[karajorma]

For now, the muslim society is properly labeled extremist and terrorist.  The 'good' muslims ARE the minority.  Why is this?  Because the people in power, who primarily dictate the community, are extremists and terrorists.  Once a few years pass when loving and peaceful people in power are around, the muslim society will again be known not for terrorism (I hate that word), but for being loving and peaceful.  It's the same thing that is happening with Christianity.  It once made great societies, but because of Dubya, Pope Benedict, Pat Robertson, and every other major christian player, it is nothing more than a skidmark.  Christians need a decent being in power to clean the **** stain from its track record...  And so does muslim society.

I think you've made an error there. That's nothing to do with good or bad and everything to do with the fact that people (as a group) are basically stupid and lazy. They're lazy in that they want the easiest solution to a problem. And they're stupid in that they don't see that the easiest solution is not the best one.

Look at Americans after 9/11 or Lebanese after the invasion by Israel earlier this year if you need an example of that.

Not all of the Christians voting for Bush are doing so cause they believe his fundamentalist views. Same goes for the people supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. They simply choose those leaders because they're stupid enough to believe their claims that they can get something done.

Most people don't follow a cause because they're bad or good. They follow because they're sheep.

[aldo_14]

I think it's worth noting that the likes of, say, Hezbollah and Hamas also do the whole 'gun in one hand, olive branch in the other' when it comes to politicking - we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals - or that they were seen as far less corrupt and dishonest than the Fatah government (which had also really failed to achieve any sort of peace or solution to the situation there).  So a vote for Hamas isn't necessarily a vote for suicide bombings, but something more complex and multi-layered.  Also, of course, when someone is bombing you ala Lebanon, you  tend to sympathise for the people who appear to be defending you - the Lebanese government (sensibly, really) didn't declare war on Israel, so Hezbollah was the only force opposing the IDF marching into Lebanese territory.  Even though Hezbollah provoked Israel (to a highly disproportionate response), and both sides are regarded as commiting war crimes, it's only understandable people in Lebanon would see Hezbollah as defending them given the situation.

[IPAndrews]

we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals

If you were a real politician Aldo, and I know you fancy yourself as one, just imagine all the fun people would have with that quote. Put the shovel down Aldo. The hole is big enough. You can get in now.

[KappaWing]

I agree with aldo, ordinary citizens looked up to Hezbollah because they were seen as assisiting the poor and disadvantaged with works of charity. It makes perfect sense that the people of Lebanon would back Hezbollah. Any of the people's respect they lost when attacking Israel was almost immediatley reversed my Israel's overreaction.

[aldo_14]

we all know Hamas' role in terrorism, but it's easy to ignore or forget that they do domestic charity like funding hospitals

If you were a real politician Aldo, and I know you fancy yourself as one, just imagine all the fun people would have with that quote. Put the shovel down Aldo. The hole is big enough. You can get in now.

I don't fancy myself as a politician - I'm not dishonest enough, and I believe in actually understanding as much of a situation as possible before commenting.

It's a well known fact that Hezbollah gain/ed political favour through charitable action.  It doesn't matter how reprehensible their terrorist actions are, if you want to analyze why they were voted for you and the character of those voters need to look at the full scope of what they do within Palestine and what the voters for them saw.  It's easy to characterise Hamas voters as being murderous bastards - but it's also ignorant and assumptative, and I'd say the kind of attitude that creates cultural schisms and inferiority complexes.

[Nuclear1]

They simply choose those leaders because they're stupid enough to believe their claims that they can get something done.

That is entirely true, but thankfully in an entirely different sense from what you mean.

After 9/11, Americans were quick to allow the Patriot Act to pass through Congress, controlled by the neoconservative Republicans, and President Bush.  Throughout the six years of the united government, anti-terrorism legislation passed through too quickly, and the voters got what they had coming to them with wishing politicians would get something done.

Frankly, a government that does little or nothing unless absolutely necessary to the protection of its citizenry's civil and political rights is the best government.

[Kosh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/


Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday

Anyone want to go out on Friday night?

[Nuclear1]

Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:

The religion is just fine.  It has its problems, but so long as it remains an option and not a forced set of rules for everyone to follow, it works.

The state taking control of the religion, however, is the problem.  What you see here is Saudi Arabia's government mixing religion and state.

[NGTM-1R]

Islam does not make a real distinction between church and state, however. Indeed to the Islamic mind such a distinction is unnatural.

[aldo_14]

Islam does not make a real distinction between church and state, however. Indeed to the Islamic mind such a distinction is unnatural.

The last muslim I talked to this about - admittedly a while ago, on a uni bb - said pretty much the same thing.  However, I'm not sure if that's a majority view or not; I'm pretty sure Christian states had the same view a few centuries or so ago, what with the monarch being appointed as God, etc.

[IPAndrews]

If the actions of the followers of a religion are in fact controlled by a ruling body then, based on the number of people who follow the reilgion, what is the difference between one country declaring war on another country as opposed to the religion declaring war on another country? Could you then, as a country, declare war on a religion in self defence?  I have to admit I haven't thought those ideas through so feel free to pull them apart . Knock yourselves out.

[NGTM-1R]

The last muslim I talked to this about - admittedly a while ago, on a uni bb - said pretty much the same thing.  However, I'm not sure if that's a majority view or not; I'm pretty sure Christian states had the same view a few centuries or so ago, what with the monarch being appointed as God, etc.

It really has its roots in the "founding fathers" so to speak. Jesus of Nazareth was never a temporal leader like Muhammed was. Muhammed lead a city and a nation. So did his descendants (functional if not literal) down through to the Ottoman Empire. Much is made of divine right, and often kings had more control over the appointment of bishops then did Rome, but the seperation was there and real.

Arabic, which is as close to an offical langauge for Islam as one can get, tellingly did not have words for the concepts of temporal, lay, or secular, until the last hundred years or so. Similarly until the Ayatollah came along there was no such concept as Islamic clergy; there were mufti and quaddi, but these would fulfil what we'd see as a judicial role.

[Grizzly]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/


Back on topic. Here is why Islam should be destroyed as the failure it is:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday

Anyone want to go out on Friday night?

Why not destroy the christian religion? the aids problem would be solved then (largely)

An atheist

[Mars]

One could make the argument that all religion should be disbanded, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it possible.

[IPAndrews]

Nobody pulled apart my last completely rubbish post. I'm disappointed. That one was begging for it.

[KappaWing]

One could make the argument that all religion should be disbanded, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it possible.

Now theres a novel idea.

I personally think its the right thing to do, but its totally impossible since new bastions of irrationality and stupidity will rise up where old ones were cut down. Just like the Iraq insurgents.... Now back on topic! 

[aldo_14]

The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.

[KappaWing]

The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.

And the problem with that is?

[NGTM-1R]

If you have to ask, it's too late for you. You must be eliminated.

[aldo_14]

The problem is that if you get rid of religion, you end up with Tom Cruise becoming God.

And the problem with that is?

I quite happen to like my thetans.  I'm very attached to them.