Religious Tolerance

[Danoff]

Many muslims today have sworn to eradicate jewish people from the Earth. No, they don't just want Israel to fall, they want all Jewish people exterminated. They're the modern equivalent of Nazis, bent on the complete removal of a particular ethnicity/religion from earth.

Why do we respond to that differently than we did with the Nazis? What's special about muslims with genocidal aspirations than nazis with genocidal aspirations? Religion.

We (non-genocidal-muslims) have been taught to tolerate the religions of others. We've been taught that spirituality is a wonderful thing, and that a person cannot be held responsible for their religious beliefs. We're indoctrinated with the notion that religion is better than no religion, and that no religion is objectively superior to any other.

That tolerance leads us to be more accepting of those who would perform ethnic cleansing due to religious beliefs than those who would perform ethnic cleansing due to a belief of genetic inferiority. It's religious tolerance that prevents the world from uniting in violent opposition to the genocidal propositions we hear from the middle east.

Is that a good thing?

I've met a lot of intelligent people that believed a lot of crazy things in the name of religion. I've met a brilliant individual who believed that rocks will keep you in good health if you cover your body in them and place them in strategic locations around your home. I've met people who presently believe in Zeus, Hades, Athena, etc.

I tolerate these things because religion is an untouchable in our society. If someone tells you they think the world will end tomorrow, you'd call them crazy. If they tell you that the world will end soon when Jesus returns, you call them spiritual. If someone tells you that black people should be shot you call them a racist murderous bigot and try to get them thrown in jail. If they tell you that their religion tells them to kill jews you apologize for them?

It is irrational to believe that the alignment of the planets can affect your fortune. It is irrational to believe that your baseball cap is lucky, or that putting a rock on your head can heal your bad back. Superstition is not something that human beings should tolerate, and generally we do not.

If a scientist tries to explain the results of an experiment by superstition he gets fired. If your car dealership tells you that they know the car is high quality because they "feel it in their bones", you'd walk away. If someone tells you that your wife is dying you'd demand rigorous proof. If you're deciding whether to take an umbrella with you on a particular day do you listen to the weather man or the native American rain dancers?

But when it comes to religion not only do people suspend their requirement of evidence, proof, and rationality, they suspend those requirements for the beliefs of others.

...and I'm guilty of the same - because it is socially unacceptible to do anything else.

If someone told me their car had flown on the previous day, I'd want proof and respond incredulously. When someone tells me they believe in Zeus, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the great kangaroo, Ra, or any other mythology I don't say a word. I tolerate it.

It might prevent a few fights here in America, but that tolerance in foreign policy is getting innocent people killed.

 

[Swift]

wow, that was pretty slick there Dan.

I actually agree that it's the thing holding nations and people back from destroying this enemy like we did the Nazi's back in the 40's.

Religion shouldn't be untouchable. In fact, I believe that ANYONE that wilfully harms another person in the name of their religion is either crazy, stupid or a hypocrite.

 

[Matt R]

It might prevent a few fights here in America, but that tolerance in foreign policy is getting innocent people killed.

We care to much about being politically correct. If we continue this way, it will be our own fault for letting millions die. Kill them and eliminate the problem, because it won't just go away.

 

[///M-Spec]

While I agree that many in the West are so eager to be apologists for their own culture, government, country, wayoflife, etc. they're willing to take anything crazy fanatics have to say at face value, I think you are painting too simple a picture of what these extremists are all about.

Most fundamentalists/extremists/jihadists simply want the Israelis out of Israel first and foremost. Of course I don't mean this to sound like its a reasonable thing to ask for, but the scope of their mission isn't such that they would roam around the world looking for them --they just want control over what they see as Muslim territory. To be fair, there are many Jewish fanatics who believe they're entitled to all the land in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Their other major grievance is US support (mainly financially and politically) for Arab governments that they dislike for reasons ranging from the fact that these regimes engage in grievous human rights abuses to governments that just aren't 'Muslim enough'. They want those guys out of power, presumably so they can put their own people in power so that when those grievous human rights abuses occur, at least they are committed by the Muslim 'faithful' and not a bunch of rich infidels propped up with Western money.

