[Darius]

Why Islam as it stands doesn't belong in this century

'nuff said

 

This is an article about a bunch of insecure nutjobs whose actions are condemned by a government with a  policy of emphasising racial and religious tolerance and harmony.

What does this have to do with Islam belonging in this century?

[General Battuta]

Consider the example of Uganda. They’re on the verge of passing severe anti-gay legislation, including penalties of death or life imprisonment, and are predominantly Christian. What’s more, they’ve appropriated a fair portion of their anti-gay rhetoric from American evangelical Christians.

Or Jamaica, where sex between two men is punishable by lengthy prison sentences. Also predominantly Christian.

I’m sure there are more examples.

Considering this, is anyone here going to say that modern Christianity is fundamentally intolerant and incompatible with modern society? I kind of doubt it. No religion with such a long history is going to be entirely free of hold-overs from less rational and tolerant times, but the vast majority of its followers can still be rational, tolerant, benevolent members of society.

Thing is Christianity was designed to be a part of the government just like Islam.  After the Middle Ages and centuries of religious wars in Europe, countries started realizing that church and state need to be separate.  Higher standards of living and reasonable economic stability have only helped.

Maybe after Middle Eastern Islam goes through a similar transformation...

Radical Islam could as easily be a symptom as a cause.

Exactly. 

Unequal distribution of wealth in Saudi Arabia-->general hatred of the West-->breeding ground for radical Islam.

These two posts make me happy.

[Nuclear1]

I hate when people call themselves a member of a religion and don't act like it because it is hypocrisy.

Or live up to whatever their interpretation of it is.

And to a disturbing number of people, Jesus probably drove an SUV, gave the bread and fish to the rich, and turned water into Coors Light.

Yeah. Tell us something new. Doctrine. The problem you're citing is man's doctrine. You'll notice such things as the Reformation (also imperfect due to doctrine) did a lot to combat that said corruption...

It's still in there.  Bible corrupted and manipulated by the Church.  Lutherans aren't a whole lot better.  They're essentially Catholics with fewer Sacraments and no Saint worship.  And the only reason Lutheranism kicked off is because the German princes used it as a foundation to attack the Catholic Church.  If it weren't for them, the Protestant movement would've died out.

And while the Catholic church has gotten fairly more progressive and liberal, Lutherans in the States (as well as a fair number of other Protestant denominations) remain in the Martin Luther era.  I speak from experience here.

[NGTM-1R]

Powerplay by the Church to keep Europe in line.  Believe it or not, the Church was fairly corrupt.  Corrupt to the point that they even went in and selected which individual books warranted inclusion into the Bible.  

So the Council of Nicea is corrupt? Back up here, you're treading on Mormon territory. Furthermore, without knowing what was rejected, you can't honestly call it corrupt. Do you know, have you read, the rejected books?

I mean, I've seen some of Acts that didn't make the cut. It can be pretty ****ing scary. Girls dying just before being raped being said to be better for them, but more importantly their relatives? Do you really want that be in doctrine?

[Nuclear1]

I'm just saying when any religious body makes an interpretation of a teaching and then squashes any opposing opinions violently, it's wrong.

I'm all for letting people choose for themselves.  That's all I can say. 

[iamzack]

Honor killing rape victims made it into the bible, so why not that?

[Mongoose]

How many people do you see wearing fishes for instance?

On their car bumpers?  Plenty.

The fact remains that the 'problems with Islam' could as easily be 'problems with Christianity' or 'problems with Judaism' were, say, Islam the dominant religion of the prosperous, technologically advanced First World, and some other religion predominant in tribal, honor-based, backwards, underdeveloped, intolerant areas.

Radical Islam could as easily be a symptom as a cause.

I do agree that symptom-vs-cause can probably be debated to great length, but the manifestation of radical Islam as symptom and/or cause is what generally concerns the West from a practical standpoint.  At this present time, the vast majority of international terrorist incidents with an apparent religious motive are being conducted by those who profess to believe in a radical variant of Islam, not Christianity or Judaism.  As you said, the roles could have potentially been reversed had circumstances transpired differently (and indeed, they were reversed during the glory days of the Islamic Empire in the Middle Ages), but this is the present reality that we're confronted with.

