Uh, no. Not unless you're defining the word religion so broadly that philosophical constructs like the scientific method or the Death of the Author start getting included in your use of the word. Atheists don't sit around the radio listening intently to the latest pronouncement of the Great High Atheist First Speaker, then turn to the specified page of the Big Book of Atheist Wisdom to follow along with the weekly readings.
|
Mosque at Ground Zero
|
Heh. Okay, point taken.
--Sam "I'd just like to say... knock off all that evil!" 
There are different flavours, or sects if you want, of Agnosticism and Atheism. These do include what I like to think of as "born again atheists", who do treat it as a religion and spend their time trying to convert the heathen, rather than treating them as somewhat daffy. Personally, I'm a strict agnostic. Not only is the answer to "does God exist?" unknown, the question is largely meaningless, without a usable definition of "god", or what the word "exists" means in this context.
Personally, I believe that it is perfectly possible to be a good Muslim and a civilised person. The problem is that it is harder to do so than it is to be a good Christian and civilised (or Buddhist, Wiccan, Jew etc.), because Islam is an inherently political religion. The Muslim religion gained political power while it was still forming - within the lifetime of Mohamed. Accordingly, it never developed any equivalent to "render unto Caesar", which allowed the later development of separation of Church and State. The mingling of political power leads to religious rules being enforced by political power and laws based to religious teaching to be politically unchallengeable. Admittedly, this was a problem for Christianity for a lot of European history and there are plenty of "Christians" who would like for it to revert to that way. However, we have to deal with religions as they are at the moment. I'd only have to worry about the Albigensian Crusade if I had a time machine. Oh. According to traditional history, the loss of the traditional enlightened and tolerant medieval Islam was due to the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols. 
One of my favorite definitions of what it means to be an atheist:
Quote:An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthyHowever, we're getting off topic here. The subject is irrational hysteria about the construction of a mosque/religious center near Ground Zero. -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. 
I'm still working on a main post that I think will be ready later today. But I just found something very interesting. Remember when M Fnord posted the following?
Quote: Quote:Quote:At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded Here is the statement from Joseph Nassralla, the gentlemen the media is using the smear the historic protest against the Ground Zero mosque. Quote:Dear-Logan -------------------- “Lan astaslem.” I will not submit. I will not surrender. -------------------- Bob Schroeck Wrote:Look, if you characterize a religion by its worst excesses, then Christianity is arguably as bad and possibly worse than Islam. (Just off the top of my head: Crusades, Inquisition, anti-semitism, conversion by the sword, justification for the American slave trade, religious/sectarian violence, Catholic sex abuse -- hell, there's still a big chunk of the Southern Baptist Convention that whines that they're being oppressed because they're not allowed to run everything and forceably convert anyone they want, just like Gawd told them to. I'm sure Rev Dark has far more examples and relevant data at his fingertips, while I'd have to go look up stuff to get more than that. Oh, and before you bring Islamic fatalism and all that up, let me just point you at Calvinism and ask you to consider just how different its predestination is from its Islamic equivalents -- and how less poisonous.)This is an interesting game the Islam apologists play, trying to equate or bring other religions, particularly Christianity, down to the level of Islam. They say that Christianity (or other faiths) are just as bad. (I hasten to add, that I'm not saying or thinking that you are an apologist, Bob. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith. But you've heard this line so many times that I think you've taken it for the truth. You've seen excesses in Christianity that give you pause. So have I. I'm no fan of the Catholic church hierarchy. I think the current Pope is at minimum a jerk. (I'm no big fan of organized religion myself. Most of the time I'm pretty non-religious, though I believe generally we have souls and that there's an afterlife and even perhaps a god(s). But I'd be hard pressed to pin it down further than that.)) So why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems? Because they don’t have the same problems that Islam does. So - lets start with the Crusades. Since Muslims (and western apologists as well) like using the Crusades as a rhetorical cudgel, let's have a little historical perspective before we get to the main point. My purpose here is not to defend or justify the Crusades, but to explain them. I have to admit there's much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the words and teachings of Jesus, then the Crusades don't look good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant? Or were they responding to an outside threat? A time line (from American Thinker) 630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya). This tax sets the stage for Muhammad's and the later Caliphs' policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor. 632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom. 633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35). 634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.' To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine). 634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal. 635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus 636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk. 637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636) 638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines. 638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea. 639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt. 641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine. 643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa. 644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar. 644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind. 656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph. 656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win. 657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali 661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina. 661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus 673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire 680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq. 691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death. 705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule. 710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley. 711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place. 