The thing about it is the connection between their faith (such as it is) and their political agenda is one of circumstance rather than causality. I'm not a religious scholar, but I'm fairly certain there's nothing in the Quran that instructs the faithful to 'go forth and kill all the jews'. Just like there's nothing in Bible that instructs white people to put on funny lookin sheets and 'hang the blacks'.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you of all people would be so quick to put a causal link between their religion and their behavior, but maybe I'm just not reading you right.

As for tolorating crazy religious beliefs (outside the scope of jihad), I obviously agree with you. I wouldn't tolorate the subjugation of a woman's rights because the religion she was born into teaches that women are inferior.

As for the world uniting in violent opposition... I'm inclined to say that most of the world outside the US and perhaps the UK simply doesn't care. And not many Americans or Brits at that. After all, world disinterest/mismanagement in solving the 'Palestinian question' back in 1945/6 was what created the mess in the first place. 60 years later, I'm not sure the general public cares one iota more.

Outside the some of the Opinions Regulars here at GTP, I am the ONLY person I know that has a coherent, consistant, informed view point on US foriegn policy --particularly in the Middle East. And this includes many smart, well educated people.

P.J. O'Rourke (a libertarian/conservative) wrote in his book years ago that the US was a "Dictatorship of Boredom" ("Last one awake gets the spend the tax money."). He meant that Americans let the goverment do whatever the heck it wants because they (we) can't bring ourselves to become interested in what it is doing. I can't say I disagree.

But I digress... where were we? Oh yeah; let's not tolorate stupid stuff hiding under the guise of religion. Erm. Unless it's fun or involves gifts and heavy drinking like Christmas and (erm..) Chanukah.


M

 

[Swift]

But I digress... where were we? Oh yeah; let's not tolorate stupid stuff hiding under the guise of religion. Erm. Unless it's fun or involves gifts and heavy drinking like Christmas and (erm..) Chanukah.


M

I know this is a sarcastic statement here. But there's a difference in getting plastered at a religious celebration and blowing up other people in the name of your religion.

 

[UnoMOTO]

We care to much about being politically correct.

DING!!!....we have a WINNA!
Many people will say that you shouldn't stereotype muslims because it just might hurt there feelings or there feelings of freedom. Actually it works this way with most every religion except a few. Am I wrong or doesn't is look like it is fashionable for those on the LEFT to bash Christians on the RIGHT?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not a religious scholar, but I'm fairly certain there's nothing in the Quran that instructs the faithful to 'go forth and kill all the jews'. Just like there's nothing in Bible that instructs white people to put on funny lookin sheets and 'hang the blacks'.

I'm not a religious scholar either, but I'm fairly certain that the Quran does instruct them to kill all non-believers, just as the bible does. Swift has pointed out to me that the bible later changes it's position on this, but the Jewish faith is still susceptible to this proposition.

The muslims hate Jews because they are jews. I agree that they want Israel, but more than that they want all of the jews dead. I firmly believe that if muslim regimes were in place around the world, jews would be eradicated first and foremost. Do you disagree? Do you think that muslim governments would allow jewish people their faith?

I'm surprised that you're willing to take such a narrow view of the middle eastern conflict. I think you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Here's an alleged quote from a hezbollah leader (Hassan Nasrallah):

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

 

[///M-Spec]

I know this is a sarcastic statement here. But there's a difference in getting plastered at a religious celebration and blowing up other people in the name of your religion.

Of course there is. But I think you misunderstand.

I was being sarcastic because I wanted to highlight my own hypocrisy.

Bad stuff being perpetrated in the name of religion I won't tolerate.

But good stuff being perpetrated in the name of religion I'm okay with.

If I were a truly consistent person, I wouldn't celebrate any religiously based holiday. But in fact I have another window open right now because I'm buying Christmas gifts. I 'tolorate' Christmas because it's fun.

..and because I really want an Obi-Wan Kenobi Force FX light saber.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

I'm not a religious scholar either, but I'm fairly certain that the Quran does instruct them to kill all non-believers, just as the bible does. Swift has pointed out to me that the bible later changes it's position on this, but the Jewish faith is still susceptible to this proposition.

The muslims hate Jews because they are jews. I agree that they want Israel, but more than that they want all of the jews dead. I firmly believe that if muslim regimes were in place around the world, jews would be eradicated first and foremost. Do you disagree? Do you think that muslim governments would allow jewish people their faith?

I'm surprised that you're willing to take such a narrow view of the middle eastern conflict. I think you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Here's an alleged quote from a hezbollah leader (Hassan Nasrallah):

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Islam has 1.4 billion adherents.

