extremism. www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/Some of you are questioning sample size and so on. All I'll say is that Pew Research is very reputable, and widely quoted by the news media on all kinds of topics. Check out their site pewresearch.org.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 24, 2015 23:43:46 GMT -5
The Christian-West is unequivocally more violent than other religions. That's because they have the task of policing them.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 24, 2015 23:44:13 GMT -5
Who better?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 24, 2015 23:45:52 GMT -5
A backlash against the Islamisation of the West is inevitable. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be a bloodbath, but clearly the generosity of the West to Islamic immigration has to end. It's not working for the immigrant communities, and it's not working for the host populations. The West was hardly "generous" to Muslims. For the most part, Muslims were brought in to handle menial work in Europe, beginning in the 1960s, nothing generous about it at all. The article above was written by Bruce Bawer. When my daughter went to Amsterdam on student exchange a few years back, a "concerned individual" sent me a copy of Bawer's anti-Muslim book. I've yet to read it, but Muslims are the least of Amsterdam's problems ... not that this fantastic city has all that many problems in any case. Does this kind of anti-Muslim writing have a negative effect? It's after reading a lot of this material, but especially Bruce Bawer, that Anders Breivik went on a rampage shooting and killing over 90 Norwegian young people. I know that was not Bawer's intent, but this kind of writing lacks balance; it makes ordinary people angry, and tips already angry people over the edge.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 25, 2015 0:01:42 GMT -5
I have been thinking about the threat of Muslim extremism. To gauge that threat I'm not going to consider individual imams, or atrocity stories and pet theories put together by Koran quoting right wingers. You have to find who the leaders are, what they're thinking and how much power they have. Let's say that it is 1938 and you're worried, or not worried about Nazi Germany, and their intentions. Start with the leader, and you find that he wrote a book called Mein Kampf, which very few people read. But his motivation and ideas are all there, apparently. It's not 1938 so I haven't read it myself. Hitler sought to establish a thousand year Reich and rule the world. The key question is this: who has the power, and what are their motivations. I've started to make this kind of analysis of the Muslim world. Religion and ideology do not drive the process; they merely support it. So, who are the leaders in the Muslim world and what are their ambitions. There is a drive on the part of some extremists to re-establish the Caliphate ( see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate ), the entire Muslim world under a single leader. That wouldn't be good. I've just begun this process, so it's too early for me to draw any conclusions. I'm just suggesting that to obtain perspective on the threat of the Muslim world to the West, this is the kind of evaluation one should make.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 25, 2015 0:06:09 GMT -5
"There is a drive on the part of some extremists to re-establish the Caliphate"
It's already been done. Surely you knew?
|
|