719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor 732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance 749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids 756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids 762 Foundation of Baghdad 785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova 789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed. 800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia 807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem 809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy 813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country 831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy 850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer 855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria) 837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France 869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq 909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia 928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969) 937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places 937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked 960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam 966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem 969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East 973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids 1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed 1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937) 1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians 1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses 1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus 1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed 1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law. 1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate 1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection 1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia 1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine 1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders) 1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia 1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana 1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies 1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca 1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands 1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970 1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099 So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades. By the time the Crusades began, Muslim armies had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world. It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was hardly the case. For example, Muhammad’s followers conquered and occupied Sicily in the ninth century. That occupation lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094). Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome in 1095 for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam. Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far. Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands. The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem. Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years. Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against the Western world that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over. Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace. It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after. The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. But by any objective measure, this number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims. In terms of ideology, the Crusades are seen as an aberration against the teachings of Jesus. Whereas the Muslim Jihad (Crusades) are supported and justified by the teachings of Muhammad. In conclusion, the idea that Christianity has been historically just as bad as Islam is a modern myth. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels Since Islam is not just a religion but a but a political ideology as well as in too many countries, the de-facto law of the land, its most ardent followers have a vested interest in promoting the "big lie" that Islam is and always has been the victim of Christian and Western forces. Since it's become "politically incorrect" in America and other western countries to call this narrative into question, it takes a little more than casual digging to get at the truth of the matter. It's not surprising that many people (even highly intelligent people who should know better) buy into the equivalency argument. ---- Ah... but what about Northern Ireland, you say? That's the next usual comparison. Was the Northern Ireland conflict really a sectarian war, in the same way that Sunnis and Shiites violently bump heads for no other reason? Or was religion largely incidental to differences that were predominantly economic and political? Northern Ireland has been a point of contention between England and the Republic of Ireland since it was provisioned as a separate territory in 1922. The confrontation turned habitually violent in 1969 with the formation of the IRA (Irish Republican Army), a terror group that was considered to be the armed wing of the Sinn Fein political party, which supports Irish nationalism and Marxist ideology. The violence largely abated in the mid-1990's with an agreement between the sides. Although many people think of the conflict as Catholic versus Protestant, this is simplistic and misleading. Historians and political scientists prefer to describe the two sides with words like Nationalist, Republican, Ulster, Loyalist and Unionist. Sectarian divisions often did not hold up. Protestants were found on both sides of the conflict, for example, and there were notable Catholics who remained loyal to England. The IRA did not have a Biblical charter. In fact, they were a Marxist-atheist organization. Neither the British government nor any of the other major groups have religious motives. There were some smaller, radical groups that used the language of religious purity, but they were relatively obscure. The issue for the "Catholic" factions was Irish nationalism, and for the "Protestants" it was self-preservation and an end to the violence. Only a very small minority of the citizens in Northern Ireland actually participated in the conflict, although there was surely enough grief to spread around to everyone. Some victims were killed around churches, but these were targeted assassinations that were incidental to the location. There appears to be no concerted campaign against rival churches or cathedrals, and few (if any) deadly bombings actually occurred in a house of worship. Church leaders on both sides routinely condemned the violence, and the claims of responsibility for the bombings and assassinations did not typically quote from the Bible or make reference to God. (Muslim terrorists quote liberally from the Qur'an in their statements, and are very explicit about