Hassan Nasrallah doesn't speak for all of them. There are muslims on GTP. Ask them if they agree.

You DO realize that you sound as if you're saying there is a direct causal link between practicing Islam and commiting genocide, right? If you don't, then now would be a great time to clarify it, because I would love to be wrong here.

And I don't know why you would accuse me of having "a narrow view" of Middle East events. Between the two of us, you are the only person who is willing to assume that members of radical groups speak for the entire religion. This sort of attack is beneath you, danoff. I hope you're just having a bad day or something.

If you're asking me if I would give any Muslim person the benefit of the doubt that they would commit genocide simply because they practice Islam, then the answer is YES.

If you're asking me if I would give any member of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc. the benefit of the doubt, then NO.

As for your scenario with Muslim regimes around the world, I presume you're talking about a pan-Asia Muslim caliphate some of the wackos want. If this hypothetical caliphate were ruled by people like Nasrallah, then sure, they would destory Israel the first chance they got.

But if it were ruled by more moderate Muslims, such as the Turkish, who have --while not great-- but a decent relationship with the West, then I would say most probably not.

Of course, both situations depend on what Israel's position is.


M

 

[Danoff]

Islam has 1.4 billion adherents.

Hassan Nasrallah doesn't speak for all of them. There are muslims on GTP. Ask them if they agree.

I didn't say he did.

You DO realize that you sound as if you're saying there is a direct causal link between practicing Islam and commiting genocide, right? If you don't, then now would be a great time to clarify it, because I would love to be wrong here.

Do I think that being muslim makes you a murderer? No.
Do I think that that these terrorists are motivated by Islam? Yes.

And I don't know why you would accuse me of having "a narrow view" of Middle East events. Between the two of us, you are the only person who is willing to assume that members of radical groups speak for the entire religion. This sort of attack is beneath you, danoff. I hope you're just having a bad day or something.

I wasn't having a bad day when I wrote the above, that has changed and I am definitely having a bad day now - but I'll try not to let that affect my posting. Show me where I said that members of radical groups speak for the entire religion.

In the meantime, I stand by my assessment that you narrow the scope of the Iraeli/Arab war to terroritorial disputes rather than view it from an ethinic/religious scope.

If you're asking me if I would give any Muslim person the benefit of the doubt that they would commit genocide simply because they practice Islam, then the answer is YES.

That's not what I'm saying.

If you're asking me if I would give any member of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc. the benefit of the doubt, then NO.

That's what I'm saying. You're giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt by saying that it's a terroritorial dispute alone. I'm not willing to do that. I see an ethnic/religious battle rather than one limited to territory.

 

[Dave A]

It's a territorial dispurte riding on the back of religion which is being used as the excuse to justify the dispute. The Koran teaches Muslims to love their neighbor just like the bible does, not to go out and murder someone because they don't share your beliefs. The religous aspect of the conflict is imo just thier excuse to act on thier hatred for each other and to control the territory. There are extremists in and out of religion, there are mad men in and out of religion, the only differences are the reasons they use to try and justify their actions. Saddam Hussain wasn't basing his actions on religion when he killed all thoes people, that doesn't make it less of an issue to someone who has.

 

[Danoff]

It's a territorial dispurte riding on the back of religion which is being used as the excuse to justify the dispute.

Ah, I see, you think that their irrational lust for that land stems from pure greed and hatred, not because they think it's holy.

The Koran teaches Muslims to love their neighbor just like the bible does, not to go out and murder someone because they don't share your beliefs.

Actually both the OT bible and the Quran teach both messages. Love your neighbor... as long as they worship the right god... otherwise kill them.

The religous aspect of the conflict is imo just thier excuse to act on thier hatred for each other and to control the territory.

They hate each other BECAUSE of their religion. They want the territory BECAUSE of their religion.

There are extremists in and out of religion, there are mad men in and out of religion, the only differences are the reasons they use to try and justify their actions. Saddam Hussain wasn't basing his actions on religion when he killed all thoes people, that doesn't make it less of an issue to someone who has.

I doubt anyone would disagree.

 

[Dave A]

Actually both the OT bible and the Quran teach both messages. Love your neighbor... as long as they worship the right god... otherwise kill them.

