[OAW]

Not that I'm agreeing that "the only religion of peace is Buddhism" ... but are these reports indicative of Buddhists "arming themselves" to go after Muslims because they are non-Buddhists ... or because Buddhists were defending themselves from ongoing attacks?

OAW

PS: Also, the report actually said that both Buddhists and Muslims were arming themselves to defend themselves against Islamic extremists which are attempting to stoke sectarian conflict.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sorry to bust your balloon, but there are reports of Buddhists arming themselves in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia against Muslim insurgents
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Thailand's shadowy southern insurgency

Nothing wrong with self-defense.
Self defense doesn't go against Buddhism.
After-all, those Buddhist Shaolin monk knows kung-fu.

Unless you believe a person can't be peaceful if they defend their own lives.

[Big Mac]

I didn't know leftists recognized an individual right to self-defense. But being that you do, you should at least count Judaism as a religion of peace along with Buddhism.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't know leftists recognized an individual right to self-defense. But being that you do, you should at least count Judaism as a religion of peace along with Buddhism.

I kept hearing about these mythical "leftists".

Are they like unicorns?

[Big Mac]

You don't think you're a leftist, that you're left of center? I'm a rightist.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't know leftists recognized an individual right to self-defense. But being that you do, you should at least count Judaism as a religion of peace along with Buddhism.

I'd agree. Towards everyone except the Canaanites of course. That whole "chosen people", "Promised Land" thing is real convenient. Especially when the Hebrews did the choosing and the promising in their own holy books.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You don't think you're a leftist, that you're left of center? I'm a rightist.

What's a rightist?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's a rightist?

rightist - a person who supports the political views or policies of the right (from Mac inline dictionary)

Anyway, anyone opposing my view have a chance to take a look at the documentary I pointed to yet?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

rightist - a person who supports the political views or policies of the right (from Mac inline dictionary)

Anyway, anyone opposing my view have a chance to take a look at the documentary I pointed to yet?

Oh. I thought it was something like arth-ritis. A chronic debilitating disease that general affect older people.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The reason countries with Christian origins have grown (which is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development) is that they have moved away from religion as a way to order society, a process which started in the late 18th, early 19th century. This is what is still lacking in most Islamic countries. It's not Islam, it's the focus on religion. Ever since the age of enlightenment, Western nation flourished scientifically, economically and politically. If history had taken a different course, we could have been to the moon a thousand years ago.

But in fact we haven't moved away from our Christian origins. We still uphold laws that are basically based on the commandments : killing coveting etc.

I'll get the title from my mother in-law of a book describing the impact of Jesus on laws and traditions in what we here would probably classify as 'The Western World'. Not sure if there's an English version. Its not a religious book.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

But in fact we haven't moved away from our Christian origins. We still uphold laws that are basically based on the commandments : killing coveting etc.

And let's not forget that the country with "the mother of parliaments" is still, organisationally speaking, a Christian country.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

But in fact we haven't moved away from our Christian origins. We still uphold laws that are basically based on the commandments : killing coveting etc.

You could just as well say it's based on Buddhism or Hinduism or Satanism, because pretty much every religion forbids murder. And what countries forbid coveting? Even hardcore Christian regimes have tended to let that commandment slide on the legal front.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

But in fact we haven't moved away from our Christian origins. We still uphold laws that are basically based on the commandments : killing coveting etc.

Besides stoning people to death?

I guess in Islam, they still stone people to death.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Death by Stoning: the Bible vs the Quran

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Besides stoning people to death?

I thought Matty was talking about Christianity, not ancient Judaism.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Besides stoning people to death?

I guess in Islam, they still stone people to death.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Death by Stoning: the Bible vs the Quran

Now days they are running their daughters over with their cars, or taking them for cab rides and shooting them for being "too western"
Police: Father Allegedly Ran Daughter Down
Cab driver sought in death of two daughters in Irving

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I thought Matty was talking about Christianity, not ancient Judaism.

I thought he was talking about Christian origins, not modern day Christianity.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I kept hearing about these mythical "leftists".

Are they like unicorns?

Yes, but less smart, and more annoying, and much more real.

