[karajorma]

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.

When did I say it had any direct bearing on modern society?

My point was that you can't say "Oh the Koran is so barbaric. It has stuff in it that is so terrible" without acknowledging that the Bible has equally horrible stuff in it.

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.

However those laws came directly from God. You can't simply say that they look barbaric from a modern point of view because the entity who supposedly set those rules and put that barbarism in play is supposedly omniscient. If God had wanted less barbaric rules he could have made less barbaric rules and smacked down anyone who acted in a more extreme manner.

Secondly, you can't really blame the Jews for following them as we've got countless examples in the Bible of exactly what God did to people who didn't obey his laws.

While you can argue that those laws no longer need to be followed due to the new covenant with Jesus you can't deny their original source was divine unless you are willing to admit that there are parts of the Bible that are complete perversions of what God actually intended.

[General Battuta]

Similarly, the argument that sharia on its own is problematic seems null and void, because Christians under similar circumstances are behaving in the same way (doing barbaric things to people due to religious law.) It is clearly the situations surrounding the religion that matter.

If Islam were transplanted into the First World it would not, I think, be problematic. Thus Kosh's point seems silly.

[Kosh]

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

I've addressed most of the points against me. I selectively quote because many posts often have many points. Because many of the posts are just backslapping I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat myself. Also, even though I went pretty far out of my way to cover most of the stuff you said, I've seen little to no retorts coming from you against any of the points brought against you. Instead you've just been repeating yourself.

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.

I've already addressed this point. You've accused me if ignoring posts when you yourself ignore anything that doesn't fit your post modernist paradigm.

Similarly, the argument that sharia on its own is problematic seems null and void, because Christians under similar circumstances are behaving in the same way (doing barbaric things to people due to religious law.)

And I've addressed this point as well.

If Islam were transplanted into the First World it would not, I think, be problematic.

Do you actually read any of my posts? I've given two examples that prove that it does and you've said nothing.

[esarai]

I'm going to take this to a new level and suggest that any religious sect that uses its religion to incite violence and intolerance does not belong in this century, or any century here after.

When I see doctors being killed for abortions, people killed for being gay and for believing something different, I cannot help but see religion as a psychotic delusion that anyone can interpret to serve their own interests.  And its interpretations often cause harm, ranging anywhere from assault to genocide.  And the rub is most religious dogmas do not even make logical sense.  Many religions, even at their best, serve to deter advancement and free thought, being cluttered with "Do this or suffer extreme punishment" threats.

One thing religion does well is motivate people.  It unifies gargantuan masses for a common purpose, and gives humanity an opportunity to do great things.  But great is not always good, and more often than not, this great thing has been destructive and violent. 

The way I see it, criminalizing religious sects that preach violence and intolerance will be a giant leap forward for mankind.  Such an act cuts out the venom of religion, and paves way for cooperation, compassion and brotherhood. 

Unfortunately, there are many regions of the world where life is so hard and anger runs so deep that simply outlawing violent religions will not work.  You can never fight fire with a fire--the whole world burns only faster.  The best way to undo extremism is to provide education and opportunity to its followers.

It is unfortunate that the world's ideologies are so vehemently divided.  It is sad to see violence on one side responded to with violence on the other.  If people really were interested in spreading the peace many of their religions call them to, they should pay more attention to what their holy doctrines say about loving their neighbors.

Though, responding with compassion and aid seems like surrendering, giving in to intimidation. I understand people feel that when attacked you must crush your enemy in battle.  This is not the case.  It has long been a taught in my family that when someone tries to taunt you or incite you to violence, the moment you turn violent you have lost.  It is by staying true to our values and our compassion that we defeat aggression.  If you can hold your composure, you have triumphed over your enemy--they failed to distract you from your purpose, they failed to unsettle you and enrage you.  You have shown them their violence will gain them nothing.  You can still crush an enemy without ever resorting to combat.

In the case of extremist groups, this aid does not help them--education and opportunities weaken them by providing their followers with alternative opportunities, education and knowledge that undermines their leaders, undoing those leaders' influence. 

[General Battuta]

Do you actually read any of my posts? I've given two examples that prove that it does and you've said nothing.

I haven't seen any such examples - just further instances of you confusing cause and effect. Your claim that you've 'proven' an incredibly complicated historical scenario indicates a problematic degree of cognitive overconfidence. It's a peculiar truth of psychology that only the incompetent are highly confident: one hallmark of expertise in any domain is a tendency towards hedging and probabilistic rather than certain assessments of accuracy.

