Racism is wrong.... most of the time

he still stands

Best of Times wrote:

Why is it racist to say the Palestinian people are a civilization of underachievers?

It isn't racist, it is ethnocentric. PLEASE READ THIS... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

Best of Times wrote:

What have they achieved?

This is a meaningless question. I think you're the only person who is going around measuring nations with a yard stick based on an arbitrary set of accomplishments. Again, it is not racist... it is ethnocentric and ignorant.

Best of Times wrote:

Africa doesn't have a space program, does acknowledging that make me a racist?

Why would a continent have a space program? :?

Best of Times wrote:

You libs are only interested in political correctness; not TRUTH.?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal." For example, I have mostly libertarian or anarchist convictions. A clear distinction that could be made, however, is that most people who disagree with you have educated themselves somewhat whereas it is clear you have not.

Best of Times wrote:

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KILLED 13 AT FORT HOOD.

really? where is there proof that the FBI found information that he'd shoot soldiers/civilians but didn't apprehend him because it would be damaging to public perception?

Best of Times

That murderer had SoA on his business card, and posted revealing comments online. He had been reported to his superior officers for making statements regarding the wars, and his perception that they were wars vs Islam, and these warnings were ignored b/c of the sensitive fact that he was Muslim. PC= 13 dead.

I have not been called Ethnocentric, only a racist in this ignorant thread. Why don't you correct our
unisex-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince-OP-________________?

Why can't Africa have a space program? Who says a continent can't? Is it because they're a predominantly black continent?
YOU sound like the racist.

Best of Times

Libertarian or Anarchist?

That gives you a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Might want to study up on those two ideologies a little.....

he still stands

Best of Times wrote:

Libertarian or Anarchist?

That gives you a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Might want to study up on those two ideologies a little.....

I'm starting to think you're a troll...

here, read this:

"... though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism."[7]

MotoDC

BinauralJam wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

:idea: oh i think i know who you are now

he said who he was in the very first paragraph of his op....i guess you and kenny must have skipped through it?

what are you seeing that i'm not?

________________ wrote:
"Now you might ask, how, o great Outlaw, do we do that?"

My question is: why does Outlaw always show up with _________ as his handle? Is it b/c of a temporary ban or is that a personal-settings option I don't know about?

Best of Times

he still stands wrote:

Best of Times wrote:

Libertarian or Anarchist?

That gives you a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Might want to study up on those two ideologies a little.....

I'm starting to think you're a troll...

here, read this:

"... though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism."[7]

Troll? No, you know its real....

I guess I understood Anarchy to be a little less mainstream than Libertarianism.. you're not the Unabomber are you?

I appreciate the eye-opener.

he still stands

Every "libertarian" that I've met is an anarchist when they're speaking frankly, and a libertarian when they're speaking to the ignorant, misinformed, or closet fascists.

brief lesson on libertarianism and anarchism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY

Best of Times

he still stands wrote:

Every "libertarian" that I've met is an anarchist when they're speaking frankly, and a libertarian when they're speaking to the ignorant, misinformed, or closet fascists.

brief lesson on libertarianism and anarchism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY

Check your PM.

kenny olav

___________ wrote:

I've avoided responding to your post, kenny olav, but given your insistence with post after post it seems like you really want some attention. Thats perfectly fine. The issue is that your posts just have so many factual flaws and inaccuracies that it really would not suit one to simply respond with a short counterpoint. you see, one of your biggest issues is that you make claims and don't back them up, not only because you dont know how to but because you can't - they are flawed claims and arguments to begin with. So in order to respond in a correct manner, facts and examples are necessary. This post took about half an hour to write and it's fairly long. I don't expect anyone to have the patience to read it also because I think most people are going to read this with an inherent and initial bias and thus not be willing to continue to its end. But I wouldnt forgive myself if I responded poorly. Disregard anything you may perceive as an insult on your personal character, I merely refer to your arguments and your points:

The main problem I have with the original post from the male person (couldn't possibly be female - too brash) who won't give his name, is the equal footing given to anti-Semitism and "Islamophobia" - they are completely different, and I won't point out the reasons, because they should be obvious.

1. why is Islamophobia written in quotes and anti-Semitism isn't? Is one real and one illusory? Congratulations, you couldn't go one sentence without displaying your deep-seeded bias from the start. And by bias, I do not refer simply to favoring one argument over another--everyone does that. I mean genuinely ignoring concrete facts to suit your own beliefs and purposes.
2. how is one form of racism and intolerance toward Jews principally any different from racism and intolerance toward Muslims? If you know any history actually, you'd know that Islamophobia is not a new phenomenon in any way. If not for the fact that a much stronger Muslim presence has only recently become so in Europe, they could have faced the same persecution as the Jews faced in the late-19th through mid-20th century, similar to that of the Inquisition. If you are arguing in terms of actual action taken against Jews versus actual action taken against Muslims, as in trying to allure to the suffering of the JEws during the Nazi Holocaust and how no one ever had to go through that and blah blah blah, that's a sound argument, but in terms of principle, Islamophobia is just as reprehensible as anti-Semitism.

Hi! I don't think I actually want any attention. In fact, I'm probably pissing off a lot of people I don't want to piss off, and I think I myself came across as too brash in my initial post here, but like I said, I was a little alcohol fueled at the time... doh! I just love to debate religion. Thanks for participating... that's all I wanted - a debate, not a fight, or attention. In fact, I totally regret posting all of this

Maybe I shouldn't have put the term Islamophobia in quotes... it's not that I don't understand that the term has a real meaning... but my point was anti-semitism is something directed against an ethnic group and Islamophobia is directed against a religion. I guess I didn't make my point well enough... I was trying to differentiate between being bigoted towards ethnicity and being bigoted towards a religious group... I think it's absolutely wrong to discriminate against someone because of their ethnicity, but to me, no matter how successful a religion is, or how culturally significant, it's still a system of baseless beliefs and deserves to be scorned, and if warranted, feared. I find no reason to equate fearing religion with racism. So if you want to say I'm Islamophobic, maybe that's technically true, but I don't immediately treat anyone with disrespect because of their religion.