But hey, I'm not telling you anything new; I'm sure you're proud to be one of them.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but less smart, and more annoying, and much more real.

But hey, I'm not telling you anything new; I'm sure you're proud to be one of them.

-t

A leftist or a unicorn?

Guess I found someone who believes in unicorns.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

A leftist or a unicorn?

Guess I found someone who believes in unicorns.

Well, you corn-y, I give you that. But unisuck would probably be more fitting.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Moonbat is the correct term.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

But in fact we haven't moved away from our Christian origins. We still uphold laws that are basically based on the commandments : killing coveting etc.

These aren't really Christian, but universal and based on common sense. You should be honest and try to avoid killing people. There are a few things that are peculiar to Christianity, but this isn't one of them.

Just look at the history: Europe took off when laws were no longer based on some interpretation of the Bible. When even monarchs needed laws to get things done. I'm not denying that this had grown from Christian origins and one could make an argument that this was due to some special trait of Christianity, but the fact remains that it was a movement away from church, religious tenets to modern science, modern forms of government and such. The Church fought tooth and nails at the time, though, it was not a change they have embraced. However, I think we can credit Christian churches (in Europe Protestants in particular) to incorporate these new ideas into their own philosophy. This is really a change for the better and something Christians can be proud of, because they have adapted their faith to modern times. Most Islamic countries haven't really done that -- to their own detriment.

If you look at it historically, there were periods when the European culture was, well, somewhat primitive compared to others in Asia, the Americas or the Orient. In medieval times, the best doctors and mathematicians were in the Orient. The Mayans had a much more sophisticated calendar than we did. Japan's society was much, much more literate than Europe's. And so on. But this turned because science and modern forms of state and society were embraced, the old order replaced.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'll get the title from my mother in-law of a book describing the impact of Jesus on laws and traditions in what we here would probably classify as 'The Western World'. Not sure if there's an English version. Its not a religious book.

I'd be interested.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And let's not forget that the country with "the mother of parliaments" is still, organisationally speaking, a Christian country.

You mean ancient Greece?

[Taliesin]

Islam is neither a religion of peace nor of war.

Islam is a religious framework created by humans using the divinely revealed Quran and the humanly recorded/transmitted hadiths, as well as the human decisions based on both by the four (five if one accepts shia-school as well) great scholars and their pupils.

Because the construct is 2/3 human and 1/3 divinely revealed it is not perfect, just like Judaism and christianity are for the very same reasons not perfect.

In fact the Quran itself warned of the corruption by the human side of the construction of religions as exemplified by the former religions.

Islam usually thinks because of these warnings it were better prepared to prevent corruption, but while the immunisation worked in some areas, in others it fell into the same trap.

And yet religion can't do without the human side, the divine revelation was perfect for the time, place and people it was revealed to, the human side is needed to adapt this message to different times, places and people.

The mistake Islam made was to take one such human adapation made during the middle-ages and to declare that as eternally perfect and to freeze it down, basically declaring it to be of deified nature.

But it was the lively and energetic process of finding that adaption that made the islamic world back then the leading culture, economically, scientifically and culturally.

The freezing down in time led centuries later when people, times and places changed to a stalled society in which the energy to develop was hindered forcing the own intellectuals to leave for other cultures or to become resignative.

The energy to change for the better, the socalled jihad, was killed, first the inward one and eventually the outward as well, for where there are no inward dynamics that convince others to join there can't be an outward expansion, except through the force of will over another, through despotism, which can only last for a short while.

Because of this the islamic world by and large became apathic and formulatic while the western world decided to change and even separated state and religion in order not to hinder the adaptability, using knowledge from all cultures espescially from the golden age of Islam to ignite its own rebirth.

Once it developed a selfinducing dynamic the west started to become expansive, conquering, taming and integrating/assimilating other cultures, whose elites were convinced to join. The driving force was not religion but market, capitalism, enlightenment..

But the islamic world is on the way to change, to break the shackles of orthodoxy that kept it from adapting, it started in the 19th century when some intellectuals came to the conclusion that merely copying the west, ie. merely mimicking capitalism and democracy and secularism, would not be enough, that it is in fact not desirable as it led to spiritual emptiness and moral bankruptcy in the western world, that they needed to develop and enfree the own roots and going from there to discover their own dynamics and future that is sustainable. This movement has become known and feared as islamism.