Not really, there were specific times in the old testiment where all false worshipers in a certain area at a certain time were kiled but it was never a case or if you happen to see a non believer as your going about your business kill him indescriminately, the jews were recorded several times in the bible having dealings with foreign nations. There were specific times when non-believers in an area were killed. After Jesus death the entire mosaic law was abolished anyway, things like animal sacrifices were no longer needed to attone for sins ect, and new commandments were laid out. Jesus quite strongly teaches that you should love you neighbor and it backs up the notion that it doesn't matter if they share your belief or not. As for the Koran it talks about the authenticity of the bilbe in the book of Sura and basically that the Koran was provided to back up that authenticity, not to oppose it.

Though you did reffer specifically to the OT, as I pointed out there were times but there was not an indiscriminate command to kill all non believers ever outside of a specified situation. The commandments Chrstians are to follow are laid out in the new testament anyway, and it's not love your neighbor as long as they bleieve what you do, it's simply love your neighbor.

 

[Scaff]

Many muslims today have sworn to eradicate jewish people from the Earth. No, they don't just want Israel to fall, they want all Jewish people exterminated. They're the modern equivalent of Nazis, bent on the complete removal of a particular ethnicity/religion from earth.

The only issue I have with the above statement is the use of the word many, replace it with a violently vocal minority who are often given far more media attention that they should, and I would have no problem with it at all.

My father worked in the middle east for a decade, directly after the first gulf war, in a number of countries such as Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi, and this subject is one I have discussed with him on a good number of occasions. Did he ever meet people with this viewpoint, well yes of course he did, but the were a very small minority and generally treated as more than a bit crazy by the majority of the countries population.

Every society has its share of religious nutters and zealots of some kind, I mean using a Nazi equivalent is ideal, go to almost any western country and you will find a minority of people who believe the Nazis were right and still support those values. Does that make them they voice of that country? No of course it does not, it makes they a potentially dangerous minority, people like this exist in the UK (Combat 18) and they certainly don't speak for me, but they would like to claim that they do.

The Iranian comedian Omid Jalali summed it up quite well, when ever the news needs a 'voice' of the people they cut to a range of religious nutter's who claim to speak for an entire county/religion/people. Its no more a truism that cutting to Kev the skinhead from Combat 18 and claiming he's the voice of the UK.

Almost any religious text can be interpreted in a way that can support a range of view-points, that does not make them right, nor does it make it the view of an entire religion. Christianity and the bible was used to support slavery, yet I'm quite sure that very few Christians would agree with that today. Religious debate and interpretation of texts is a vital part of any religion and certainly disagreements will exist. The exists in Islam and they exist in Christianity (the entire issue of Gay marriage and clergy in the Anglican church for example).

The use of 'selective' interpretation was briefly discussed in this thread

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=87681

Its also worth reading the Snopes page on the same mail as well

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

as I feel it does fit well in this discussion.

We (non-genocidal-muslims) have been taught to tolerate the religions of others. We've been taught that spirituality is a wonderful thing, and that a person cannot be held responsible for their religious beliefs. We're indoctrinated with the notion that religion is better than no religion, and that no religion is objectively superior to any other.

That tolerance leads us to be more accepting of those who would perform ethnic cleansing due to religious beliefs than those who would perform ethnic cleansing due to a belief of genetic inferiority. It's religious tolerance that prevents the world from uniting in violent opposition to the genocidal propositions we hear from the middle east.

Is that a good thing?

No its not a good thing, but political posturing exists on all sides, the principal difference for me here (in a comparison to the Nazis) is differentiating between those who make threats of this nature for reasons of maintaining a religious and/or political powerbase (and religion and politics are so strongly linked in the region) and those that would actually carry it out.


Personally I'm more concerned (in regard to genocide) with the lack of will to take action in Darfur at present that the posturing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (and do not take that as apologising for the idiots in those locations making these threats).

It might prevent a few fights here in America, but that tolerance in foreign policy is getting innocent people killed.

Its certainly one way of looking at it, but one could also argue that going in guns blazing at a threat could result in as many, if not more innocent deaths. Now do not mistake this for an apologists view point at all, its not, but mistakes can and are made that result in situations that end up far worse in the long run. Action does need to be taken, but an understanding of the results and consequences (as can best be determined) is also needed.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Gil]

I'm not a religious scholar either, but I'm fairly certain that the Quran does instruct them to kill all non-believers, just as the bible does. Swift has pointed out to me that the bible later changes it's position on this, but the Jewish faith is still susceptible to this proposition.