___________ wrote:

Why refer to Mohammed as "the Prophet"? He's no more a prophet than Joseph Smith or any other of the so-called prophets in the Bible.

Well that's your opinion but there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would argue otherwise. You have the right to disagree with their opinion and think they are wrong but I see no issue in referring to Muhammad as the Prophet, also due to the fact that I'm Muslim.

That's 1.5 billion people missing out on the good and true life, by living in self-denial and living in submission to a phantom of oppression - a celestial paternal dictator who can never be questioned. And at a very young age, religious children are taught to feel guilty of their natural feelings - that's a terrible way to grow up. It ruins their natural inquistiveness, and molds their brains into a lifetime of strict obedience. My daughter is 9 years old, happy and kind-hearted, artistic and free-spirited, thoughtful and self-restrained - and brazenly agnostic. If you Muslims had raised her, she would be a shell of the person she is, and unwillfully obedient to the dictates of 7th century warlords.

___________ wrote:

Why give any credence or even respect to that very notion of religious prophecy, which is holding back all of humanity. We should be openly mocking the idea of Mohammed as prophet without fear of retribution, and boldly assert logical arguments against all religionists, especially when they are violently intolerant of criticism.

Holding back all of humanity? Is kenny olav humanity's great savior, come to tell us all what is actually holding us back? How is religion holding back humanity? Do you even understand what it means to make a statement like that? Has defending bold and general statements with facts all of a sudden become irrelevant? Especially with regards to religion unfortunately.
The only thing this statement really shows is your profound lack of historical knowledge. I mean, tell me, is Algebra and Calculus holding back humanity? Chemistry? Philosophy? Astronomy? Literature? Medical Sciences? All these subjects have a history dating back to the 'Islamic Golden Age': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. In fact, many secular theorists often cite an Islamic philosopher, Ibn Rushd, as a big influence. An Islamic philosopher, who is religious, influenced secularism? but how can that be!
All of this is just so strange. How is it that in an Islamic empire, a RELIGIOUS one, advancements can be made??? I mean, I learned once when I went to church that church is boring as shit, and I believe in only things that are POSSIBLE (and by possible, I mean made to be possible by my terms). So when you add up the special scientific equation of church is boring + my priest was a moron + miracles are scientifically impossible = religion sucks. is that right? why let a thing like history get in the way?
Of course, I expect your obvious retort: but more wars are fought over religion than anything else!!
Again, this would be false and any historical analysis would retort this. when it comes to most wars that involve different religions, deep understanding of the issue is still necessary since they do not end up that way many of the times. People's most recent examples often tend to be things like Islamic terrorists, e.g. suicide bombers. I'd recommend reading Robert Pape's Dying to Win. His book analyzes suicide bombers and their motives and he's found that they are not doing this for religious motives but most often out of living in occupation.

Whoa, OK. Lots of presumptions here. First, I don't think anyone or anything can save humanity. We can understand our humanity, and cope with our humanity, but we are such a flawed species.. emotional and warlike... we would have to be genetically reprogrammed to be saved... I mean we'd need some serious Brave New World action to get us in line. But that's a joke, we don't need that - we all just need a good education and a fair social structure - easier said than done though.

As far as the scientific, philosophic and artistic achievements that arose within Islamic culture and have shaped world culture are concerned, in no way would I deny or diminish any of that. However, I'm not sure how it can proven that Islam, or religion in general, is the reason for these achievements. Whenever there is a great empire, great achievements are made... I would say the structure of the empire, which can house a significant intellectual class and give it time to develop, gives birth to these achievements... it's happened in other religious cultures, and in non-religious intellectual centers around the world - in fact most of the recent achievements, I would venture to say, have been the work of the non-religious.

I would say most wars are fought over territory, and the differences between the groups who want the territory are what enable the conflict, be they ethnic, social, political or religious differences, and often all of the above!

Suicide bombers are not religiously motivated? Maybe it can be proven that it's from feeling like being a caged animal by being held under occupation in your own country... is that your argument? Then I agree. In fact, I've been trying to convince my family that I'm not crazy for thinking that for years. However, the idea of a suicide attack does come from the religion, right? What groups other than Muslims has had suicide bombers? .... the Japanese Kamikazes is the only example I can think of, and they did it for religious reasons....... but they learned from it. Maybe if the Palestinians were to try Gandhi's approach of non-violence instead, they'd have more success, don't you think?

___________ wrote:

You may cite the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again, incorrect. Zionist movement began secular and has remained so for decades, mostly up until now even. it was only very recently that the Zionists with more hardcore religious beliefs gained popularity. Same thing with the Palestinian resistance, but both movements are essentially secular.
While religious people, like any else, have done some ridiculously horrendous things and taken advantage of people's deeply held religious beliefs, it is illogical to say religion holds back humanity, especially without having first studied the religions carefully and comprehensively. and by study religion I don't just mean read a book on it. I mean read their holy books, study their history, art, poetry, scientific advancements, culture, literature, etc. If you don't have time to do it then that's perfectly fine, we don't all have the ability to specialize in everything. But then I believe I'm perfectly in my right to ask you to please shut the fuck up (not that you have to, you have the freedom to say as many things as you want, no matter how utterly wrong they are .)

Sure, Zionism is pretty secular, and I know all about Herzl and Ben Gurion, but the concept of Zion comes from no other place than the Bible... and that's why religious America got behind it. Without religion, there would be no Zionist movement, regardless of what the leaders believe or don't believe. Can you prove otherwise?

___________ wrote:

Additionally, this is just a last minor point, but over the past couple hundred years or so when secularism has become the preferred rule, we've had some of the worst historical injustices recorded in human history; from the Nazi Holocaust, to the Darfur Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, millions of Iraqis killed due to our policies and bombs, etc. And these were not over religion. So, what is it the common theme? Ruthless rulers taking advantage of anything they can, be it ethnicity, nationalism/fascism, communism, OR religion. or is it just that religion is to blame for everything? I guess that's a bit easier to do if you have a particular motive.