Thing is Christianity was designed to be a part of the government just like Islam.  After the Middle Ages and centuries of religious wars in Europe, countries started realizing that church and state need to be separate.  Higher standards of living and reasonable economic stability have only helped.

Maybe after Middle Eastern Islam goes through a similar transformation...

Again, that's the real kicker, and I think that was the point Koth was trying to make.  Christianity constructed very similar situations in various venues throughout history, but the West managed to largely move past said situations by a few centuries ago.  Radical Islam, unfortunately, apparently hasn't made it to that point yet, and it's still anybody's guess as to exactly how that transformation will be achieved.

And yes, I don't deny that there are largely-Christian nations out there pulling some deplorable stunts of their own.  Pretty much the only leg up they have over state-sponsored radical Islam at this present time is that they generally aren't exporting said stunsin the form of terrorist actions, though who knows what the future may bring, I guess.

Aaaaand this has careened wildly off-course just in the time I was writing this, and I seem to have been beaten to my one point at least twice over.  Just another day in GD, right?

(Note to self: don't get suckered into the Reformation sinkhole again.  In that way lies pain.  But for the umpteenth time, it's not saint worship. )

[NGTM-1R]

Honor killing rape victims made it into the bible, so why not that?

Y'know I'm gonna want chapter and verse on that one, and I'm an atheist. I've seen a lot of crap cited from Leviticus but that's a new one.

[Scotty]

I think she's misinterpreting something you said up-thread.

I mean, I've seen some of Acts that didn't make the cut. It can be pretty ****ing scary. Girls dying just before being raped being said to be better for them, but more importantly their relatives? Do you really want that be in doctrine?

[Kosh]

You are making the assumption that Islam = intolerance.

It's not an assumption, it is an observation based on available literature as well as personal experiences (and the annecdotes of others). It openly expouses all kinds of massive intolerance and their society has not evolved past it. This is a real problem

You should know better than to tar all Muslims

I'm not taring all muslims, and when I criticize christianity am I taring all christians? Of course not, and to say such nonsense is to distract from the real issue with PC propaganda.

There are happy, tolerant, fair-minded Muslims on this very board.

Yeah, as though this board represents everyone in the world. I never said they don't exist.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I find your obsessive post modernism disturbing.

When for all we know, bad environment = intolerance, and it so happens that countries with bad environments also tend to be countries with a lot of Islam due to an underlying variable (Islam being popular in Third World nations, Christianity in First World.)

I'll re-iterate, in many of these countries Islam and government go hand in hand, and the religion's fundemental values is the state enforced ideology. So once again, how is religion not creating a bad environment in those states?

Maybe after Middle Eastern Islam goes through a similar transformation...

Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that is still HASN'T transformed.

[karajorma]

Congratulations everyone who mentioned bumper stickers on completely missing the point I was making.

The cross was not an early symbol of Christianity yet it is now the one that everyone wears. My point was that it is a simple, very obvious example of the fact that modern Christianity is very different from early Christianity.


Oh and while we're at it. Fish bumper stickers are an American thing. They're much, much rarer in the UK for instance.

Honor killing rape victims made it into the bible, so why not that?

Y'know I'm gonna want chapter and verse on that one, and I'm an atheist. I've seen a lot of crap cited from Leviticus but that's a new one.

Deuteronomy Chapter 22.

22:23  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

[General Battuta]

Wow, that's screwed up. I was going to suggest that the first part doesn't necessarily suggest rape, but by contrast with the second, it clearly does.

[High Max]

The cross was not an early symbol of Christianity

Really? Jesus died on the cross, and that was the beginning of the new testament (Christianity was born after Jesus died and Judeism is the old testament) plus the cross predated Christanity, I think, like crucifiction predated Christianity. Something about that on the history channel.