their intentions to fight "holy war" for the cause of Islam). Neither was there any expressed interest on the part of either side in the Northern Ireland conflict to convert infidels or spread sectarian beliefs beyond the disputed area. Protestant clerics in Ireland weren't targeted by Irish Catholics and neither were priests in England by English Protestants. Religious affiliation was a loose marker of identity, but there were no glaring theological differences between Protestants and Catholics on which the conflict was specifically based. Rather it was political in nature. The toll from over 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland is 3,323 total lives - a ridiculously small number by comparison. Only a little over half of these were non-combatants. Yet the length of the conflict and its status as an anomaly has exaggerated our perception of it. ---- As far as the Oklahoma City Bombing goes, let's remember that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist). He never credited his deeds to religion, quoted Bible verses, or claimed that he killed "for God". The “members of other faiths” referred to by Muslims are almost always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They aren't inspired by or credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter. Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. In the last six years, there have been maybe a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of average, non-violent Muslims struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror. Islamists may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. Quote: My point is that, from what I can tell, you are pointing at the Islamic equivalent of Lutherans and screaming that they're violent radicals whose only excuse for building their sanctuary is so they can loom over Ground Zero and cackle maniacally while rubbing their hands together in a properly villainous fashion. But you're embracing a fallacy -- that Islam is a monolithic single religion whose every follower believes exactly the same thing and has exactly the same attitudes/goals/methods as every other member.Let's take your last point first here. One of the things I want to make sure people understand is that I don't hate Muslims or want to paint every single one of them with a broad brush. Let me make this distinction PERFECTLY CLEAR: Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet. Muslims are individuals. No Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim. One should NOT draw conclusions about individual Muslims based on the true nature of Islam. Like any other group, not all Muslims think alike. Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam, it does NOT mean that there are no moderate Muslims. Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds. You shouldn't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam. (Same thing applies to Christians, BTW) As for your first point - I've noted in my research that there are some Muslims who think that building that Mosque is a bad idea. But they appear to be a minority. (Or they're just afraid to speak up.) Islam has a history of building Mosques over the holy sites of conquered peoples and religions as well as in places where a great victory was achieved. (see the timeline above) I see the building of this mosque as part of the overall pattern. This isn't being organized by part of some extreme sect that is repudiated by the majority of Islam. This is an expression of mainstream global Islam. That it's purpose was relatively well hidden until now doesn't change that. If New York allows that Mosque to be built it will be a signal to the devout Islamic world that we are "the weak horse". It will be an overt symbol to both the Islamists and to us. All you have to do is note the name of the proposed Mosque. Cordoba House. Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where their rule reached a glorious peak. Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain (and in particular in Cordoba), Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islamic oppression. Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law. The main organizer and sponsor of Cordoba House, Faisal Abdul Rauf, even admits as much when he writes, "Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords." This is not equality! Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves. That would be extortion, not "protection." Quote:I suppose I should point out that before the 19th Century, Islam was notI think there's enough evidence to call into question whether Islam was ever a religion of peace. But lets move on. As for the achievements of Islam during it's "golden age"? Well... maybe not so much. Algebra - Various, but the modern mostly from Hindu India Magnetic Compass -China Tools of Navigation, Various.. [although the concept an name of Azimuth is Middle Easter/Islamic.] Marine Chronometer - British Mariner's astrolabe- Majorcan or German Sextant - British Pens - Egyptians [waaaaay pre-Muslim] but if you want to quibble about the fountain pen, then yea Muslim.. then ball point.. American. Printing -Chinese and Europeans independently, unless you're talking block print, then it's all about China. Medicine- Now here's a good choice for your argument [because everything else was everyone else] but you would be right about this one. Aches/Spires- Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Assyrian.. and whoever was living in neolithic Jericho? But I will say some to the Islamic variations are pretty nice! More to the point, like the advances of science around the world, little of it has to do with religion. Most of the time science has advanced in the indifference or out right opposition of faith. While men of God or Allah have also been men of science, it's always because they had the time and education to do so. This is because powerful members of any religion generally enjoy a lot more time to learn and experiment. To be fair, 'cults of the state' have often railed against inconvenient science but it's far less common for science to threaten a statist dogma. Faiths on the other hand frequently take a dim view of facts that upset the preached world view. So, it's just as silly to ascribe any advanced in the Muslim world to Islam as it would be to credit Christianity with Astronomy. Quote:In any case, I wanted to note that Islamic Fundamentalism is not so muchNow here is where we have a point of agreement! As I noted above, Islam is not just a religion, it is indeed a political force. That's why the phrase Islamo-Fascism has come into use among conservatives. Because we see distinct parallels between the worst excesses of Islam and that of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. I disagree with you when you say it isn't the religion we need to worry about, though. In Islam, the religious and the political are so thoroughly entwined that it's almost impossible to separate them. Anyway, I apologize for the lengthy nature of this post. But I felt that some historical background was necessary. (Thus also my delay in posting.) 