The muslim brotherhood, the Hamas, the revolutionaries in Iran and even Al-Qaeeda are the most known examples among the islamistic movements, crude, violent as their starting-point are the roots even before the middle-ages awakening to a modern world, trying to make it their own, and highly adaptive and dynamic.
They have developed an intellectual and original dynamic that inspires people to fight and die for.

That doesn't mean that what they do and think is right and just, it can be all wrong and is often, but nonetheless it is the homegrown dynamic intellectual movement that will eventually in a few decades, centuries bring the islamic world forward into the modern world.

Along the way they will commit a lot of sins and crimes, just like the western world did during its transformation, for becoming ripe adults, children need to do their own mistakes to learn from.

Taliesin

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't know leftists recognized an individual right to self-defense. But being that you do, you should at least count Judaism as a religion of peace along with Buddhism.

Moses' father-in-law and his entire tribe of Midianites are rolling in their unmarked mass graves.

[mattyb]

I'm about an hour through that documentary Big Mac. Very interesting.

Still I haven't seen any mention of probably the most renowned Islamist in the world today : Bernard Lewis.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I thought Matty was talking about Christianity, not ancient Judaism.

And even in the era of the Biblical states of Israel, capital punishment was exceedingly rare. A court that put a single person to death in a 70 year period was referred to as a "bloody court." The capital punishment prescribed in the Torah are for the purpose of making people realize the seriousness of their transgressions and for instructing them on the proper mode of atonement.

[Hawkeye_a]

OreoCookie,
I see your point about Christianity. And how when the separation between Church and State (could have) fostered a generally better Christendom (Nazi Germany being one of the exceptions that come to mind).
But like i said despite Christianiy's violent past(emphasis on Past)...the ability for it to 'grow up' due to any factors(internal or external) is note worthy imo.

Besides that, of the other major world relisions, i think there is a clear distinction/divide now between:
- which ones are peace oriented and which ones are war oriented
- which ones are tolerant and which ones are not
- which ones promote/preach equality and which ones dont
- which ones are willing to 'grow up' and evolve and realize that we're not a barbaric society anymore and which ones are not willing to change

While most modern day societies and discoveries cannot be attributed to any religion, i think it's the religion that shapes and fosters the morals of man, and the fruits of those lessons learned are seen in the accomplishments of those men. (The U.S. constitution was written by men, specifically Christians, which the rest of the modern world(which can be identified as mostly Christian imo) have adopted.) The results of men of other faits around the world can be compared if you like. You say religion has nothing to do with it...i say it has more to do with it than you think as the basics of human interaction are what religion is all about, and you can see it in the laws of different nations around the world, and that basis is the foundation of societies and their potential.

As far as Islam being a religion of peace or not. i have not voted, because i am uncertain. It is, imo, in the year 2009, a lot more confrontational in it's wording and interpretations when compared to most other major world religions.

Some might consider this thread a black/white kind of an issue. i think it's a very relative question..... and relative to other major world religions, Islam seems to be a lot more violent in it's 'implementation' today than the others, both internally(within it's communities) and externally (when interacting with non muslims).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The U.S. constitution was written by men, specifically Christians, which the rest of the modern world(which can be identified as mostly Christian imo) have adopted.)

The rest of the English-speaking world doesn't have a constitutional separation of church and state, and most certainly hasn't adopted the US Constitution.

[Big Mac]

I think Hawkeye meant that the US Constitution has been the basis for modern liberal democracies around the world, although that isn't the easiest claim to defend. Also, scholars will contend that many of the founders were deists.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'm about an hour through that documentary Big Mac. Very interesting. Still I haven't seen any mention of probably the most renowned Islamist in the world today : Bernard Lewis.

I'm really glad someone is watching it! I knew a good amount of that content previously, but there was also a lot of detail that I learned, and the presentation is terrifically compelling.

As for Lewis, I don't understand why you would call him an Islamist. Could you fill me in?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for Lewis, I don't understand why you would call him an Islamist. Could you fill me in?