The Bible does not promote the indisriminate killing of the "uncircumcised".
It does give the "People of God" (first being the Hebrews, then the Jews, now the followers of Christ), favor in battle against their enemies.
God also set up things in such a way as there was no disputing the God was helping, such as setting the 300 chosen warriors against the 10,000.

But as the Bible progresses, we are commanded to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. And the story of the "Good Samaritan" shows that any one in need that we help is a "neighbor".

On topic: It is truly a matter of being "PC" that keeps us from denouncing/putting boot to ass of those that would "spitefully use us" or even destroy us.
While the teachings of Christ espouse loving our neighbor, and turning the other cheek, Jesus did not hesitate to bodily remove the "money-changers" from the temple.
Therefore, I take that to mean that I can indeed stand up, physically, boldy, and violently against those that would try to kill me and mine.
It may not be PC, but it's where I'm standing pat.

 

[///M-Spec]

I didn't say he did.

You said "the muslims" wanted to kill all jews. And you supported your assertion by quoting Nasrallah. If you are trying to prove "the muslims" want all jews dead by way of his alleged statement, then the connect is clear.

One problem is when you say "the muslims", that can be taken to mean all of them.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just mean "the terroists", except THAT would be another oversimplification. There are many, many groups, all with different agendas. Not all of them are willing to go to the ends of the earth just to kill the last one.

Do I think that being muslim makes you a murderer? No.
Do I think that that these terrorists are motivated by Islam? Yes.

"The terrorists" are also motivated by pan-Arab nationalism, a sense of revenge (for any number of American, Israeli, Western "sins"), plain simple power and a host of other reasons.

I think the terrorists, militias, extremist groups, etc. pick and choose what parts of their religion they like to suit their agenda. In other words, they take only the parts of Islam they need to form a rationale for their murderous acts and discard the parts they don't. But I also think any number of other religions or ideologies can be used to do the same. Scapegoating Islam alone is also a narrow view.

I wasn't having a bad day when I wrote the above, that has changed and I am definitely having a bad day now - but I'll try not to let that affect my posting. Show me where I said that members of radical groups speak for the entire religion.

Okay..

The muslims hate Jews because they are jews. I agree that they want Israel, but more than that they want all of the jews dead.

Again, the problem is when you say "the muslims", that can be taken to mean all of them. If that is not what you meant, then cool, we have nothing to disagree about.

In the meantime, I stand by my assessment that you narrow the scope of the Iraeli/Arab war to terroritorial disputes rather than view it from an ethinic/religious scope.

Excuse me, but how is saying "it's all about religion" any wider a viewpoint? I've actually been arguing the opposite-- that the Israeli/Arab conflict is about MORE than just religion. Religion is one aspect, yes, but not the whole story.

That's what I'm saying. You're giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt by saying that it's a terroritorial dispute alone. I'm not willing to do that. I see an ethnic/religious battle rather than one limited to territory.

What I said was most the crazy people we classify as "terrorists" want Israelis out of Israel. I never got into what motivated them, PRECISELY because I believe their motivations VARY GREATLY. Some want land. Some want power. Some want revenge. Some want to go to that big place in the sky with all those tasty virgins.

Maybe the latest Jihadi Gallup Poll where all the terrorists pick their Top 10 Reasons Why Israel Must Burn In A Sea of Fire reads...

No 10. "Because they are Jews"
No 9. "Because they are Jews"
No 8 "Because they are Jews"
No 7. "Because they are Jews"
No 6 "Because they are Jews"
No 5. "Because they are Jews"
No 4. "Because they are Jews"
No 3. "Because they are Jews"
No 2. "Because they are Jews"

...and Number 1...

"Because they are Jews"

But I must have missed that one.


M

 

[DuckRacer]

Actually both the OT bible and the Quran teach both messages. Love your neighbor... as long as they worship the right god... otherwise kill them.

Could you show me a verse from the Old Testiment saying that?

Just curious about it.

 

[Danoff]

Could you show me a verse from the Old Testiment saying that?

Just curious about it.

I posted a few outrageous claims from the OT here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2488940&postcount=4800
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2488905&postcount=4792

You said "the muslims" wanted to kill all jews. And you supported your assertion by quoting Nasrallah. If you are trying to prove "the muslims" want all jews dead by way of his alleged statement, then the connect is clear.