Religion played a role in all those conflicts... even if top Nazis including Hitler himself were atheists, they used religious rhetoric to pit the German Christians against the Jews. Darfur and Rwanda are basically about ethnicity, sure... but the American-UK-Australian-European bombing of Iraqi has a lot to do with religious differences, as well as racism.

___________ wrote:

You will find many thoughtful people who grew up in Muslim-dominated countries who will say that Islam is holding their country back, but unlike in the largely liberalized Christian (and increasingly post-Christian) countries, they will be ostracized if the profess even the slightest hint of apostasy... or worse.

Some black slaves fought alongside the Confederates during the U.S. Civil War hoping to return to working as slaves once the war ends. What's your point? Why not refer to some actual statistics. Wait, probably because it goes against your argument. Allow me then.

John Esposito, 'Who Speaks for Islam?' :
"Within the last several years, religious parties in the Arab world have decisively defeated their secular opponents, as Islamist candidates have proved successful at the polls. In Iraq's general elections in late 2005, the religious Shiite alliance won 128 of 275 seats. In the Palestinian territories' first elections in a decade, Hamas overwhelmingly defeated the secular ruling party, Fatah. In Egypt, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood won an unprecedented fifth of the parliament's seats. In Turkey, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won a landslide victory in the November 2002 parliamentary elections, something of a rarity in the secular republic. ....
...while acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy, those surveyed do not favor a wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy. Many appear to want their own democratic model that incorporates Shari`ah--and not one that is simply dependent on Western values...the emphasis those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government, one that is democratic yet embraces religious values, helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Shari`ah as atleast "a" source of legislation."

My point wasn't that the majority of people living in Islamic countries reject Islam, but just that they are out there, and, yeah I was lamenting over what you are pointing out so well - that Islam still plays a giant role in politics in Muslim-majority countries. I think religion plays too much of a role in American politics, but at least we don't have a major party called the Christian Party.

___________ wrote:

If the world became dominated by Islam, that would be a terrible thing. Islam is probably the most dangerous of all the major religions, but that's not to say we should overlook the modern crusaders and the zionists.

Islam is the most dangerous of all? What the fuck kinda sentence is this? Any explanation? Based on everything you've written so far you obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of the religion, other than probably the amount of info you get from watching the daily news. I mean, on what actual basis do you make this claim on? For example, let's think about Judaism. There are about 13 million or so Jews worldwide. About 5.5 million or so in Israel. Israel has committed crimes against humanity in the name of protecting the Jewish State, no matter what side of the conflict you're on, fact or fiction, this is true. Since a big percentage of Jews support Israel and have contributed to this, does that mean that Judaism is more of a dangerous religion, since over 50% of its people actively contribute in or to Israeli society? Of course, I don't agree with this because I think it's just as flawed as any of your analogies and I would never dare make such ridiculous claims as you do without having first backed it up completely with facts. After seeing your post though, I can tell that you just don't know facts to begin with.

Islam is at 1.5 billion and growing, right? I think I read 1.7 billion. Whatever. Let's get fuzzy with the facts, I don't give a shit, this is a fucking rock band's message board for Christ's sake, OK, Islam is growing - we know that. Christianity claims 2 billion, but I think it's less, and their numbers are shrinking as more Europeans and North Americans become less religious. Jews have more influence than they should have based on their numbers, is what I'm getting from you, but you should think of this: they're kinda allied with both Christians and secularists - it's genius really. Am I talking crazy? But no... I see it all the time - "Judeo-Christian traditions". So it's us Judeo-Christians with the secular state vs the Islamic state. That's the war in a nutshell, right? I mean, I don't buy into that. I'm a world citizen, motherfuckers.

___________ wrote:

They all should be made to feel guilty for believing in the very concept of holy land... as it has brought nothing but war and hardened hearts. It's time to move past this... way past this... there is no reason that Jews and Arabs can't look upon the monuments of Jerusalem the way the Greeks look upon the Parthenon.

what about the concept of nationalism? It's a secular concept, and has been responsible for war and genocide. In fact, in many ways, it is responsible for more war and genocide than this small strip of the holy land, so what do you have to say about that? why is religion the ideology that is holding back our world and not rather our own pathetic ambitions and intolerance?

we're just not very smart. that's my short answer.

___________ wrote:

And there are in fact many Jews, Arabs, and people of all ethnic backgrounds who want to look to a future based on logic and understanding, but that's not what rules the world as of yet.

religion does not have to be counter to logic and understanding, and you're talking out of your ass. you preach the same intolerance you speak out against; inconsistency is a key factor is contributing to misunderstanding of either side and continued conflict.

I'm intolerant against ideas that make no sense... fine, you got me!

___________ wrote:

To make sure this is clear... though I don't have any respect for old baseless beliefs systems, I really do my best to respect people no matter what they believe in. If people hate people just people they hold a belief, that's wrong, but they shouldn't feel like they have to pander to them. I think it's perfectly logical to fear a religion that becomes political, and Islam has always been political.

I'm not convinced that you know a thing about Islam or 'political' Islam. I mean just the fact that you say that Islam has always been political without citing anything is proof of it. What of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have normal jobs and live normal, apolitical lives? Are they just not religious? Are they bad Muslims? What of them? Or should we conveniently ignore them to suit the purpose of our argument. And no one is asking that people pander to others' beliefs, they are asked to respect them. Being Muslim is just as strong an identity to Muslims as their ethnicity, race, etc. If we are asked to respect people's nationalities, ethnicities, race, and any other identity, we should respect their religious identity as well. And if one person uses their identity to further a cause in that person's beliefs, we are always respectful of it so long as it does not hurt anyone else.

but you were just talking about all the islamic political parties... and i'm not saying every muslim gets involved with the politics of their land, or live political lives, but the politics of Islam dictates how they live... aren't the laws in muslim countries generally based on Islam... aren't there many Islamic Republics? Christian states are a thing of the past, but Islam is still very political. correct me if I'm wrong, fine, but it's kinda silly for you to keep calling me ignorant.

