I actually stopped by Paizo, not to do a lot of reading and responding (which I have unfortunately, I failed my Will save multiple times) but to post a link to this EXCELLENT article I read.
I think it addresses many misconceptions that people have about Muslims and also in some ways portrays the discrimination some Muslims face everyday.
10 Misconceptions About Islam That Muslim Americans Are Tired of Hearing
Not that many will be interested I suppose, but for me it is a great article every Westerner should probably read!
At least I feel it's a good article in regards to treatment and stereotypes people have in regards to Muslims in the West.
|
Those misconceptions are ridiculous, but then again I lived in the cedar riverside are of the twin cities for many years. The cedar-riverside west bank is one of the highest Somali-muslim populations in the US. I have to leave the city before I hear or see folks trumpeting these misconceptions. Unfortunately, this story occurred this year. Turned out to be bunk even though SA had to go to lengths to prove it.
I have friends whose minds would be utterly blown by this information. Myself, I can't deny I was eager to read a proper account refuting these myths. I'm not as educated on Islam as I should be. It's amazing how comfortable our country remains targeting this particular religious minority.
The only things that make the news are sensationalism stories to make you watch the news. It would be cool to see more stories of how the majority of Muslims denounce the extremists that give them a bad name. But then on the news we only hear about the horrible Christians bashing LGBT and other religions, not the ones actually doing good works in their communities.
Most Americans can't even tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, so it's no wonder they all get bashed. If someone doesn't understand it they want to destroy it, and as the Rush "Witch Hunt" lyrics sarcastically say:
Those who know what's best for us,
Must rise and save us from ourselves
And those same song lyrics say without any sarcasm at all:
Ignorance and prejudice,
And fear walk hand in hand
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only things that make the news are sensationalism stories to make you watch the news. It would be cool to see more stories of how the majority of Muslims denounce the extremists that give them a bad name.
Its hard for people not to notice that less than 1% of the population is committing half of the terrorist attacks (once you exclude things like tree spiking or spray painting SUVS where no one gets hurt as terrorist). All of the good press in the world isn't going to counter that.
It bites that the vast majority of are going to be painted by the actions of a small minority but its the events themselves and the way dramatic events stick in peoples minds thats going to leave the impression, not the media.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most Americans can't even tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim
This has always made me sad (mostly for the Sikhs).
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only things that make the news are sensationalism stories to make you watch the news. It would be cool to see more stories of how the majority of Muslims denounce the extremists that give them a bad name.Its hard for people not to notice that less than 1% of the population is committing half of the terrorist attacks (once you exclude things like tree spiking or spray painting SUVS where no one gets hurt as terrorist). All of the good press in the world isn't going to counter that.
It bites that the vast majority of are going to be painted by the actions of a small minority but its the events themselves and the way dramatic events stick in peoples minds thats going to leave the impression, not the media.
Yes, although it is hard to escape circularity, i.e., terrorism is the word we use when Muslims, usually Arabs, do something violently disruptive of what we perceive as a non-violent zero-level (borrowing words from Zizek here). Violent acts committed by Israel or the United States, for example, would not be called terrorism (at least in this country).
The only things that make the news are sensationalism stories to make you watch the news. It would be cool to see more stories of how the majority of Muslims denounce the extremists that give them a bad name.Its hard for people not to notice that less than 1% of the population is committing half of the terrorist attacks (once you exclude things like tree spiking or spray painting SUVS where no one gets hurt as terrorist). All of the good press in the world isn't going to counter that.
It bites that the vast majority of are going to be painted by the actions of a small minority but its the events themselves and the way dramatic events stick in peoples minds thats going to leave the impression, not the media.
On the flip side, US civilians are more likely to be killed by a television or piece of furniture than they are a terrorist (regardless of background of that terrorist).
In 2011 a worldwide total of 17 US civilians (non-government employees) were killed by terrorism. That includes civilian deaths in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure what the total would be inside the US, but I think it's a bit lower. In 2010 that number was 15. Excluding 9/11, the yearly average since 2001 is 29 deaths per year, with a total of 238 people.
349 people were killed by falling tv's, appliances or other furniture from 2000-2011, with the per year number peaking in 2011 at 41.