Please refute the following two arguments, neither of which you have yet touched in spite of your claims to have:

Radical Islam does not produce itself. It is a product of a complex of geopolitical factors which could have had a similar effect on any religion. Radical Islam is only a symptom of an underlying problem.

Even if Islam produces radicals at a higher rate than other religions, most Muslims are normal citizens, and therefore tarring all Muslims with a same brush is a shameful generalization - in the same way that saying Black people do not belong in America is a shameful generalization, even if Black people do statistically have a lower average income and a greater crime rate. Talking about 'postmodernism' is nonsensical - what does that even mean? You think I'm expressing "a style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions"?

You are guilty of using anecdotes in the place of population statistics. I wish you had a better background in science.

I also think it's funny how people on both ends of the political spectrum complain about being silenced on these boards. Apparently we've got a crippling moderate bias around here.   I'll lock this if Kosh turns farther from civilized argument and deeper into simple trolling. As it is he's dangerously close to hate speech.

Ironically if he'd made a post rather like the one Esarai just did (which I imagine he'd agree with, as do - for the most part - I) I doubt we'd be here right now ganging up on him. If the post had been 'radical religion doesn't belong in this century', sure. But saying that an entire religion doesn't belong in this century conveys such incredible misunderstanding and fear that it can only be met with disbelief and condemnation. The psychology of Kosh's behavior is simple, but unfortunately the solutions aren't, since we've got an entire neoconservative movement here in the US which basically thinks the same way.

[Rian]

I found this really interesting.

It makes some of the same points esarai is making, but points out that religion can be as much a part of the solution to global intolerance and injustice as it is of the problem, a progressive force instead of a regressive one.

There is of course plenty of fodder, in both the Koran and the Bible, for those who seek a theology of discrimination.

The New Testament quotes St. Paul (I Timothy 2) as saying that women “must be silent.” Deuteronomy declares that if a woman does not bleed on her wedding night, “the men of her town shall stone her to death.” An Orthodox Jewish prayer thanks God, “who hast not made me a woman.” The Koran stipulates that a woman shall inherit less than a man, and that a woman’s testimony counts for half a man’s.

In fairness, many scholars believe that Paul did not in fact write the passages calling on women to be silent. Islam started out as socially progressive for women — banning female infanticide and limiting polygamy — but did not continue to advance.

But religious leaders sanctified existing social structures, instead of pushing for justice. In Africa, it would help enormously if religious figures spoke up for widows disenfranchised by unjust inheritance traditions — or for rape victims, or for schoolgirls facing sexual demands from their teachers. Instead, in Uganda, the influence of conservative Christians is found in a grotesque push to execute gays.

Yet paradoxically, the churches in Africa that have done the most to empower women have been conservative ones led by evangelicals and especially Pentecostals. In particular, Pentecostals encourage women to take leadership roles, and for many women this is the first time they have been trusted with authority and found their opinions respected. In rural Africa, Pentecostal churches are becoming a significant force to emancipate women.

[General Battuta]

Wow, rereading Kosh's post, this is a little sickening. "Their society has not evolved past it." So the HLP Muslims reading this thread, they haven't evolved past it? Because they are a part of this 'their society' you're making generalizations about. So are all the completely normal, peaceful Muslims out there (which make up the bulk of the religion.)

You could have averted all of this by titling the thread 'Why Radical Islam as it stands doesn't belong in this century', or better yet 'radical religion'. But you had to go and make claims to understand every Muslim everywhere. None of them, according to your claim, believe in a religion which belongs in this century.

Let me quote myself here:

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 and perpetuated '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.

[Bobboau]

ITT Kosh says all Muslims are evil and Christians are good. lol

fun being on the other side of this isn't it?

[Bobboau]

Wow, rereading Kosh's post, this is a little sickening. "Their society has not evolved past it." So the HLP Muslims reading this thread, they haven't evolved past it? Because they are a part of this 'their society' you're making generalizations about. So are all the completely normal, peaceful Muslims out there (which make up the bulk of the religion.)

lol cause that's what he's ****ing talking about.

[General Battuta]

That's what he said. Do you have a way to interpret it differently?

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.

He made a claim to unqualified knowledge about an entire religion. Note that this is explicitly unqualified: 'it', the religion, 'their society' - the society of practitioners. He did not, as others have, limit it to 'Islam in the Middle East' or 'Radical Islam' or anything of the sort. He made a claim about 'the society of Muslims'. He has established a hostile outgroup and is now producing generalizations about it.

In fact he went so far as to endorse the statement 'Islam = intolerance.' That direct. No mediating factors, no underlying variables, just black and white Baptist preacher material.