___________ wrote:

Europe should stand up for the way of the life that they've achieved in the aftermath of their own superstitious tyranny and warfare. They should absolutely ban the wearing of burqas and things of that nature.

are you trying to argue that superstitious tyranny and warfare ended when secularism was introduced into Europe? So you don't think the targeting of Jews was based on any superstition? Was it based on fact then? and what special way of life has Europe achieved? Europe has a shit load of problems now, just as it did back then. Banning burqa or anything else is just stupid. It does not make a free society, it makes one that imposes secularism, which is a belief just as strong as any religious or philosophical or nationalist or whatever belief, which is wrong. If you don't think religion should mix with politics, fine. But to argue that religious people have no right to display their religious beliefs in public, be it through wearing a burqa, praying freely outside in the street, or building a mosque with minarets is just as intolerant as any religious society forcing people to conform to their religious beliefs and norms. And it's as simple as that. A free society means actual freedom, not imposed freedom on your own terms.

I'm of two minds here, because I do think people should have the freedom to believe what they want and practice any religion they want so long as it doesnt affect others' freedoms. but... I think religion has a profoundly negative effect on the minds of children. so part of me thinks adults can believe what they want but parents shouldnt be allowed to fill their childrens' heads with bullshit. but, holy shit, how can that really be enforced? and there's plenty of bullshit out there that has nothing to do with religion. so maybe if we keep speaking against religion, it will eventually die off... maybe that's the best way to kill it. but i seriously would have loved it if the government had banned my parents' church. :twisted: :twisted:

but at least my church was at its worst a shitty way to spend a sunday morning (and wednesday evenings at youth group). the practice of having women wear burqas... that's just fundamentally sick. shame on anyone who promotes or even tolerates that. some religious practices just deserve to have big brother crack down on them. and what about genital mutilation? what culture produced that? what about men walking the streets whipping knives tied onto ropes at their own backs? without faith in a silly book and a ludicrous notion of a supreme being, would people do any of that?

___________ wrote:

As for your last, long post, I only have this to say: I was never of the opinion that the response to Zionism should be religious whatsoever, I think it should strictly be secular and on moral grounds. No religion should have superior claim over the holy land. That being said, it's relevance and importance to any religion should not be disregarded on the basis of anyone else's own beliefs. I believe the response to Zionism should be on the grounds of wanting equal justice for all people and human rights for all. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that people will simply relinquish any religious significance of the land. If anyone believes that the land should be theirs only, they should be ignored and isolated. But if others believe that the land should be free for all and that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve equal rights, then that is a sound argument and thus a religious debate is unnecessary in this issue.

for once, we agree!



I hope maybe I made my points clear, and I'm trying to be polite. If I went to public square in a muslim country and said all of this... how polite would they be to me?

fuck

kenny olav wrote:

___________ wrote:

I've avoided responding to your post, kenny olav, but given your insistence with post after post it seems like you really want some attention. Thats perfectly fine. The issue is that your posts just have so many factual flaws and inaccuracies that it really would not suit one to simply respond with a short counterpoint. you see, one of your biggest issues is that you make claims and don't back them up, not only because you dont know how to but because you can't - they are flawed claims and arguments to begin with. So in order to respond in a correct manner, facts and examples are necessary. This post took about half an hour to write and it's fairly long. I don't expect anyone to have the patience to read it also because I think most people are going to read this with an inherent and initial bias and thus not be willing to continue to its end. But I wouldnt forgive myself if I responded poorly. Disregard anything you may perceive as an insult on your personal character, I merely refer to your arguments and your points:

The main problem I have with the original post from the male person (couldn't possibly be female - too brash) who won't give his name, is the equal footing given to anti-Semitism and "Islamophobia" - they are completely different, and I won't point out the reasons, because they should be obvious.

1. why is Islamophobia written in quotes and anti-Semitism isn't? Is one real and one illusory? Congratulations, you couldn't go one sentence without displaying your deep-seeded bias from the start. And by bias, I do not refer simply to favoring one argument over another--everyone does that. I mean genuinely ignoring concrete facts to suit your own beliefs and purposes.
2. how is one form of racism and intolerance toward Jews principally any different from racism and intolerance toward Muslims? If you know any history actually, you'd know that Islamophobia is not a new phenomenon in any way. If not for the fact that a much stronger Muslim presence has only recently become so in Europe, they could have faced the same persecution as the Jews faced in the late-19th through mid-20th century, similar to that of the Inquisition. If you are arguing in terms of actual action taken against Jews versus actual action taken against Muslims, as in trying to allure to the suffering of the JEws during the Nazi Holocaust and how no one ever had to go through that and blah blah blah, that's a sound argument, but in terms of principle, Islamophobia is just as reprehensible as anti-Semitism.

Hi! I don't think I actually want any attention.

you don't sound too sure of yourself, lol

I just love to debate religion. Thanks for participating... that's all I wanted - a debate, not a fight, or attention. In fact, I totally regret posting all of this

Let us be clear about what we are debating. This is not simply 'religion.' I'm not trying to convince you that religion is right or wrong. I'm trying to explain to you that you are being inconsistent in your tolerance of certain beliefs, through historical facts - which you are conveniently ignoring in making your argument, and that you are letting your own biases cloud your judgment. I don't know why I'm wasting any more time on this but I'm sick and out of school so why not.