7,330 people were killed by firearm accidents from 2001-2011. There are no statistics on the age of the shooter (you can get age of the deceased), but you can find news articles for at least 6 and sometimes as many as 20 incidents where the shooter was a toddler (age 2-4). The estimate is that roughly 10-15 people each year are killed by a toddler with a gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the author was pretty clear in drawing a difference between "religion" and "culture".
It's important to realize the difference between cultural influences and religious policy. Many countries across the world, including Muslim countries, have patriarchal cultures (cultures in which men are automatically assumed to lead), which are often socially constructed and influenced by the traditions, gender roles, and practices of that culture. Islam as a religion, however, preaches equality of the sexes.
|
I'm from San Jose, CA (although I sadly haven't lived there for years now), which has a comparatively large Sikh population. At least as of last time I was there (the mid-late '000s), our airport is pretty much entirely run and staffed by Sikhs - almost everybody there from the baggage claim to the car rental has a dagger and a turban. :)
We had an incident a while back up in Vancouver, OR where a Sikh temple was destroyed by an arsonist. People really don't know the difference—not that it would be remotely permissible regardless.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the author was pretty clear in drawing a difference between "religion" and "culture".
It's important to realize the difference between cultural influences and religious policy. Many countries across the world, including Muslim countries, have patriarchal cultures (cultures in which men are automatically assumed to lead), which are often socially constructed and influenced by the traditions, gender roles, and practices of that culture. Islam as a religion, however, preaches equality of the sexes.
Except for how, from beginning to end, the article tries to look like it's about Muslim society and not religion. It starts with a personal story describing the ways in which Muslims are misconceived in America, and claims to be about Muslims, not about Islam.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the author was pretty clear in drawing a difference between "religion" and "culture".
It's important to realize the difference between cultural influences and religious policy. Many countries across the world, including Muslim countries, have patriarchal cultures (cultures in which men are automatically assumed to lead), which are often socially constructed and influenced by the traditions, gender roles, and practices of that culture. Islam as a religion, however, preaches equality of the sexes.
Except that line is so blurry as to be nonexistent when those cultures are heavily, HEAVILY influenced by religion.
It's like saying our (very similar) laws during the 1600s about decency and what have you in the old Protestant/Calvinist settlements were cultural, not religious. Technically true, maybe, but that's splitting a hair at the molecular level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does become difficult to separate church and state, even when it's written into our own government's establishing documents, when the American political parties sprinkle their agendas liberally (or conservatively, as you wish) with them.
It creeps into our laws so that in places you can't purchase alcohol on Sundays, or a business can't be open on Sunday mornings, etc. to not give people a reason to skip church.
It rears its ugly head in censorship by people telling us what we can see on TV, or what we can read in books, based on religious taboos.
Thanks Puritans, your nearly 500 year old biases are going strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just noticed the article is written by a teenager, for teenagers, so I guess it being overly simplistic is more forgivable.
you really, really should have caught that on the first read through, as well as the fact that this is a very American Muslim girl speaking from a very American standpoint.
That said, as someone whose faith and culture gets lumped together unfairly with my wife's because we are the same skin color, I am damn glad she pointed out that there is a difference between religion as a whole and the cultural practices of the country they come from.
|
|
I just noticed the article is written by a teenager, for teenagers, so I guess it being overly simplistic is more forgivable.you really, really should have caught that on the first read through, as well as the fact that this is a very American Muslim girl speaking from a very American standpoint.
That said, as someone whose faith and culture gets lumped together unfairly with my wife's because we are the same skin color, I am damn glad she pointed out that there is a difference between religion as a whole and the cultural practices of the country they come from.
Originally I assumed the story was from when the girl was younger, was mistaken about that.
And clearly there is a difference, but as I said before if she really wanted to address that difference she should have been talking about Islam, not Muslims.
But again, there are as many kinds of Muslims as there are of Christians. I think Americans are aware that French are very different from South Africans, for example, so clearly just about all stereotypes about Muslims are going to be untrue because they attempt to describe such a large variety of people. However, the Muslim world in general (and the Arab parts of it especially) has serious, serious problems, and pretending they don't exist because American Muslims are more liberal is nothing less than blindness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Snow a lot of those Middle Eastern problems stem from post 1918 and post 1945 western colonialism.... The British, Russians, French and USA exploited, meddled, assassinated, repressed and set up tyrants all for profit and power...