Thanks very much for all that, Logan. It clarifies things quite a bit.
I do agree that Islam itself is very flawed and I think that's what a lot of the more moderate followers are trying to fix. The trouble is that, like you said, it is an almost impossible goal. To do so I think they would have to seriously revamp the entire Quron to the point of it looking like Islam's answer to The Book of Mormon - something that is about an entirely different group of people that tries to deliver the message in a more perfect manner. I also see now why having a mosque there is such a bad idea. While some may have good intentions, it will just wind up egging on the extremists. I wouldn't mind a museum exhibit about Islam, though. Learning about other cultures should be welcome. After all, you know what they say about knowing your enemies.  One little caveat I do have with what's been said about Islam and how it was a more learned culture in its hey-day: they may not have come up with a lot of the ideas, but they did a wonderful job of preserving them. You see, the funny thing about having a more learned culture conquer a land is that knowledge they have gets spread around. I'm not saying that it was fortunate that they did go around slaughtering people. Just that they did preserve knowledge. Honestly, it makes me wonder where groups like Al Qaeda got this idea that basic things like telecommunications are works of evil. (Sure, it can be used to spread evil ideas, but that's where propaganda comes into play.)  Quote:Thanks very much for all that, Logan. It clarifies things quite a bit.Well... I'd say it makes a partial attempt at answering Bob's comment. Of the seven things Bob mentioned off the top of his head that were problems with Christianity, Logan throughly addressed the first (Crusades) and made a passing attempt at the sixth (religious/sectarian violence), and left the other five things (Inquisition, antisemitism, conversion by the sword, justification for the American slave trade, and Catholic sex abuse) unaddressed. Considering that the last two items on the list (religious/sectarian violence and Catholic sex abuse) are still going on in modern days, giving short shrift to one and ignoring the other doesn't help Logan's position. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 Quote:Of the seven things Bob mentioned off the top of his head that were problems with Christianity, Logan throughly addressed the first (Crusades) and made a passing attempt at the sixth (religious/sectarian violence), and left the other five things (Inquisition, antisemitism, conversion by the sword, justification for the American slave trade, and Catholic sex abuse) unaddressed. Considering that the last two items on the list (religious/sectarian violence and Catholic sex abuse) are still going on in modern days, giving short shrift to one and ignoring the other doesn't help Logan's position.I could see how talking about the inquisition could go into a little more detail about the conflict between Christianity and Islam. That has at least a tertiary bearing on the topic. So I'll consider doing that. Antisemitism is a no-brainer. Islam is FAR more anti-Jew than Christianity ever was or will be. But it's at least part of the overall picture. Conversion by the sword? I'd say I already covered that pretty well by way of comparison. But... Justification for the Slave Trade? Catholic Sex abuse? Why do you expect me to defend those? Firstly, unlike some of the other things, I don't think there's any defense for them. I do think they are evil. So I'm not going to try and defend those topics. What do you take me for? A lawyer? (That last bit should be taken as a humorous jab.) (actually, the Inquisition was pretty awful too, but in context of the attempt to push the Moors out of Spain it makes some sense. It wasn't pretty, but it made sense.) Secondly, what the hell does Catholic Sex abuse, or Justifying the slave trade have ANYTHING to do with what I'm talking about? Look. I'm talking about a Mosque being built almost on top of the site of one of the worst atrocities ever committed by avowed jihadists. I've already gone WAY beyond what I usually do to put together a post in order to address what I thought were the comparisons that had the most relevancy to the topic at hand. Why do you people insist on making this about Christianity when I'm not arguing from the point of view of a Christian? Quote:Why do you expect me to defend those?I don't - they're indefensable. But I do expect you to acknowledge them. The tone of your posts has been one usually taken by someone who thinks Christianity is perfect (or someone who wants others to think that). We're pointing out that no religion is perfect. Quote:Why do you people insist on making this about Christianity when I'm not arguing from the point of view of a Christian?Topic drift. Welcome to the Interwebs. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 robkelk Wrote:Christianity not being perfect does not buy Islam a free pass.Quote:Why do you expect me to defend those?I don't - they're indefensable. But I do expect you to acknowledge them. Yes, Christianity has, and has had, some very serious and unpleasant problems. We've gotten over a whole lot of them. Islam has, and has had, some very serious and unpleasant problems. Most of them appear to have gotten worse over the last century or so, rather than better, and pretty much none of them have been lessened. Asserting that cheap chocolate is not the perfect food does not make a shit sandwich any more palatable. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but ultimately my point was -- as I stated at the start and end of my large posting above -- that it is fallacious to state "All X are Y" as one of your axioms and argue from there, when X is a religion. I regret having started the branch thread which started turning into (apologies to Norway) "Christianity not being perfect buys Islam a free pass". My intent was to demonstrate the fallacy by applying the same logic to Christianity to "prove" that Christianity is just as "undesirable" as Islam, by tarring it with the brush of its worst practitioners and practices.