By the way, Islam and Christianity are said to have similar origins and originate around the same geographical area.

[Mongoose]

I'm not targeting this at karajorma at all, since all he did was dig up the passage in question, but I've always been amused by the insinuation that any particular verse from Deuteronomy has direct bearing on life in modern society just because of its inclusion in the Bible as a whole.  Yes, the ancient Israelites were held to that particular set of laws, and yes, said laws sucked ass from a modern perspective...but human society as a whole sucked ass back then from a modern perspective, and said laws were perfectly in keeping with the norms of societal order of that time.  Dictates about stoning victims of rape hold no more sway over us today than the declaration of the value of pi as exactly three.

To put it more simply and/or theologically, Christ himself stated that he represented a "new covenant" with humanity, in place of the old strictures of Jewish law that he called out the Pharisees as hypocrites for strictly obeying.  And the fundamental principles of said covenant?  Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you would yourself.  The core of the Christian life is as simple as that.

(whee, veering ever off-topic)

[Kosh]

Why Islam as it stands doesn't belong in this century

'nuff said

 

This is an article about a bunch of insecure nutjobs whose actions are condemned by a government with a  policy of emphasising racial and religious tolerance and harmony.

What does this have to do with Islam belonging in this century?

You're talking about a country that throws people in jail for turning away from Islam and has Saudi style religious police. Even if they have no authority over non muslims, it's still medeival, and creates a breeding ground for intolerance.

Seriously. It's a shame to see Kosh succumbing to the same hysteria he so recently condemned.

It's a shame to see you so completely miss my point and accuse me being hysterical.

I’m sure there are more examples.

Both of them were former British colonies, and actually the non muslim countries that have problems with it are usually commonwealth countries. But once again, bringing this up is irrelevant to the topic. There's plenty of other things to bash christianity about that can be saved for a different discussion.

Considering this, is anyone here going to say that modern Christianity is fundamentally intolerant and incompatible with modern society? I kind of doubt it.

I will. Everyone who says "oh yeah but christianity is......" proceeds from the assumption that I am prefering christianity over islam, which I am not. I'm an atheist, and frankly I don't have any special love for it and hold it with great disdain.

(whee, veering ever off-topic)

Bringing up christianity when critiquing any non-christian belief is a common post modernist ploy to avoid an honest look at real problems. We've seen this before. Anyway, back ontopic.

[Commander Zane]

Dearest Kosh, I'm sure I can come up with dozens of examples of Christans being much, much worse than Muslims in probably every catagory possible, and only a bit of that has to do with Christanity being around longer.

Here's one.

[Mongoose]

ITT the Inquisition killed Star Trek

[General Battuta]

Kosh, could you please address any of the number of points that have been made to counter your argument rather than selectively avoiding them?

[Rian]

Considering this, is anyone here going to say that modern Christianity is fundamentally intolerant and incompatible with modern society? I kind of doubt it.

I will. Everyone who says "oh yeah but christianity is......" proceeds from the assumption that I am prefering christianity over islam, which I am not. I'm an atheist, and frankly I don't have any special love for it and hold it with great disdain.

Y'know, I was considering adding a nod to radical atheists to that argument, especially as I’m an atheist myself. But I find your statement that you’re not preferring Christianity over Islam kind of disingenuous, since the thread clearly singles out Islam as opposed to criticizing religion in general. My post attempted to counter the point that Islam is necessarily more intolerant than other major religions, nothing more.

[General Battuta]

I still think it remarkable that the same kind of hysterical fear which drove so much post-9/11 policy is now popping up here, from the fingers of someone who was a clear opponent of that policy.

Understanding why things actually happen in the world is the best way to help solve them. Whatever force created 'radical Islam' could as easily have created 'radical Christianity' or 'radical Buddhism'. The important point is to identify that underlying force. In all likelihood it's a complex of nationalism, anti-colonial backlash, internal strife in the Muslim world, and general failure to modernize on a political and economic level.

Vilifying all practitioners of a religion will do nothing to help solve the problem. If anything, it will exacerbate it.