Maybe I shouldn't have put the term Islamophobia in quotes... it's not that I don't understand that the term has a real meaning... but my point was anti-semitism is something directed against an ethnic group and Islamophobia is directed against a religion. I guess I didn't make my point well enough... I was trying to differentiate between being bigoted towards ethnicity and being bigoted towards a religious group... I think it's absolutely wrong to discriminate against someone because of their ethnicity, but to me, no matter how successful a religion is, or how culturally significant, it's still a system of baseless beliefs and deserves to be scorned, and if warranted, feared. I find no reason to equate fearing religion with racism. So if you want to say I'm Islamophobic, maybe that's technically true, but I don't immediately treat anyone with disrespect because of their religion.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. You don't like religion, so any hatred (you may disagree with the use of the word hatred but we all know irrational fear leads to hatred so I see no problem in using it) towards religion is ok. But hatred towards an ethnicity is wrong because your personal beliefs don't cloud your judgment there. Your inconsistency here is glaringly blatant.
Give yourself a pat on the back I guess - you don't treat individual muslims with disrespect because of their religion, you just treat their religion with disrespect. Of course, you lack any deep understanding of how attached people are to their religion, and indeed you obviously ignored my point of how many people consider their religious identity just as fundamental to them as their cultural, ethnic, national, etc, identities - and these do not conflict with one another. So insulting the religion of Islam but saying you still treat muslims with respect will sound to a Muslim as if you are saying somethign like 'the Arab culture is backwards, but I treat Arabs with respect.' You can continue to ignore this point and stick to your own beliefs, but you have a problem in doing so, and it's so strange to me that you don't see how obvious this is.
You are advocating spreading your beliefs at the expense of insulting hundreds of millions of people simply because you don't agree with their views. That is wrong. As long as their personally held beliefs are not hurting anyone - and in fact I've already demonstrated earlier how religion in particular Islam has been responsible for one of the most important cultural and intellectual renaissance ever - then they should be left to believe what they want. That goes for everyone, religious and secular alike. There are people on both sides though who think their beliefs are SO right that it needs to be spread and enforced upon people. You're not helping. It's people like you who give ammunition to those who think their religion is under attack and who think the only way to preserve their religion, and thus their identity, is to impose it and make it completely vibrant in society.

___________ wrote:

Why refer to Mohammed as "the Prophet"? He's no more a prophet than Joseph Smith or any other of the so-called prophets in the Bible.

Well that's your opinion but there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would argue otherwise. You have the right to disagree with their opinion and think they are wrong but I see no issue in referring to Muhammad as the Prophet, also due to the fact that I'm Muslim.

That's 1.5 billion people missing out on the good and true life, by living in self-denial and living in submission to a phantom of oppression - a celestial paternal dictator who can never be questioned.

So 1.5 billion Muslims are oppressed by their religion. Care to give any examples, or are you still so sure of your massive intellect that you are allowed to make more general, ridiculous statements that deserve to further information. I won't even bother retorting this idiotic statement.

And at a very young age, religious children are taught to feel guilty of their natural feelings - that's a terrible way to grow up. It ruins their natural inquistiveness, and molds their brains into a lifetime of strict obedience. My daughter is 9 years old, happy and kind-hearted, artistic and free-spirited, thoughtful and self-restrained - and brazenly agnostic. If you Muslims had raised her, she would be a shell of the person she is, and unwillfully obedient to the dictates of 7th century warlords.

'we Muslims' ?? yes, we are all one people. just like all black people are the same, all jews are the same; in fact, all minorities are essentially the same. we can't think for ourselves, we just follow these laws that were created hundreds of years ago, blindly, without any logic. I mean, can't you tell by posts? I, a Muslim, do not use facts or history to defend my posts. I just make general statements without backing them up and disregard any necessity of proving my points with information. I, a backwards Muslim, am advocating for imposing my beliefs on others. oh... wait a minute.
I don't want to use you and your daughter in my example because I don't want to personally insult your parenting style. But I will say that if you are imposing your beliefs that religion is a force to be feared and that Islam should be feared, etc etc, then you are brainwashing your daughter just as much as any religious fanatic could brainwash his or her child. oh, but the difference is: you think you're right, right?

___________ wrote:

Why give any credence or even respect to that very notion of religious prophecy, which is holding back all of humanity. We should be openly mocking the idea of Mohammed as prophet without fear of retribution, and boldly assert logical arguments against all religionists, especially when they are violently intolerant of criticism.

Holding back all of humanity? Is kenny olav humanity's great savior, come to tell us all what is actually holding us back? How is religion holding back humanity? Do you even understand what it means to make a statement like that? Has defending bold and general statements with facts all of a sudden become irrelevant? Especially with regards to religion unfortunately.
The only thing this statement really shows is your profound lack of historical knowledge. I mean, tell me, is Algebra and Calculus holding back humanity? Chemistry? Philosophy? Astronomy? Literature? Medical Sciences? All these subjects have a history dating back to the 'Islamic Golden Age': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. In fact, many secular theorists often cite an Islamic philosopher, Ibn Rushd, as a big influence. An Islamic philosopher, who is religious, influenced secularism? but how can that be!
All of this is just so strange. How is it that in an Islamic empire, a RELIGIOUS one, advancements can be made??? I mean, I learned once when I went to church that church is boring as shit, and I believe in only things that are POSSIBLE (and by possible, I mean made to be possible by my terms). So when you add up the special scientific equation of church is boring + my priest was a moron + miracles are scientifically impossible = religion sucks. is that right? why let a thing like history get in the way?
Of course, I expect your obvious retort: but more wars are fought over religion than anything else!!
Again, this would be false and any historical analysis would retort this. when it comes to most wars that involve different religions, deep understanding of the issue is still necessary since they do not end up that way many of the times. People's most recent examples often tend to be things like Islamic terrorists, e.g. suicide bombers. I'd recommend reading Robert Pape's Dying to Win. His book analyzes suicide bombers and their motives and he's found that they are not doing this for religious motives but most often out of living in occupation.

Whoa, OK. Lots of presumptions here. First, I don't think anyone or anything can save humanity. We can understand our humanity, and cope with our humanity, but we are such a flawed species.. emotional and warlike... we would have to be genetically reprogrammed to be saved... I mean we'd need some serious Brave New World action to get us in line. But that's a joke, we don't need that - we all just need a good education and a fair social structure - easier said than done though.

As far as the scientific, philosophic and artistic achievements that arose within Islamic culture and have shaped world culture are concerned, in no way would I deny or diminish any of that. However, I'm not sure how it can proven that Islam, or religion in general, is the reason for these achievements.