The mess is ours and we aren't fixing it or likely to anytime soon too much money to be made.
On the other had my country's next door neighbour is the most populous Muslim country in the world and I find the most Indonesians I know to be layed back, welcoming, fun and generous people. My family lived in Surabaya For 2 years and probably wouldn't have come home if it wasn't for the Asian Econmic Crisis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the author was pretty clear in drawing a difference between "religion" and "culture".
It's important to realize the difference between cultural influences and religious policy. Many countries across the world, including Muslim countries, have patriarchal cultures (cultures in which men are automatically assumed to lead), which are often socially constructed and influenced by the traditions, gender roles, and practices of that culture. Islam as a religion, however, preaches equality of the sexes.
I think the equality of the sexes in Islam is debatable.
Very simply the requirements that women cover their bodies is not equality. The requirement is based on the concept that men find women's bodies tempting and can't control themselves if they see the women's uncovered bodies. It then puts the onus on women to cover their bodies so that they don't tempt men into doing something unlawful.
Claiming that a religion that blames women for their own rape is about equality seems disingenuous.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Islam is somehow special in this regard. None of the Abrahamic religions are even remotely good in regards to equality in concerns to sex or gender.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Snow a lot of those problems stem from post 1918 and post 1945 western colonialism.... The British, Russians, French and USA exploited, meddled, assassinated, repressed and set up tyrants all for profit and power...
The mess is ours and we aren't fixing it or likely to anytime soon too much money to be made.
You are partly right. The further you look back the more reasons you'll find for anything, because history is really complex. Me, I'd say the moment in history where the Islamic world began its descent is when the Mongol horde smashed it completely - up until that time in history (around the 1200, if memory serves) they were top of the food chain in West Asia and the mediterranean. After that its a rather steady decline. That the Muslim world had to suffer the full Mongol invasion while western Europe was mostly exempt from any serious attack does a lot to explain how power shifted.
But the "the west is at fault for present day wrongness of the Arab world" (and you are talking about Arabs and not Muslims, by the way, since there are many Muslim countries that were never colonized) is something western liberals like to tell themselves that has only marginally to do with reality. There was a reason that the west was in position to exploit the Arabs in the first place (and let us not forget that western colonization of the area was recent and brief compared to the far longer colonization by the ottoman empire) - that reason is that the west went through a secular revolution which' slowly but surely, gave it military and economic superiority over the Muslim world, which was left behind. The colonization in the 20th century is the climax of hundreds of years during which Europe advanced and the middle east did not.
Again, matters are complicated, and nobody here is saying that there is something genetic in either Arabs or Muslims that makes them worse at human rights, merely that this is sort of how things are at the moment. History is a pendulum and the Muslim world is on the less pleasent side of that right now.
|
|
I think the author was pretty clear in drawing a difference between "religion" and "culture".
It's important to realize the difference between cultural influences and religious policy. Many countries across the world, including Muslim countries, have patriarchal cultures (cultures in which men are automatically assumed to lead), which are often socially constructed and influenced by the traditions, gender roles, and practices of that culture. Islam as a religion, however, preaches equality of the sexes.I think the equality of the sexes in Islam is debatable.
Very simply the requirements that women cover their bodies is not equality. The requirement is based on the concept that men find women's bodies tempting and can't control themselves if they see the women's uncovered bodies. It then puts the onus on women to cover their bodies so that they don't tempt men into doing something unlawful.
Claiming that a religion that blames women for their own rape is about equality seems disingenuous.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Islam is somehow special in this regard. None of the Abrahamic religions are even remotely good in regards to equality in concerns to sex or gender.
The thing is that when those religions were young, many of the components they have which we today consider sexist or barbaric in some other way were actually steps forward at the time. At the conception of Islam, it is very possible that forcing women to cover up wasn't a straight up bad idea, merely a tradeoff between personal freedom and the chance of being raped or assaulted.
It has been a long time since this has been the case, though, and the more orthodox movements in the monotheistic religions are finding it really hard to accept that and relax their constricting and demeaning regard to the female body.
I am not disagreeing with you here, just pointing out that it is not entirely fair to blame the faiths themselves for being bad in regards to equal treatment of the sexes when your judgment is coming hundreds or thousands of years out of context. The true issue is the failure of those religions to adapt fast enough to modern times, and Islam is particularly bad at this.