[High Max]

I guess Kosh thinks that the west is superior in everyway, and if other societies do not follow the western thought process and aren't so-called modernized, then they should be changed into the west, but I do not think it has to go so far. It isn't right to erase cultures or religions and it isn't up to him or anyone to enforce that on other countries. How would western countries like it if eastern countries erased their culture? It works both ways. In certain ways, the older traditions have good qualities, but in some ways, they don't. The same for too much westernization. For one, as you see too much westernization taking place in certain countries, old healthier foods and recipes seem to be replaced with too much fast food and too much processing of the food, making it almost impossible to avoid the chemical enriched fake food. That is awful when it goes too far. Moderation and balance seems like the best solution to almost everything in life and gives the most pros with the least cons.

It seems that the only truly peaceful religion without so much negative that I know about, though not truly a religion but more a lifestyle, would be Buddhism. It seems more peaceful and doesn't seem to involve killing non-believers, and has many good teachings like many religions, like self discipline, being honest, etc, but seems to add more self improvement to the equation, as well as being pro-environmental and preserving nature.

[General Battuta]

The simple fact is that if you raise a devout Muslim in a middle-class American family he or she probably has no more a chance of turning into a radical than a devout Christian. Let alone a merely 'practicing' member of either faith. This suggests that the faith itself is basically irrelevant and the conditions are what matter. The only reason we get more radicals out of Islam is because Islam occupies portions of the globe where conditions are comparatively bad.

Kosh's last argument against this assertion was two-part.

First, he asserted that Islam insinuates itself into political structures, perpetuating the issue. Yet it is apparent that other religions can do so as well. Clearly, we cannot predict that Islam is somehow particularly virulent in this respect due to some trait of its tenets and doctrine rather than due to the environment it exists in. (Kosh would have a fair argument if, like NGTM-1R, he had pursued the issue of sharia law, which is specifically problematic; yet sharia law is not widely obeyed by Muslim citizens in First World countries, suggesting it too is an environmental factor.)

Second, he asserted that the kerfuffle over political cartoons was evidence against this. Yet that outrage occurred primarily amongst recent immigrants and in Muslim countries in poor circumstances.

None of these arguments can address the fact that there are vast, stable, non-radical populations of Muslims who are as healthy and calm as any Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist. And that statistically inassailable fact means that we cannot assign blame to the tenets of Islam as a faith rather than to the conditions in which Islam exists.

If we wrote an alternate history novel (as Iain Banks once did) in which Islam was the religion of the modern world and Rastafarianism the religion of the Third World, we would see alternate-Kosh posting a thread on alternate-HLP about how Rastafarianism has no place in this century, given the virulent outbreaks of homicidal reefer madness currently devouring the globe. It would, of course, ignore all the happy Jamaicans and what-nots going about their lives in peace.

Singling out a single religion as one that 'does not belong in the century' is a claim that requires extraordinary proof. It requires proof that the religion on its own, taken separately from geopolitical factors conflated with the analysis, breeds intolerance. Kosh has made this claim: he endorsed the simple equation "Islam = intolerance." He has been so far unable to substantiate this claim.

Making such a claim about religion in general would be more defensible, but even then, probably incorrect; ingroup like and outgroup dislike is a fundamental trait of human psychology, and it has always, ALWAYS been exacerbated by issues of resource distribution.

I do think it's important to recognize one point in Kosh's favor: that poverty and bad education alone are not what makes a terrorist; many are middle-class, well-educated, and motivated by religious philosophy they picked up online or from friends. But the fundamental systems that establish this cycle of religious radicalization are not driven by tenets of the faith itself; rather they are rooted in the geopolitical realities of an entire band of the world which was essentially pieced together, Frankenstein-style, from colonial remnants while undergoing a massive post-colonial backlash. We have no way of knowing if Islam is peculiarly prone to radicalization (which is the claim being made here.)

[Colonol Dekker]

Although I am someone completely unreligous, I can appreciate peoples passion in this discussion.   
 
Just for some clarity in this matter, to see how silly the whole conflicting jeff christ vs alan someone view is. Substitute Christianity for manchester united and Islam for the St Louis Cardinals.
 
 

[Bobboau]

ok I'm going to not bother reading the last wall of text cause I'm tired and I don't think it pertains to me.

No he is talking about the culture centred in the mid east that has been exported through the rest of the world. yeah if you want to be anal about it using the religion as the determining factor isn't absolutely  100% accurate description, but said culture is obsessed with said religion so that'll only be a problem if you run into some ass hats who are more interested in showing how 'tolerant' and 'progresive' they are and reacting to what they have been trained to recognise as hostile rhetorical markers than thinking and discussing a point.... oh... yeah...