Of course you're not sure how it can be proven - you haven't studied Islam or Islamic history whatsoever! I mean, every Islamic scholar knows without a doubt that Islam as a religion always stressed intellect and thus lead these Islamic scholars in the so-called 'Golden Age' to pursue these developments.

Whenever there is a great empire, great achievements are made... I would say the structure of the empire, which can house a significant intellectual class and give it time to develop, gives birth to these achievements... it's happened in other religious cultures, and in non-religious intellectual centers around the world - in fact most of the recent achievements, I would venture to say, have been the work of the non-religious.

LOL, most recent achievements have been the work of non-religious. And you base this on... absolutely nothing? Right.

I would say most wars are fought over territory, and the differences between the groups who want the territory are what enable the conflict, be they ethnic, social, political or religious differences, and often all of the above!

Suicide bombers are not religiously motivated? Maybe it can be proven that it's from feeling like being a caged animal by being held under occupation in your own country... is that your argument? Then I agree. In fact, I've been trying to convince my family that I'm not crazy for thinking that for years. However, the idea of a suicide attack does come from the religion, right? What groups other than Muslims has had suicide bombers? .... the Japanese Kamikazes is the only example I can think of, and they did it for religious reasons....... but they learned from it.

Hahahahahahahhahhaa, the idea of a suicide attack comes from religion? No reason to try to prove this, it's just fact, right?! hahaha, oh man, you really do have no idea what your'e talking about. Suicide is PROHIBITED in Islam. And what groups have suicide bombers other than Muslims? I'm not an expert in suicide attacks but I'm sure it has not been limited to Muslims.

Maybe if the Palestinians were to try Gandhi's approach of non-violence instead, they'd have more success, don't you think?

except that the Palestinians have been emulating a Gandhi approach of non-violence as a method of resistance but due to your lack of any knowledge regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the fact that it's likely limited to evenings watching CNN, you don't know anything about it.

___________ wrote:

You may cite the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again, incorrect. Zionist movement began secular and has remained so for decades, mostly up until now even. it was only very recently that the Zionists with more hardcore religious beliefs gained popularity. Same thing with the Palestinian resistance, but both movements are essentially secular.
While religious people, like any else, have done some ridiculously horrendous things and taken advantage of people's deeply held religious beliefs, it is illogical to say religion holds back humanity, especially without having first studied the religions carefully and comprehensively. and by study religion I don't just mean read a book on it. I mean read their holy books, study their history, art, poetry, scientific advancements, culture, literature, etc. If you don't have time to do it then that's perfectly fine, we don't all have the ability to specialize in everything. But then I believe I'm perfectly in my right to ask you to please shut the fuck up (not that you have to, you have the freedom to say as many things as you want, no matter how utterly wrong they are .)

Sure, Zionism is pretty secular, and I know all about Herzl and Ben Gurion, but the concept of Zion comes from no other place than the Bible... and that's why religious America got behind it. Without religion, there would be no Zionist movement, regardless of what the leaders believe or don't believe. Can you prove otherwise?

Not necessarily. Obviously I can't PROVE otherwise. The Zionist movement was simply searching for a home for Jews and there's the obvious case of considering places like Uganda as a home. Palestine was chosen in the end due to its significance to Jews, but it doesn't mean it necessarily so that without religion there would be no Zionist movement. The abuse of religion certainly contributed to it, but it's also noteworthy that some of the earliest opponents to Zionism WERE the religious Jews. Of course, this is worth ignoring, just like any example that makes religion look good. The only examples we're concerned about are those that demonize the ideology of any religion.
Also the fact that you're using religious America in this example shows just how bad your knowledge of this issue is. the religious evangelicals in America did not really play a role in advocating for Israel till recently, and CERTAINLY not in the past when the Zionists were still trying to create the state. Back then it was mostly countries like Britain and France who were helping Israel, largely due to Europeans wanting to get rid of the so-called 'Jewish problem.'

___________ wrote:

Additionally, this is just a last minor point, but over the past couple hundred years or so when secularism has become the preferred rule, we've had some of the worst historical injustices recorded in human history; from the Nazi Holocaust, to the Darfur Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, millions of Iraqis killed due to our policies and bombs, etc. And these were not over religion. So, what is it the common theme? Ruthless rulers taking advantage of anything they can, be it ethnicity, nationalism/fascism, communism, OR religion. or is it just that religion is to blame for everything? I guess that's a bit easier to do if you have a particular motive.

Religion played a role in all those conflicts... even if top Nazis including Hitler himself were atheists, they used religious rhetoric to pit the German Christians against the Jews. Darfur and Rwanda are basically about ethnicity, sure... but the American-UK-Australian-European bombing of Iraqi has a lot to do with religious differences, as well as racism.

You are not arguing the same thing here. You are trying to prove that religion is INHERENTLY wrong. If Hitler and Nazi leaders used religious rhetoric incorrectly to create strife, that's a separate argument. Religion, like EVERY OTHER IDEOLOGY, has been abused by leaders. it's funny, you lack so much information that you are losing track of what your argument even is. the point is you are singling out religion, as opposed to any other ideology, as holding back humanity. You have so far been very unsuccessful in proving this.

___________ wrote:

And there are in fact many Jews, Arabs, and people of all ethnic backgrounds who want to look to a future based on logic and understanding, but that's not what rules the world as of yet.

religion does not have to be counter to logic and understanding, and you're talking out of your ass. you preach the same intolerance you speak out against; inconsistency is a key factor is contributing to misunderstanding of either side and continued conflict.

I'm intolerant against ideas that make no sense... fine, you got me!