Fact: Radical/Fundamentalist Islam is not all of Islam. It is not even a majority. Fact: There do exist Moderate Muslims, who find the radicals and the fundamentalists just as disturbing as we do. There are likely more of them than there are of the radicals. Fact: It is not the radicals/fundamentalists who want to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Reacting as if they were is mindless prejudice. And that's the only point I wanted to make. Logan, I haven't yet had the time to properly read and think about your post. I am not ignoring you. Given my recent track record on completing things I want to write, I cannot and will not promise more than a brief response at this time, though. But believe me when I tell you I am not dismissing your points or your arguments. -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. Logan Darklighter Wrote:Antisemitism is a no-brainer. Islam is FAR more anti-Jew thanLOL. Yeah, because historically jews sure had it rough in Muslim states compared to that gentle treatment they got in Europe, right? And yes, while there is much hostility from many (not all) Muslim states towards a certain Jewish state in the world today, that stems entirely from geopolitical reasons only tangentially related to their respective religions. Really, that ignorant comment aside, I agree that what Christianity is or is not really has no bearing on what Islam is or is not. So let's declare what it is: - A religion. And here's what it isn't: - An ideology. - A universal movement. - Unified. - Something that allows you to predict certain behaviours or attitudes from its practitioners. It is the fact that you think it is the latter which is why you are wrong, and an ignorant bigot besides. It is you, and people like you, who are inclined to think that a cultural centre being built by an Islamic group, and including a mosque within it, within two blocks (OH NOES) of "ground zero" is somehow threatening, symbolic, or even relevant who are the cause of much of what is wrong with the world today. I am not saying that as hyperbole or even intending it to refer exclusively to American right-wing "culture war" hawks, loathsome though they are. The World Trade Center was destroyed by airplanes hijacked and used as missiles by several, mostly Saudi Arabian, agents trained and sent with that mission by al-Qaeda, a terrorist group based in Afghanistan and set up during the Soviet occupation of that same state. This attack was executed due to specific, articulated grievances with United States foreign policy, not limited to but primarily involving the establishment of permanent United States military bases in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia and U.S. collaboration with and propping up of the despotic (and, more importantly, not explicitly religious) Saudi regime. The leader of al-Qaeda is a rich Saudi who "found religion" in his youth and went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets feeling it was his duty to his religion to do so. Though he was an American ally at the time, he has since turned against them, as the threat they originally collaborated against no longer exists. It had nothing to do with a "war" between the United States and Islam, the "West" and Islam, or Christianity and Islam. That rich Saudi would dearly love it to be, of course, because he is a just a guy and some friends hiding in caves around the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and his resources are considerably limited compared to those of the United States. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and if they are all drawn to his side he has a far better chance of achieving his goals (or at least having set things in motion to achieve them). But it is not a war between Muslims and the United States. That rich Saudi has no religious authority within Islam (and has been criticised by Islamic authorities for pretending he does). Most Muslims in the world were either sympathetic to the victims of the WTC attacks, or indifferent to them (and those that weren't generally had excellent reasons for being unsympathetic to the United States). The United States has several predominantly Islamic countries allies (notably Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia), though all of them have had prickly moments over the past decade. Many Muslims were killed in the WTC attacks, and I am not referring to those who carried them out. There is absolutely no logical justification for thinking a mosque (within a twelve-story building primarily devoted to other purposes than worship, mind you) near the melodramatically-named "ground zero" has any relevance at all to the conflict between America and her allies and al-Qaeda and its allies unless the building was