I can only suggest reading his books as well as reading about the man himself. His Ph.D. was on the History of Islam.

From here.

NOTE : I am using the term Islamist as someone who knows alot about Islam, not someone who practices Islam.

[OreoCookie]

@mattyb
Was that the author of the book you were talking about earlier?

Not to be nitpicky, but someone who practices Islam is a muslim.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@mattyb Was that the author of the book you were talking about earlier?

No.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Not to be nitpicky, but someone who practices Islam is a muslim.

I haven't said otherwise. I described Bernard Lewis as an Islamist, because he knows alot about Islam.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I haven't said otherwise. I described Bernard Lewis as an Islamist, because he knows alot about Islam.

Oh, I wasn't familiar with that usage of the term. The definition I use can be found at Wiktionary: "A person who espouses Islamic fundamentalist beliefs; A Muslim, particularly an orthodox Muslim."

Your definition is listed after those. Hence the confusion. I thought that may have been the definition you were using based on the context, but that was the first time I had ever heard Islamist used in that fashion.

Who else watched the documentary? Thoughts?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think Hawkeye meant that the US Constitution has been the basis for modern liberal democracies around the world, although that isn't the easiest claim to defend. Also, scholars will contend that many of the founders were deists.

Yup thats what i meant. sortof like an example/framework of a generally better form of governance when compared to what haad existed. Of course most countries that followed had their own variations.

And yup, they were definitely Deists, which had that quality instilled from...well the Bible mostly, i guess. I'm not saying that everything those men did were perfect, there could be something better possible.... but right now, imo it's the best form. And many of their values that went into the constitution had to come from upbringing,etc..... of which i assume religion(Christianity in this case) played some part. That in turn lead to all the other advances that were possible after that foundation was laid.

[Big Mac]

I definitely think there were far more Christians than any other group among the founders, but to say they were all Christians is not true either. And I agree with you that the Constitution is great - in my mind it is the most perfect single document ever drafted by human beings.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I definitely think there were far more Christians than any other group among the founders, but to say they were all Christians is not true either.

I agree, i over generalized there. But i guess you guys understand what i mean?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, I wasn't familiar with that usage of the term. The definition I use can be found at Wiktionary: "A person who espouses Islamic fundamentalist beliefs; A Muslim, particularly an orthodox Muslim."

Your definition is listed after those. Hence the confusion. I thought that may have been the definition you were using based on the context, but that was the first time I had ever heard Islamist used in that fashion.

Who else watched the documentary? Thoughts?

I think that Islamist might be used more in the way I used it by Brits in particular.

The book that I was talking about before is called Le Christ philosophe by Frédéric Lenoir. I haven't found it in English.

[OreoCookie]

@Hawkeye
Thanks for your interesting response.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

OreoCookie,
I see your point about Christianity. And how when the separation between Church and State (could have) fostered a generally better Christendom (Nazi Germany being one of the exceptions that come to mind).

A better separation between church and state is not a guarantee that a state will be more just or more stable, but historically speaking, the most stable modern state have some form of democracy and a well-developed secularization. (Even though there are attempts to make the word `secular progressive' into something negative, the Founding Fathers all were secular progressives. Secular just doesn't mean non-religious or even anti-religious.)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

- which ones are peace oriented and which ones are war oriented

Well, if you compare societies as a whole, there are plenty of rather violent predominantly Christian countries (e. g. Mexico or the US, if you look at the murder rates). Of course, in most cases, violence is nowhere near the levels of, say, Afghanistan or the bordering regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in my opinion, you cannot make the clear and simple distinction between `peace oriented' and `war oriented.' That's a black-and-white distinction which has little bearing in reality. Sort of like the War Against Terror: it distracted people from the phletora of very different conflicts going on at the same time that all use terror. Rather than saying `religion A is a religion of peace while religion B is a religion of war,' you should mention specific regions and conflicts.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

- which ones are tolerant and which ones are not
- which ones promote/preach equality and which ones dont

Again, I think those two are extricably linked to a secularization of society. All Abrahamic religions are patriarchic, i. e. male dominated. Even during my parents' time, things were very different. (Come to think of it, my grandmother doesn't have a driver's license, because my grandfather believes women can't drive.)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

- which ones are willing to 'grow up' and evolve and realize that we're not a barbaric society anymore and which ones are not willing to change

That's a tough one: don't you think you can only judge that after the fact?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

While most modern day societies and discoveries cannot be attributed to any religion, i think it's the religion that shapes and fosters the morals of man, and the fruits of those lessons learned are seen in the accomplishments of those men.