One problem is when you say "the muslims", that can be taken to mean all of them.

Yea, you're right. I don't mean all of them, and didn't intend to say that. I meant "militant fundamentalist terrorist muslims".

Scapegoating Islam alone is also a narrow view.

Not at all, I might be picking on Islamic fundamentalists, but I'll be happy to pick on other religions in the name of fairness.

Excuse me, but how is saying "it's all about religion" any wider a viewpoint? I've actually been arguing the opposite-- that the Israeli/Arab conflict is about MORE than just religion. Religion is one aspect, yes, but not the whole story.

That is a wider viewpoint than the one I take, but I don't think it applies. But it's a shift from your statement that I considered "narrow" below:

Most fundamentalists/extremists/jihadists simply want the Israelis out of Israel first and foremost. Of course I don't mean this to sound like its a reasonable thing to ask for, but the scope of their mission isn't such that they would roam around the world looking for them --they just want control over what they see as Muslim territory.

I'd consider this a narrow view of their goals. Not that there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with thinking that the terrorists have a limited set of objectives, but it certainly doesn't gel with what the occasional terrorist leader is reported to have said.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

I was under the impression that something was done about Nazi Germany because they had started taking over other countries en route to building up an empire. I think the Muslims are not akin to Nazi Germany in this regard. In-house genocide is disregarded frequently. Action is only taken when one feels threatened.

 

[Dave A]

danoff, none of thoes quotes in your linked posts have anytihng to do with this debate, the only two I can think of that you might be thinking of are...

(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with their hearts and souls; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.Which is talking about the Isrealites, they entered into a covenent to serve God, if they had no intention of serving god they didn't have to enter into the covenent. It was only people who entered that covenet and then served other gods that thi sapplied to. That is not the equivelent of "kill all non believers".

“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20). “If thou shalt hear say . . . Certain men . . . saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). “That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman” (2 Chronicles 15:13). And these, which are referring to Israelite cities and tribes, these commands were made after the Israelites had made their covenant to serve God. Again they were not commands to indescrimitely kill non Isrealites, which is again not the equivelent of "kill all non believers". You may still view it as harsh, but that's not the issue here.

 

[FoolKiller]

Danoff, I am going to assume I understand what you mean here, because you don't seem the type to decide that we should just round all Muslims into camps until this war is over.

I agree that religious tolerance has a limit to how far it should go. As with all rights it stops when the rights of others become infringed (aka, blowing people up, kidnapping, involuntary human scarifice, etc). But of course becoming intolerant of people who want to go to their churches, temples, mosques, or whatever and pray and worship a deity, real or not, is foolhardy. These people have done nothing to offend you other than believe something that you don't and this forum alone should show that highly intelligent can disagree on practically anything.

Now, I know people who let religious extremism slide for reasons other than religious tolerance. In fact, I remember a very heated argument with my grandmother-in-law that started as an Iraq War debate and somewhere along the line I stated that 9/11 aside I felt there were enough human rights violations to remove Saddam from power and that if it were up to me and the resources could be gathered I would want to do teh same all over teh world because situations, like the ones in Darfur or Rwanda, should never be allowed to happen. She told me that I was just a warmonger (ironic considering I was talking about stopping warlords and genocide), and when I pressed her on why she said it is the kind of thing Bush and the Republicans would want and they're all idiots.

Sometimes people tolerate it just to strengthen their political position and nothing else. She was anti-war and if saving millions meant war then she was against it, period.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I am going to assume I understand what you mean here, because you don't seem the type to decide that we should just round all Muslims into camps until this war is over.

clearly.

I agree that religious tolerance has a limit to how far it should go. As with all rights it stops when the rights of others become infringed (aka, blowing people up, kidnapping, involuntary human scarifice, etc). But of course becoming intolerant of people who want to go to their churches, temples, mosques, or whatever and pray and worship a deity, real or not, is foolhardy. These people have done nothing to offend you other than believe something that you don't and this forum alone should show that highly intelligent can disagree on practically anything.