[Kosh]

You know galloping like this is not a good strategy. Actually it's often used by creationists to push their nonsense.

I'll lock this if Kosh turns farther from civilized argument and deeper into simple trolling.

You are the one has been trolling, you come at me with huge walls of text making it rather time consuming to respond to all of them, and even when I do you often totally ignore what I said, instead inserting your own often irrelevant comparisons, straw mans, and no doubt many other fallacies. If it didn't take so much time to reply to said galloping I would go through and point them out.

ITT Kosh says all Muslims are evil and Christians are good. lol

fun being on the other side of this isn't it?

For the simple minded here: That is not what I said. Not once did I ever mention the word "christian" unless it was in responce to someone elses pointless reference.

The simple fact is that if you raise a devout Muslim in a middle-class American family he or she probably has no more a chance of turning into a radical than a devout Christian.

Your average middle class american family is not muslim.

In fact he went so far as to endorse the statement 'Islam = intolerance.'

I'll tell you what, when mainstream imams in muslim dominated countries stop preaching intolerance, I'll withdraw that statement. People have died for criticizing Islam, and others have been forced into police protection because of credible threats.

So the HLP Muslims reading this thread, they haven't evolved past it?

I never said they didn't. Take a good look at the societies of Islamic countries, and compare them with how western societies used to be decades or centuries ago. Notice all the similairities. I can't make it any simpler than that. This is what my point was to begin with.

Radical Islam does not produce itself. It is a product of a complex of geopolitical factors which could have had a similar effect on any religion. Radical Islam is only a symptom of an underlying problem.

That is true to a point, but considering that Islam is in a Dark Age of sorts, so wound up with their religion that little has come out of the middle east for centuries.

I haven't seen any such examples

You must be blind. You said there would be no problem if islam was transported into western societies, this shows you're wrong to at least some degree. Nothing to do with cause and effect.

You could have averted all of this by titling the thread 'Why Radical Islam as it stands doesn't belong in this century', or better yet 'radical religion'. But you had to go and make claims to understand every Muslim everywhere.

Maybe you must have missed the religious police and other common features of muslim countries.

Even if Islam produces radicals at a higher rate than other religions, most Muslims are normal citizens,

That maybe so, but what about their values? Muslims in america != muslims in muslim dominated countries.

That's all I have time to reply to for now. I'll be back later for more.

No he is talking about the culture centred in the mid east that has been exported through the rest of the world. yeah if you want to be anal about it using the religion as the determining factor isn't absolutely  100% accurate description, but said culture is obsessed with said religion so that'll only be a problem if you run into some ass hats who are more interested in showing how 'tolerant' and 'progresive' they are and reacting to what they have been trained to recognise as hostile rhetorical markers than thinking and discussing a point.... oh... yeah...

Bingo, someone got it.

[Bobboau]

I'll lock this if Kosh turns farther from civilized argument and deeper into simple trolling.

oh, it's awesome when the authorities disagree with you, they can just be all 'u iz troling' and lock the thread/monkey you to make you stop spewing your 'hate speech' (i.e. things they don't feel like hearing/having other people hear), and they can edit your posts and modify the titles of your threads. oh so loverly.

[maxxjedi]

Christianity is far superior to Islam, and I can prove it:  In Islam, your 'Go to heaven free' card is to give your  life to blow someone into little pieces; in Christianity, 'go to heaven free' by laying doen your life trying to save someone elses.

Politically incorrect query:  Does it say anywhere in the Quran that the 70-odd virgins they are to receive are female?  How about a bunch of 18-year old virgin homosexuals?  What a pain!

[headdie]

Christianity is far superior to Islam, and I can prove it:  In Islam, your 'Go to heaven free' card is to give your  life to blow someone into little pieces; in Christianity, 'go to heaven free' by laying doen your life trying to save someone elses.

Politically incorrect query:  Does it say anywhere in the Quran that the 70-odd virgins they are to receive are female?  How about a bunch of 18-year old virgin homosexuals?  What a pain!

the blow yourself up thing is a twisting of the faith by extremists who are using the religion for their own ends (whether it be political power, hatred of a certain group or any other reason).

Islam as a whole like with Christianity and its origin Judaism scorn taking your own life no matter what the reason

[Commander Zane]

Christians are superior and I have my little Dark Ages graph one page back.

[Flipside]

The problem, to my mind, is organised, hierarchical religion systems, they are what causes the danger, there's a reason that the Lord's prayer sounds acoustically similar to 'We are the Borg, You will be assimilated, Resistance is Futile'.

Religion stopped being about Gods and started being about power a long, long time ago.