That's correct, religion shapes culture, even if people are no longer religious.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The U.S. constitution was written by men, specifically Christians, which the rest of the modern world(which can be identified as mostly Christian imo) have adopted.

The US Constitution laid the foundation for a secular country: people should be allowed to worship a religion of their own choosing. Many of the Founding Fathers (although to my knowledge not all) were Christians, yes, but that doesn't mean the key ingredient in the US Constitution was Christianity. I think it's rather the traumatic experience of religious prosecution than anything else.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Hawkeye
The US Constitution laid the foundation for a secular country: people should be allowed to worship a religion of their own choosing. Many of the Founding Fathers (although to my knowledge not all) were Christians, yes, but that doesn't mean the key ingredient in the US Constitution was Christianity. I think it's rather the traumatic experience of religious prosecution than anything else.

How does that square with The Declaration of Independence, which cites natural law, G*d, and a creator?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. .

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo

How does that square with The Declaration of Independence, which cites natural law, God, and a creator?

It's simple: if you have a look at the Article VI of the Constitution (no religious test) as well as the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, you see that secularization is written into the foundation of the US Constitution. They saw a secular state as a way to practice their rather diverse flavors of Christianity without fearing interference from the (local) majority. So again, most of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but they were also secularists. And the reason for the good foundation of the United States was that it is a secular state and not that it was founded mostly by `Christians.'

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's simple: if you have a look at the Article VI of the Constitution (no religious test) as well as the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, you see that secularization is written into the foundation of the US Constitution. They saw a secular state as a way to practice their rather diverse flavors of Christianity without fearing interference from the (local) majority. So again, most of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but they were also secularists. And the reason for the good foundation of the United States was that it is a secular state and not that it was founded mostly by `Christians.'

The author of this book would disagree. It was published in the early 1800's. Christian life and character of the ... - Google Books

AKA the book the ACLU doesn't want you to know about.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The author of this book would disagree. It was published in the aerly 1800's. Christian life and character of the ... - Google Books
[snip ginormous image]
AKA the book the ACLU doesn't want you to know about.

Oh, so if there's an old book claiming something obviously contrary to reality, it must be true? I haven't read this book, but if it's claiming that our nation isn't meant to be secular, he's contradicting a whole constitutional amendment. One of the big ones, actually. If he's just observing that there are a lot of Christians in the US and that their thinking has influenced things, then I'd agree with that, but it's hardly as scandalous as you're making it out to be.

1. You're about 60 years off.

2. Jefferson > Benjamin F. Morris

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, so if there's an old book claiming something obviously contrary to reality, it must be true? I haven't read this book, but if it's claiming that our nation isn't meant to be secular, he's contradicting a whole constitutional amendment. One of the big ones, actually. If he's just observing that there are a lot of Christians in the US and that their thinking has influenced things, then I'd agree with that, but it's hardly as scandalous as you're making it out to be.

1. You're about 60 years off.

2. Jefferson > Benjamin F. Morris

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was taught, in a public school (Madison #2) that at that time, religion=denomination., and that the founders did not want a national church, but states were free to do so if they wished.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States of America

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the US Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary US politics.

All current U.S. state constitutions include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment, but eight (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[3][4] However, these clauses have been held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

Once again the court muddies up something

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I was taught, in a public school (Madison #2) that at that time, religion=denomination., and that the founders did not want a national church, but states were free to do so if they wished.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're talking about the Constitution of the United States, not the constitution of some of the states. And to quote some old book (or mention the ACLU) to make a point that takes some unorthodox position doesn't help you either. The Founders weren't just opposed to a state church, but to government interference when it comes to practicing their religion.

Secular is not a derogatory word, it's the foundation on which the United States is built upon.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is Islam truly a religion of peace as the leaders of the Western world want their countries to believe?