But when highly intelligent people decide to believe something completely irrational should I try not to let that affect my opinion of them? I have, in the past, tried not to hold people's odd convictions against them, but I don't see a good reason for it. I don't care how smart you are, if you believe that putting a rock on your head will get rid of your headache, I think you're missing a few brain cells. If you believe that Zeus is the God of all, and that Poseidon is the lord of the seas, then I think you're just a little stupid. Maybe you're a genius in other regards, but you've got to have half your brain tied behind your back to get on board with Greek mythology these days (again, I know someone who is).

Why should Jesus, Allah, or Buddha be any different? These Gods are no more valid than Ra or the Great Kangaroo, and yet people treat beliefs in these Gods as if they were somehow different.

I'm going to make an effort to undo the social engineering that has been done to me. Next time someone tells me they're religious, that's going to take my opinion of their intelligence down a notch. On a side note, Swift (and others) should try not to take this personally. I know you're smart, maybe not as smart as the guy I know who believes in the energy of rocks, but I'm not as smart as that guy either - he was a freaking genius.

these commands were made after the Israelites had made their covenant to serve God.

Are you doubting that the Old Testament instructs stonings for non-believers? I can supply more quotes. The one you picked apart is intended to be a lesson, a guidline for what should be done on Earth. It isn't just a story.

 

[///M-Spec]

Yea, you're right. I don't mean all of them, and didn't intend to say that. I meant "militant fundamentalist terrorist muslims".

Not at all, I might be picking on Islamic fundamentalists, but I'll be happy to pick on other religions in the name of fairness.

I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding then.

That is a wider viewpoint than the one I take, but I don't think it applies. But it's a shift from your statement that I considered "narrow" below:

I'd consider this a narrow view of their goals. Not that there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with thinking that the terrorists have a limited set of objectives, but it certainly doesn't gel with what the occasional terrorist leader is reported to have said.

But I stated removal of the Israelis in Israel was their top goal. I did not state it was their only goal. Off the top of my head, they have four, five long-term objectives. (I could be missing one or two, but I don't have my "Jihadi Road Map to World Conquest Guide" handy)

-Destruction of the State of Israel and return of Palestine to Muslim control; genocide, if necessary to achieve such a goal is fine with them.

-Removal of all US and allied military presence in Muslim territory.

-Removal of all secular governments/regimes that are friendly with the West.

-Establishment of an Islamic caliphate that stretches from Asia to Europe.

-Removal of western cultural/economic/political influences that are at odds with the above goals.

But making a list of these strategic goals ARE NOT the same thing as understanding their reasoning and motivation. It is a simple thing to say a long-term goal of mine is to own a Porsche GT3. But I can have a number of reasons for WANTING one.

Similarly, the crazy coots with the guns and bombs all have different reasons for wanting the things I listed above. And I'm saying it's not motivated, enabled, justified, initialed solely by religion.

Hell, a lot of them just want simple revenge. A lot of Arabs live in countries where the masses make a marginal living far behind the standards in the West. They don't make as much money, do not enjoy the same freedoms as we and have a bleak outlook on change.

Meanwhile they see their own governments as corrupt and autocratic; they do not offer the types of social services Western countries do, they severely restrict freedom of the press, freedom to form political parties, freedom to speak out against the government (funny, they can speak out about US government, though) --all rights you and I take for granted every day. They maintain the social status quo so that they can retain their power and wealth. I'm thinking about countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, amongst others.

It just so happens that many of these governments have relationships with the West, exporting oil and other resources, forming strategic alliances and making lots of money.

So in their minds, the West, and in particular the US is responsible for "keeping them down" so to speak. They figure without US influence these governments would go the way of the Shah of Iran. And as long as the US holds great influence in their countries, the powers that be will keep holding them down. Just like the Nazis thought the rest of Europe was "keeping Germany down" after WWI. In both cases, they also found a scapegoat in the Jewry. (btw, the Nazi parallel you mentioned could fill another whole thread, because it wasn't just about "kill all the Jews" there too.)

Which is why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is such a flashpoint for many Muslims; they see what's going on there and figure, "that could be me and my family".

So, add to that resentment and desperation a heaping tablespoon of political propaganda, a liberal sprinkling of religious indoctrination and a handful of cold, hard cash ("Martyrs'" families are often paid money following the death of their family member) and you have a recipe for someone who is willing to strap a bomb to himself.

Anyway, my point is to say it's not just religion. Religion gives them a chance to vocalize the resentment and anger they already feel.

Finally, I should add that just because I understand where what motivates them doesn't mean I sympathize with their methods or their goals. Far from it, I guarantee you. But I find its important not to paint the situation with a broad brush.