Yeah the Christian religions aren't any more forward thinking than anyone else. The Puritans still hold sway in the U.S. with taboos dating back to the mid 16th century. Better watch those wardrobe malfunctions and don't say bad words on TV.
And look at the terrible things happening in India to women, cultural probably instead of religious, but Hinduism doesn't teach that attacking women in packs is right.
It's hard to tell sometimes if religion is a good thing or not, especially in our current world. So much hatred and death in the name of religion. With communication and transportation today, the world has never been smaller, and in my lifetime has doubled in population. We're way to close together not to have a better understanding of and compassion for each other, and to have these kinds of schisms is scary. When are we going to get over skin color, religion and nationality, and become citizens of the world?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the Christian religions aren't any more forward thinking than anyone else. The Puritans still hold sway in the U.S. with taboos dating back to the mid 16th century. Better watch those wardrobe malfunctions and don't say bad words on TV.
And look at the terrible things happening in India to women, cultural probably instead of religious, but Hinduism doesn't teach that attacking women in packs is right.
It's hard to tell sometimes if religion is a good thing or not, especially in our current world. So much hatred and death in the name of religion. With communication and transportation today, the world has never been smaller, and in my lifetime has doubled in population. We're way to close together not to have a better understanding of and compassion for each other, and to have these kinds of schisms is scary. When are we going to get over skin color, religion and nationality, and become citizens of the world?
1) Main difference between christianity and islam as far as I'm concerned is that the Christian world did a better job of separating state and church. Yes, religious values still have about a million times the impact that I would have liked them to have, but it's still a far cry from the Muslim world, where religion has overwhelming power over politics, education and everyday life. Of course religion doesn't have a monopoly on encouraging negative behavior, but that doesn't really matter much.
2) Have you read "The Expanse" by James A.A Corey? In it they show a near-future SF setting where most of the solar system is colonized. In this future, issues such as racism and sexism and homophobia and all other types of xenophobia we know have mostly faded into the back shelves of history since nobody takes them seriously anymore as a result of a few generations of globalization... only to be replaced by prejudice between the populations of Earth, Mars and the Outer Plants. Essentially, the books seems to say that even if we outgrow old bad ideas, we'll come up with new ones just as fast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The linked article is really, really simplistic. Naive, as well. I'll break down some points there that I feel are misleading:
1) Muslim Women have no rights: Clearly they do have rights, I don't think anyone except the most moronic actually claims that. However, they have significantly less rights than any non-Muslin woman living in the western world. Islam is an enormous religion (which is funny because in that article they are looked at as a minority, which it true in America but not outside of it), with numerous countries practicing it. Picking out the one country where women are relatively free and using it to demonstrate that everything is fine is stupid. What about the dozen other countries where women can't drive cars, where they are sold to men when they reach puberty ("get married"), murdered for the sake of the family honor if they sleep with the wrong man? These are very real, very serious issues that dwarf any social injustice towards women in the west. Ignoring that fact could only be a lie one tells oneself.
2)Muslims must engage in Jihad, also known as holy-war: No, they don't have to. Enough of them do for this to be a serious problem, though, and the fact that the article implies that Islamist extremists don't actually do their thing because of their religion is, again, misleading. Religion is the fuel that lights that fire, even if other reasons such as politics play into it. Just like other religions, Islam can provide a very strong basis for violence. That the crusades happened hundreds of years ago and the Jihad is happening today (there were earlier Jihads too, of course) does not mean these are inherently different things. Christians also don't "have" to go on crusades, but when it was the Christian world that was giving a lot of power to the church, they were pretty eager to wage holy war against their different-looking neighbors too.
3)Muslim women are forced to cover up: So it seems like the article is saying "Muslim women are't forced to cover up, it's their...
First, a majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and even with those that ARE Arabic, this is dealing with Muslims in WESTERN culture...aka...the US in this instance and their perceptions (do you really think someone in Saudi Arabia goes up and starts ranting at a Muslim for their clothing?)
Second, on the topic of Jihads, Islam, and Muslims, I can see we disagree on many things.
In this instance (in the article) you have someone who IS Muslim (and a female at that) who is telling you directly what they believe.
Who should one believe, directly from the horses mouth, or someone else who says...no...they are lying?