No, you're intolerant against ideas that make no sense TO YOU. If I think atheism or agnosticism or any other belief makes no sense to me, does that mean I should be intolerant against it? I assume you would say no. It's all about maintaining tolerance and respect for those of other beliefs. I will never condemn an ideology that I have not fully studied. you have not studied Islam, which is very apparent. Indeed, based on your posts I can tell you lack a general knowledge of a large chunk of history. So what gives anyone the right to condemn an ideology they do not understand? It's fine if you don't agree with it, we have that right. But if we are contributing to hatred and intolerance and disrespect then we are the ones who are holding back humanity - not some ideology. It's very easy to ascribe the problems of humanity to an ideology as opposed to people's actions and lack of action. but it's time to put this backward mentality behind us and start taking action to actually understand and respect eachother and our respective beliefs. if you cannot successfully prove anything otherwise of Islam, which I know you can't, then you need to stop spreading your intolerance and start maintaining your consistency. it's funny that two pages into this thread I'm still trying to explain to you the first post of it.

___________ wrote:

To make sure this is clear... though I don't have any respect for old baseless beliefs systems, I really do my best to respect people no matter what they believe in. If people hate people just people they hold a belief, that's wrong, but they shouldn't feel like they have to pander to them. I think it's perfectly logical to fear a religion that becomes political, and Islam has always been political.

I'm not convinced that you know a thing about Islam or 'political' Islam. I mean just the fact that you say that Islam has always been political without citing anything is proof of it. What of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have normal jobs and live normal, apolitical lives? Are they just not religious? Are they bad Muslims? What of them? Or should we conveniently ignore them to suit the purpose of our argument. And no one is asking that people pander to others' beliefs, they are asked to respect them. Being Muslim is just as strong an identity to Muslims as their ethnicity, race, etc. If we are asked to respect people's nationalities, ethnicities, race, and any other identity, we should respect their religious identity as well. And if one person uses their identity to further a cause in that person's beliefs, we are always respectful of it so long as it does not hurt anyone else.

but you were just talking about all the islamic political parties... and i'm not saying every muslim gets involved with the politics of their land, or live political lives, but the politics of Islam dictates how they live... aren't the laws in muslim countries generally based on Islam... aren't there many Islamic Republics? Christian states are a thing of the past, but Islam is still very political. correct me if I'm wrong, fine, but it's kinda silly for you to keep calling me ignorant.

It's not silly for me to call you ignorant, you are. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of a topic, we all are guilty of that, but there is something wrong with trying to make arguments when we don't know what we're talking about.
I was talking about Islamic political parties. You said Islam is inherently political. The fact that you are confused of this difference again shows your lack of knowledge of Islam. Islam has elements of politics, but they are not the basis of the religion and are not necessary in adherence to the religion.
'the politics of Islam dictates how [muslims] live' -- care to explain?
as for laws based on islam, it would take a book to explain islamic law to you. i'm not going to try to sit here and explain it to you, but what i do know is this: if people want an islamic state, then they have the democratic right to incorporate it however they choose so long as the people are protected. are some states oppressive in this? yes. saudi arabia is a perfect example, a country our govt helps protect and make sure it's still around to continue its oppression. but no rational person would equivocate saudi arabia's enforcement of so-called 'islamic law' as actually islamic. so to condemn saudi arabia is separate from condemning islam (similar to how condemning israel is separate from condemning judaism). mixing the two is wrong in any scenario.

___________ wrote:

Europe should stand up for the way of the life that they've achieved in the aftermath of their own superstitious tyranny and warfare. They should absolutely ban the wearing of burqas and things of that nature.

are you trying to argue that superstitious tyranny and warfare ended when secularism was introduced into Europe? So you don't think the targeting of Jews was based on any superstition? Was it based on fact then? and what special way of life has Europe achieved? Europe has a shit load of problems now, just as it did back then. Banning burqa or anything else is just stupid. It does not make a free society, it makes one that imposes secularism, which is a belief just as strong as any religious or philosophical or nationalist or whatever belief, which is wrong. If you don't think religion should mix with politics, fine. But to argue that religious people have no right to display their religious beliefs in public, be it through wearing a burqa, praying freely outside in the street, or building a mosque with minarets is just as intolerant as any religious society forcing people to conform to their religious beliefs and norms. And it's as simple as that. A free society means actual freedom, not imposed freedom on your own terms.

I'm of two minds here, because I do think people should have the freedom to believe what they want and practice any religion they want so long as it doesnt affect others' freedoms. but... I think religion has a profoundly negative effect on the minds of children. so part of me thinks adults can believe what they want but parents shouldnt be allowed to fill their childrens' heads with bullshit. but, holy shit, how can that really be enforced? and there's plenty of bullshit out there that has nothing to do with religion. so maybe if we keep speaking against religion, it will eventually die off... maybe that's the best way to kill it. but i seriously would have loved it if the government had banned my parents' church. :twisted: :twisted:

you're being unrealistic and are preaching the same intolerance as those of the extreme religious side. there's no threat against those who don't believe in religion and there is no threat against those who do believe in religion unless we subscribe to these intolerant beliefs. we can all take the best out of eachother's beliefs but that's only if we are respectful and understanding. otherwise, you yourself would only be contributing to holding back humanity, and by accusing religion of doing that you'd be nothing but a hypocrite.

but at least my church was at its worst a shitty way to spend a sunday morning (and wednesday evenings at youth group). the practice of having women wear burqas... that's just fundamentally sick. shame on anyone who promotes or even tolerates that. some religious practices just deserve to have big brother crack down on them. and what about genital mutilation? what culture produced that? what about men walking the streets whipping knives tied onto ropes at their own backs? without faith in a silly book and a ludicrous notion of a supreme being, would people do any of that?

I don't know if people would do that, this is a useless hypothetical scenario. I do know that female genital mutilation IS a cultural practice and not religious. It has been condemned by an overwhelming amount of religious leaders, but why should we let a silly fact like that get in the way of our hate-filled speech? and what do you know of women who wear burqas? If they want to wear it, is it ok? Or do they just not know what's best for them?

I hope maybe I made my points clear, and I'm trying to be polite. If I went to public square in a muslim country and said all of this... how polite would they be to me?

'they' - yes, 'the Muslims', who are nothing but an uncivilized, angry mob.