M

 

[Swift]

Why should Jesus, Allah, or Buddha be any different? These Gods are no more valid than Ra or the Great Kangaroo, and yet people treat beliefs in these Gods as if they were somehow different.

I'm going to make an effort to undo the social engineering that has been done to me. Next time someone tells me they're religious, that's going to take my opinion of their intelligence down a notch. On a side note, Swift (and others) should try not to take this personally. I know you're smart, maybe not as smart as the guy I know who believes in the energy of rocks, but I'm not as smart as that guy either - he was a freaking genius.

Intelligence has nothing to do with your faith and vice versa. If it does, then I guess you don't think to highly of Sir Issac Newton. I really don't understand that statement as you have said a "freaking genius" believed in energy rocks. So how can you then automatically assume that a religious person has a lower intelligence level?

Are you doubting that the Old Testament instructs stonings for non-believers? I can supply more quotes. The one you picked apart is intended to be a lesson, a guidline for what should be done on Earth. It isn't just a story.

We went over that before. Stoning was for the punishment of sin. That's it. The non-believers you speak of were Jews that rebelled against their own people. So again, it's not a call to arms against all non-Hebrew people.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm going to make an effort to undo the social engineering that has been done to me.

I'm surprised you ever allowed it.

Next time someone tells me they're religious, that's going to take my opinion of their intelligence down a notch. On a side note, Swift (and others) should try not to take this personally.

As long as you don't mind if religious people think differently of you because you are an Atheist.

The one you picked apart is intended to be a lesson, a guidline for what should be done on Earth. It isn't just a story.

Oh yeah, these were literal, but he was referring to the people who signed into the covenant. Basically, here is a contract for us to get along and for me to help you out in life. If you agree then you must recognize that there are penalties for violation of this contract. In this case the penalty is stoning.

As for any other verses you want to throw out, I don't doubt they call for some crazy stuff. These that L4S listed miss the mark however.

 

[Swift]

As long as you don't mind if religious people think differently of you because you are an Atheist.

I should have thought of that. I don NOT however think Atheists are dumber then me.

 

[Danoff]

I should have thought of that. I don NOT however think Atheists are dumber then me.

I don't think that religious folks are dumber than I am. I know lots of religious people who are more intelligent than I am. What I do think, is that it is not smart to be religious. There are lots of things one can do that aren't smart:

It's not smart to drive too fast on a crowded road.
It's not smart to refuse to wear a seatbelt.
It's not smart to mix medicine and alcohol.
...or have a go at heroin
...or play craps at a casino expecting to make money.

Lots of smart people do these things, but that doesn't make the act an intelligent one. Same goes for believing in God/Allah/Buddha/Ra/Zeus/Gia/Rocks/etc.

Oh yeah, these were literal, but he was referring to the people who signed into the covenant. Basically, here is a contract for us to get along and for me to help you out in life. If you agree then you must recognize that there are penalties for violation of this contract. In this case the penalty is stoning.

It doesn't matter. God still commanded that non-believers be killed. I'll get some more quotes if it helps, but I'm surprised that anyone is contesting that the God of the Old Testament condones the killing of non-believers.

 

[Alex.]

call me a racist but ive never been a fan of extreme muslims, the most extreme of the extreme who wish anyone who isnt a muslim to die etc.


however i will not be trying to exterminate them.

 

[UnoMOTO]

It doesn't matter. God still commanded that non-believers be killed. I'll get some more quotes if it helps, but I'm surprised that anyone is contesting that the God of the Old Testament condones the killing of non-believers.

You are getting so good at taking things out of context. We keep telling you that things have changed in the Bible since the OT, but you refuse to hear that. There is a whole big book for you to study but you sticking to the first half of the book isn't getting you anywhere. The coming of Jesus change nearly everything that could be taken from the OT. Is that still confusing you?

 

[FoolKiller]

It doesn't matter. God still commanded that non-believers be killed. I'll get some more quotes if it helps, but I'm surprised that anyone is contesting that the God of the Old Testament condones the killing of non-believers.

Nope, just referring to these specific verses.

however i will not be trying to exterminate them.

No one said exterminate. We said go after them like we did Nazis. There are still plenty of Germans, Nazis, and German Nazis out there. We just stopped them from having the power to violate the rights of others.