Once again, this is a WESTERN Islamic article dealing with Western ideas and problems. It touches upon other facets, but these are things that are misconceptions that Muslims deal with all the time in the West (and apparently still do even after they've been explained in the article to a degree).
However, I suppose it could be a touchy subject considering where you live...so in this instance it probably is just best to agree to disagree on some items.
|
|
Second, on the topic of Jihads, Islam, and Muslims, I can see we disagree on many things.
In this instance (in the article) you have someone who IS Muslim (and a female at that) who is telling you directly what they believe.
Who should one believe, directly from the horses mouth, or someone else who says...no...they are lying?
Err... how is the writer being a female relevant to her views on Jihads?
And, it's not as if I am making up stuff from no-where. The original meaning of the Jihad was mostly similar to that of Christian crusades. It took being demolished by the Mongols to get the Muslims to become less militant - fro Wikipedia,
According to diplomat/scholar Dore Gold, at beginning of the ninth century, "Muslim theologians broadened the meaning of jihad, de-emphasizing armed struggle and, under the influence of Sufism, adopting more spiritual definitions. ... the Islamic mainstream had shifted away from this focus on the religious requirement of a universal campaign of jihad. Consequently, the meaning of shahid changed as well. Whereas the term had originally applied to one who gave his life in battle, a scholar or someone who led Muslim prayers could now be compared to a shahid when his day of judgement arrived."
So the term is ambigous and open to interpretation, but the "use military force in the name of your faith" thing has been there from the start and, as we can see, isn't going away.
Arabs aren't the only Muslim group where "Jihads" are called. Check out a rather recent incident in Indonasia (incidentally the country with the highest Muslim population in the world), or some less recent ones in western Africa.
Clearly, many a Muslim disagrees with the writer about what a Jihad could mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm from San Jose, CA (although I sadly haven't lived there for years now), which has a comparatively large Sikh population. At least as of last time I was there (the mid-late '000s), our airport is pretty much entirely run and staffed by Sikhs - almost everybody there from the baggage claim to the car rental has a dagger and a turban. :)
The Kirpan is my favourite article of religious paraphernalia, and the Kara is pretty stylish as well. They can keep the Kachera though. :P
|
|
The Kirpan is my favourite article of religious paraphernalia, and the Kara is pretty stylish as well. They can keep the Kachera though. :P
It's even better when you know the significance; my understanding is that the idea is that a good Sikh ought to be in the business of protecting the weak from the strong, and hence should always be armed in preparation for such a need ("The Amazing Spider-Sikh To The Rescue, Huzzah!"); I kind of wish everyone wasn't forcing them to render their weapons inaccessible or useless all over the place, because that is, at least in principle, the kind of individual heroic attitude we all need to see a great deal more of in the real world.
*goes off to contemplate getting a PayPal account with which to facilitate bet-taking as to how long this and other Paizo threads will take to be shut down*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this instance (in the article) you have someone who IS Muslim (and a female at that) who is telling you directly what they believe.
There's several parts to this.
1. I'm willing to be tolerant of religious beliefs. They're deeply held beliefs and it isn't my intention to seek out venues to say hurtful things to them.
2. A person is welcome to whatever beliefs they want, but when they put them forward in a public way, they are open to public responses. This is part of being in a free speech society. They can say whatever they want, but at the same time, everyone else is free to respond however they want. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
There are many Muslim women who deeply believe in their religion and so gladly wear the clothing. That isn't proof of equality of the sexes or gender though. That is proof that they believe in their religion. When they speak out and defend their religion and say it is equal and that women have as much respect in their religion as men, I have the right to consider that statement and think for myself. We are talking about Western culture after all.
Note, I'm actually in favor of Muslim women being allowed to wear their clothing, because I see it as part of freedom of speech (leaving aside the religious aspect). I think the recent supreme court case about the Abercrombie employee was a good decision. I think statements that the practice in general isn't sexist are hogwash, but I will continue to defend their right to say it.
Yeah the Christian religions aren't any more forward thinking than anyone else. The Puritans still hold sway in the U.S. with taboos dating back to the mid 16th century. Better watch those wardrobe malfunctions and don't say bad words on TV.
And look at the terrible things happening in India to women, cultural probably instead of religious, but Hinduism doesn't teach that attacking women in packs is right.