I want to see the point debated, and then I'll link to an incredibly powerful documentary on the subject.

Note: As a religious Jew I am taught to believe that there are many paths to G-d, and as one of the world's great monotheistic faiths Islam is a valid path for the non-Jew. My belief is that Islam is a tool used by Heaven to spread a substantial amount of Torah truth to the non-Jewish world. (I have to also admit to my Christian friends that my belief also applies to Christianity.) With that said, I know that Islam is inherently a violent religion that seeks to bring the world to unified adherence to its doctrine through any means necessary including barbaric violence.

Did you know Steve Job's real father was a Syrian Muslim? That's a little known fact...

anyway, back to your regularly scheduled never ending debates..

but I agree with you btw.. except the last part.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by UnixMac 

Did you know Steve Job's real father was a Syrian Muslim? That's a little known fact...

anyway, back to your regularly scheduled never ending debates..

but I agree with you btw.. except the last part.

Yes, I was aware that Steve Jobs' biological father was an Arab. I didn't know he was specifically a Syrian Muslim. Anyone know his name?

If you disagree with the last part of that paragraph, I'd love to hear your thoughts concerning the documentary I linked to.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yes, I was aware that Steve Jobs' biological father was an Arab. I didn't know he was specifically a Syrian Muslim. Anyone know his name?

If you disagree with the last part of that paragraph, I'd love to hear your thoughts concerning the documentary I linked to.

Radical Islam is going thru a phase that the Christian faith (of which I am a Roman Catholic) went thru during the dark ages.. Most of Islam (Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, etc..) is more or less peaceful.. The fact that they're conservative is not to be equated with being radical... Judaism is in some ways going thru it's own radical phase now with those who (and not all Jews subscribe to this I know) believe every drop of dirt in modern day "Israel" belongs to the Jews.. However, I'm sure if someone did DNA tests and we had the DNA of the original tribes, we'd find that more of the local "Arab" population, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim has more in common with the original Jews than the modern day Ashkenazi jew.

I just hate blanket statements like.... "All Muslims are radical" or "Islam is a religion of violence" ... it's no different than "All Jews are cheap" or "Jews own the banking industry", both of which I hear often and few people would claim were fair statements to make.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by UnixMac 

Radical Islam is going thru a phase that the Christian faith (of which I am a Roman Catholic) went thru during the dark ages..

Are you entirely sure it's not going in the opposite direction to the one you're claiming - that they're becoming more radicalized rather than less? I'd like to believe in your point of view, but it's clear that the "radicals" are in the driver's seat of the Islamic religion. And really it's natural that they are because of the violence found in Islam. Did you watch the documentary? If you did I think you'd understand the point I'm making.

Most of Islam (Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, etc..) is more or less peaceful.. The fact that they're conservative is not to be equated with being radical...

Uh huh. Turkey has become increasingly radicalized in the last decade, while the political elite works to keep the state largely secular. Much the same can be said for Malaysia - a moderate political elite faced with the growth of Muslim terrorist network Jemaah Islamiyah. Egypt is on the verge of becoming a terrorist state with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood there - which was the original modern Islamic terrorist group.

Judaism is in some ways going thru it's own radical phase now with those who (and not all Jews subscribe to this I know) believe every drop of dirt in modern day "Israel" belongs to the Jews..

That's significantly true concerning the view of religious Jews - the land belongs to G-d, and G-d gave as an eternal possession of the Jewish people. When we obey we get rewarded with sovereignty over the land; when we disobey we get punished in various ways, including exile. But the promise and convenant is eternal. For its part even Islam used to verify that truth. Look at Koran, chapter 17 (Al-Isra), verse 104:
"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning (of the End of Days) will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd." But it seems that Islamic theology discounts that as being part of the "abrogated" verses, theology that the Islamic deity apparently changed his mind on.

However, I'm sure if someone did DNA tests and we had the DNA of the original tribes, we'd find that more of the local "Arab" population, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim has more in common with the original Jews than the modern day Ashkenazi jew.