Electric_Delta

Time will prove several of your points wrong, I believe.

kenny olav

Hey there ___________,

Sorry for taking 11 days to respond... I probably shouldn't post such long comments on this board, because I never find the time to properly respond to the inevitable long responses. But Sunday morning is a good day for me to respond since I don't waste any time at a church or any other religious center :thumbup:

I hope to reply to all of your points, but I will also attempt to summarize them in one response that is not too long. It sounds like you may be thinking you were wasting your time by responding to me, so I offer to make the end of this debate easier for both us. I doubt that will pan out though...

The first thing I want to say is I that have been agonizing over my use of the language "you Muslims" ever since I posted it... in fact I wrestled with it a good deal before finally deciding to post it. I regret that not, because I know how "you people" has an implication of devaluing your individuality. That's not for me to do... that's what religion does. Because please believe me, I understand that not every Muslim is the same person... any more than every Christian would be the same person. My understanding of human nature tells me that. But of course there are many things that make all Muslims alike. So to criticize Muslims as a whole group can be instructive, and not dismissive of the wide range of attitudes and ideas within the Muslim community, when the criticism is an attack at the very heart of the religion - the belief in the core tenets of Islam, which all Muslims must claim ownership of if there are to rightly be called Muslims. A Muslim cannot disregard anything in the Koran if it believed to be the word of Allah. I admit I have not read the Koran, and I ought to... I want to understand it better. But I know that there is no Allah and that Islam is fundamentally like other religions. It was used to unify a fledgling empire, and to justify the expansion of the empire, just as Christianity has been used, and to do it by the sword whenever it was felt to be expedient. And like Christianity, it drew many concepts from the prevailing myths of the day, including of course the Jewish and Christian myths.

Within Islamic culture, there may exist heinous groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but the Crusades were among the most disgusting events in human history. Muslims were attacked and killed without warrant, as were the many Jews who were slaughtered in Europe along the path to Palestine. The Church purposefully recruited the barbarians who had been warring with each other across northern Europe as its warriors for Christ. The Crusaders were so savage that they also destroyed Christian cities in Eastern Europe and Turkey on their way to Jerusalem... and when they got there, they killed every man woman and child they could find - Muslim, Jew and Christian. Whereas Saladin was a noble and wise leader, and a heroic defender of civilization. It sickens me that the Crusades haven't ended yet. The West still thinks the Levant belongs to them. There would be no cause for any Muslim to turn to terrorism if our leaders and their flocks in the West had just the place alone and moved on.

"Suicide is prohibited" in Islam, you said. Yes, I have heard that, and I am sure it is the prevailing belief among Muslims. But obviously there are many people, mostly men, who have considered themselves devout Mulsims that have found an exception to this rule. It's also obvious that suicide bombers and their supporters are a small minority of people who claim to be Muslims... However, they were all brought up to be Muslims... which means they were all taught as children to abandon their natural reason in favor of adhering to ancient texts written by people at war and who unified as soldiers building an Islamic nation. This is not to characterize the earliest Muslims as nothing more than bloodthirsty barbarians, because every great culture has its barbarians and knows how to use them. They were no better than the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Crusaders, Soviets, Maoists or than the British and American imperialists are today. All of these great cultures have had positive aspects, or else they wouldn't have held together when there was no bloodshed. But the cycle of war and peace will continue until we stop teaching our children to blindly believe in Jesus, Allah, Stalin, Mao, whatever...

North Korea is often thought of an being an atheist country, but it is really one of the most religious. Kim Il-sung, the deceased father of Kim Jong-il, is officially the Eternal President of the Republic. No one can ever be the official President again. No one can ever question his authority. He is essentially the God of North Korea. The state he established is thought to be eternal, just as Christians believe their religion - their adherence to Christ's example - to be eternal, just as Muslims believe Allah is eternal and they shall eternally submit to him in this life as well as the next. The belief in an eternal Figurehead who cannot be questioned is the common thread here, and it's a huge problem for all of human society. It is shameful and wicked. It prays upon the naivety of youth, and the desire of children to understand what is right and what is wrong.... but despite getting some of the questions right, it is all taught with a spoonful of sugary lies, and undermine the validity of its good morality. Therefore, the propagation of religion to children must be considered criminal behavior. Teach the children the truth - and nothing more. I have not brainwashed my daughter, like you claim. I simply don't teach her anything unless I have a reason to believe it is true, and her mother is on the same page.

In 1057, the Syrian philosopher and poet Abul ʿAla Al-Maʿarri wrote: "The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: Those with brains, but no religion, And those with religion, but no brains." This was a response to the Crusades, but certainly wasn't directed at the Crusaders only. I don't know if he meant that some people are just too dumb to not be religious, and I don't think he did. I think he meant that some people are not taught to use their brains. I know that there are many people who are very intelligent but still hold religious beliefs, and I'm still struggling to fully understand that. I suppose it's because we are all concerned about what happens to us after death, and we don't want eliminate the comforting answer we were given as children, or maybe they can't eliminate the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation that was instilled in them... or maybe it's just the fear of being socially ostracized, and it's just a desire to go with flow. Most Christians I know are the go-with-the-flow kind, and don't become "Jesus freaks". In Massachusetts, we are generally relaxed about religion. I would say at least a third of us are actually irreligious. And I think it's easily provable that we are better off as a society because of all this. It's the most religious states that lag behind in many ways, and who hold the entire country back.

I think there are other points I wanted to make, but I've gone on long enough. I invite you to research people who are against religion, particularly former Muslims, to listen to what they have to say - there are a lot of speeches against religion on YouTube.

Even though most Islamophobes are probably racist, please don't equate my rational fear of Islam with racism... that's all I really wanted to say when I posted that day. I marched with thousands of people in the streets of Boston twice before the Iraq War started, to protest that war, which couldn't have been fought without the prevalence of bigotry toward Muslims in America, and American ignorance of Arab culture and of the complex nature of the Middle East in general. I completely recognize the humanity in Muslims, and that is the biggest reason why I want them to come out from under the spell Mohammad and his men cast on them so many years ago.

he still stands

I didn't think I'd make it more than two or three sentences, but damn... very good post.