It's hard to tell sometimes if religion is a good thing or not, especially in our current world. So much hatred and death in the name of religion. With communication and transportation today, the world has never been smaller, and in my lifetime has doubled in population. We're way to close together not to have a better understanding of and compassion for each other, and to have these kinds of schisms is scary. When are we going to get over skin color, religion and nationality, and become citizens of the world?
Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history
Even if that were true, "Forward thinking for 2000 years ago" is now very NOT forward thinking. It is literally backward thinking. By 1999 years, give or take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its kind of hard to deny that Mohamed did a lot of "struggling" with sharp pointy metal objects that resulted in their conversions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most Americans would object to a CIA operation that targeted civilians that blatantly nicos
1) Main difference between christianity and islam as far as I'm concerned is that the Christian world did a better job of separating state and church. Yes, religious values still have about a million times the impact that I would have liked them to have, but it's still a far cry from the Muslim world, where religion has overwhelming power over politics, education and everyday life. Of course religion doesn't have a monopoly on encouraging negative behavior, but that doesn't really matter much.
This is kind of a recent invention, even in the west. It may signal that the west is just 100 years ahead of the middle east rather than anything specific to the religion.
Theologically speaking christianity islam and judiasm are three sects of one religion (oddly enough, most of Christianity is the weird middle kid that comes closest to not fitting with the other two, thanks to the trinity) There are some differences...
Christianity and Islam both proselytize. Judaism does not.
Judaism and Islam both invest a temporal ruler with spiritual leadership. (King david and the caliphs). Christianity does not. (didn't stop the pope from ruling most of italy at one point though)
But I don' think its really the religion that's driving it.
I think most Americans would object to a CIA operation that targeted civilians that blatantly nicos
You would think so, and from our military as well, but most remain unaware (much less object to) of the fact that we semi-frequently drone strike innocent civilians due to bad intel and facial recognition not being terribly easy from thousands of feet in the air.
Perhaps not the same INTENT as targeting civilians on purpose, but certainly the same terrorizing EFFECT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most Americans would object to a CIA operation that targeted civilians that blatantly nicosYou would think so, and from our military as well, but most remain unaware (much less object to) of the fact that we semi-frequently drone strike innocent civilians due to bad intel and facial recognition not being terribly easy from thousands of feet in the air.
Perhaps not the same INTENT as targeting civilians on purpose, but certainly the same terrorizing EFFECT.
Because that's the least bad alternative. If they know they can hide behind even the possibility of civilian deaths they'll be untouchable in regions that neither we nor a government we can lean on can act.
Because that's the least bad alternative. If they know they can hide behind even the possibility of civilian deaths they'll be untouchable in regions that neither we nor a government we can lean on can act.I think most Americans would object to a CIA operation that targeted civilians that blatantly nicosYou would think so, and from our military as well, but most remain unaware (much less object to) of the fact that we semi-frequently drone strike innocent civilians due to bad intel and facial recognition not being terribly easy from thousands of feet in the air.
Perhaps not the same INTENT as targeting civilians on purpose, but certainly the same terrorizing EFFECT.
The least bad alternative is not doing your job and verifying information, then going "F%!& 'em all! Send the explosive!" to a location containing none of the targets they were trying to take out?
Guess we better forgive all the civilian deaths caused by terrorist attacks then. After all, it's the least bad alternative for them. If our our government officials know they can hide behind even the possibility of civilian deaths they'll be untouchable here, in a region neither they nor a government can lean on to act.
If that last bit sounds incredibly f%$!ing stupid and callous to you, well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The least bad alternative is not doing your job and verifying information, then going "F+&* 'em all! Send the explosive!" to a location containing none of the targets they were trying to take out?
No. the least bad alternative is accepting that the CIA et all are real human beings, not mystical ninja. If you're waiting for a level of assurance that can't be provided then you're out of luck.
Guess we better forgive all the civilian deaths caused by terrorist attacks then. After all, it's the least bad alternative for them.
No. Its not.
The groups causing civilian deaths in the US are doing so because they want to run the middle east/world the way we're running the middle east/world. I think we've more than established that we're way better at running the evil word ruling empire than they are.
Attacking our civilians, or soldiers here doesn't degrade our ability to strike back at all. It just makes it more likely. A loosely affiliated network like al quaeda or isis does lose some of its ability to attack when you bomb key members.