Wow. Well, thank you for being honest about your hatred because that's a particularly potent piece of Jew-hatred you're espousing. I suppose you buy into the Khazar Myth, which the article I link to calls the "New Anti-Semitism." That theory was once popular among some scholars but has been debunked. And the historical record shows that the Khazars converted to Christianity. Essentially only Jew-haters (like the Nazi site stormfront.org) cling to that belief in order to support their Jew-hating conspiracies and in their attempt to delegitimize Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel. That argument has actually been made for many years by Jew-haters, but it has been invalidated by modern genetic science. See Khazars - Wikipedia, a quality article on the subject.

Anyway, was that despicably offensive slight against me and my people just a guess on your part? Have you actually looked at the science? Perhaps these quotations from a recent scholarly publication will interest you:

Originally Posted by DNA Origins Paper

While there is some disagreement, a composite of estimates suggests that today about
70% of Jewish men throughout the world, both Sephardim-Mizrahim and Ashkenazim, still have a Middle-Eastern DNA pattern on the male line despite two thousand years or more in the diaspora, indicating less than one half of one percent of change per generation for about sixty or more generations.

70% of Jewish men, including Ashkenazi Jews, have a Middle East DNA pattern. So your claim was most definitely wrong. Interesting.

They found the “Cohen Gene,” considered the most definitive Jewish genetic pattern, in 10.1% of Kurdish Jewish males, 7.6% of Ashkenazi males, and 6.4% of Sephardi males.

So in truth, according to the science, there's a greater proportion of Ashkenazi Jews with the shared Cohen genetic marker than Sephardic Jews, which flies in the face of what you were apparently asserting, which was a claim about me being less Jewish or having less of a claim to my homeland because of my particular Jewish ethnicity.

Even if one were to take for granted your false claim that Ashkenazi Jews are fake Jews genetically who did not originally come from the Land of Israel, what exactly is your point? Judaism accepts sincere converts as if they were always Jews, and it is a serious sin to shame them for not being natural born Jews. Righteous converts are said to have always possessed a Jewish soul. A new convert to Judaism today whose lineage had nothing to do with Judaism has just as much religious claim to the possession of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as their most direct genetic ancestor from the standpoint of the Torah and the rest of Jewish law. The funny thing is, Islam considers a convert to Islam to be a full Muslim like any other Muslim, but they conveniently don't see the hypocrisy in denying the ability of Judaism to recognize that converts are fully Jewish like any other Jew.

I just hate blanket statements like.... "All Muslims are radical" or "Islam is a religion of violence" ... it's no different than "All Jews are cheap" or "Jews own the banking industry", both of which I hear often and few people would claim were fair statements to make.

The core of Islam is inherently violent, I'm sorry to say. And by the core, I mean the theology of the latter verses that abrogate the peaceful early parts of the Koran (as seen in the documentary). If you watched the documentary I linked to perhaps you'd begin to realize the unfortunate reality of the situation. But it sounds like you're prejudiced in favor of the anti-Jewish, pro-Islamic position, so I won't hold my breath that you're going to rethink any of your views in the face of the evidence.

[Chuckit]

Islam actually used to be at the forefront of culture and science — I mean, we still use their word algebra. So I have trouble buying that it's an inherently violent philosophy when the Islamic world as a whole was actually ahead of the Christian world for quite a while.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Islam actually used to be at the forefront of culture and science — I mean, we still use their word algebra. So I have trouble buying that it's an inherently violent philosophy when the Islamic world as a whole was actually ahead of the Christian world for quite a while.

You're correct, yet another fact lost on the anti-Islam crowd today.

Some minds are just closed to change... partly because the person is motivated by a political agenda... but facts are facts..

Jews and Muslims in the Middle Ages � Katamon Journal

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The core of Islam is inherently violent, I'm sorry to say.

What IS the "core of Islam" in your opinion?

Do certain passages from the Koran make up "the core of Islam"? And if so, who decided these passages are what constitute "the core of Islam"?

Is it the teachings of specific Islamic leaders (either religious or political) that make up the "core of Islam"?

Do historical or contemporary Islamic scholars agree with you when you specify what you think is "the core of Islam"?
(In other words, is what you perceive to be the "core of Islam" what folks in the muslim world consider to be "the core of Islam"?)