So their plan is to kill individuals so that they can take over and make it worse for everyone else there. Its both evil and unworkable.
Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.
Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history
The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.
98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.
98% of Christian apologists may say that, but historical scholars do not. They can't even agree if a historical Christ was a cynic, revolutionary or a dozen other competing theories. it has long been recognized there is nothing definite that can be determined about a historical Christ in the 4 gospels.
Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.
Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history
The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.
98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.
The New Testament is a collection of 4 Gospels, Acts and the Letters. The Gospels are essentially histories of the life of Jesus, written starting around 30 years after Jesus's ministry and attributed to several Disciples, but almost certainly not written by them. Based apparently on oral traditions of the sayings of Jesus and of his ministry. Later Gospels were influenced by the first and by other sources.
Acts is an account of the early years of the church. I'm less sure of its composition.
The Letters include some believed to be from Paul, some attributed to Paul, but not currently thought to be written by him and several known to be from other early church figures. They're the oldest parts of the New Testament and provide quite a bit of insight into the early Church.I have no idea where the claim that 98% of anybody considers the New Testament a reliable source or what they actually meant by it. If the claim is that 98% of historians think the Gospels are primary source accounts of Jesus's life, it's nonsense. If it's that they think there is useful historical information about the early church in the New Testament, it's probably true.
The only historical information about the early church that can be found in the Gospels is to be found in Paul's letters (and not much of it). Acts has long been known to be fraudulent. Even Paul's letters have been altered by Christian apologists over the centuries that it's impossible to get back to the original letters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Main difference between christianity and islam as far as I'm concerned is that the Christian world did a better job of separating state and church. Yes, religious values still have about a million times the impact that I would have liked them to have, but it's still a far cry from the Muslim world, where religion has overwhelming power over politics, education and everyday life. Of course religion doesn't have a monopoly on encouraging negative behavior, but that doesn't really matter much.
This is kind of a recent invention, even in the west. It may signal that the west is just 100 years ahead of the middle east rather than anything specific to the religion.
Theologically speaking christianity islam and judiasm are three sects of one religion (oddly enough, most of Christianity is the weird middle kid that comes closest to not fitting with the other two, thanks to the trinity) There are some differences...
Christianity and Islam both proselytize. Judaism does not.
Judaism and Islam both invest a temporal ruler with spiritual leadership. (King david and the caliphs). Christianity does not. (didn't stop the pope from ruling most of italy at one point though)
But I don' think its really the religion that's driving it.
To clarify, I completely agree with you. The difference I see between Christianity and Islam is only in contemporary mainstream western world Christianity Vs. Arab, north African and to some degree Indian and Indonesia contemporary main stream Islam.
Delve a bit deeper than that, into abstracts, and the faiths are remarkably similar, with similar results when they have the power, and a similar role in history.
1)Attacking our civilians, or soldiers here doesn't degrade our ability to strike back at all. It just makes it more likely. A loosely affiliated network like al quaeda or isis does lose some of its ability to attack when you bomb key members.
2)So their plan is to kill individuals so that they can take over and make it worse for everyone else there. Its both evil and unworkable.
1) Actually, not really, not all that much. You *might* be able to knock down Al-Quaeda a notch or two, but by forcing a reality where little kids have to fear drone strikes from the sky every waking moment you ensure a next generation of angry people ready to lift arms against you. The civilian death toll required to put down a few key figures is probably too much for the move to be really profitable. Unless you are willing to go all the way and have a massacre, you are just perpetuating the violence. Not saying that I know any better solution that those assassinations, but just that the mindset has to be "this is a temporary solution and we must devote serious energy and thought to finding a better way".
2) I dunno. ISIS kind of make it seem workable, as do the various groups of thugs loose in Syria right now. In both cases there is a non zero chance of a group of terrorists taking hold of some geography and holding it for a significant amount of time.
It takes more dedication to suppress guerrilla warfare in foreign countries than the Western World can stomach - which I am very glad for. Winning the war against radical Islam with a big scale bloodbath, which is the quick and easy option, would be too much of a stain on the collective consciousness of the societies in it. It will turn our age and our way of life into just another bloody, hypocritical empire that will roll over any opposition with any force needed to prolong its own existence. Another, most likely non military solution has to be found for the conflict. Nobody has a really good idea yet, but I really hope someone finds it.