being built by the latter (it isn't), or by believing that this is all an actual struggle between the United States (or "the west", or Christianity) and some mythic unified force of "Islam" (rather than merely a struggle between the United States and al-Qaeda/other like-minded groups). You've made it quite clear you think it's the latter. Congratulations! You and that Saudi gentleman have at least one more common goal than you probably believed. But you're both wrong, because Islam isn't any more an ideology than Christianity is. And thinking about it in those terms is indeed the sort of ignorant, backwards, medieval thinking that characterised the Crusades period on both sides - with a few exceptions, such as Richard I and Saladin. You and people like you (such as that Saudi gentleman), being throwbacks to that sort of thinking, are primary causes of much of the warfare, hatred and sorrow in the world today (as you and people like you were back then as well). Of course, there's a certain amount of irony in my condemnation, but at least I'll criticise you based on the actual ideas you hold, not on what the name you call your adopted Jewish tribal god is, or how much melanin your skin possesses, or what semi-arbitrary name is given to your particular strain of Indo-Aryan genetic stock. 
Bitter, much?
Yes, let's all bash America because anyone against that imperialistic land of ignorant, grubbing, greedy swine can't possibly be ignorant, grubbing, greedy, imperialist swine themselves! Hey! I know! I'll poke people's patriotic buttons so I can get them riled up and defensive so I can prove *I'M* superior because *I'M* never wrong! Nah, on second thought, when I do that, I just come across as an asshat. ''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.'' -- James Nicoll
Down, Foxboy. I know that the vitriol tends to flow around here, but let's not get carried away.
Ayieke, Islam may not be an ideology, but it sure as hell lends itself pretty well to ideologues that got a chip on their shoulder about freedom-loving countries that allow their women-folk to do as they please. And while we are not fighting a war against Islam per se, we are fighting a war against ideologues that use Islam as their primary crutch. Which makes this a war just chock full of dirty underhanded nastiness that divides our country even further. Which is what a certain rich diseased cave-dwelling troll wants, I'm sure. Permitting a mosque, especially one with such a tactlessly chosen name, to even exist as a rented space in a building within sight of Ground Zero (which, I may add, is hallowed ground no matter how thin you slice it) is simply going to add more fuel to Osama bin Laden's fire. But then, so will disallowing its existence. It matters not, I guess, as he'll always find some way of twisting things around. But at the very least, choose a different name for the mosque! blackaeronaut Wrote:Down, Foxboy. I know that the vitriol tends to flow around here, but let's not get carried away.Ignoring the many quibbles I could have about describing the United States or Europe (or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or Japan or anywhere else in the first world) as "freedom-loving" in anything but a very relative sense... ...so what? Of course it does. And so does Christianity to many groups in the US. And so does French culture to French bigots, and so did Communism to bigots of that inclination, and so to and so forth for every single sort of belief system or shared identity that has ever existed in human history. There is nothing unique to Islam in this case, other than the fact that there are quite a lot of Islamic people living in certain regions that for various well-documented historical reasons are currently hostile to many of the richest countries. This has nothing at all to do with them being Islamic except in the most broad of senses. You don't hear about Hindu ideologues as much not because Hinduism is traditionally friendlier to women (it isn't), or because Hindus have more reason to like the "West" (they don't), but because of the fact they're not in the same geopolitical position and therefore for many reasons there is less reason for there to be a clash and less attention paid to what hostility there is. The fact many Muslims and entire Muslim-majority countries (such as Turkey) are neutral or pro-West in this matter indicates pretty strongly there's nothing special that indicates a fundamental clash of values between Muslims and the West, as if it wasn't enough evidence that there are millions of Muslims who are in the West. What is actually a clash here is between generally poor (occasional rich idealists like Bin Laden nonwithstanding, who is basically the equivalent of the last century's aristocratic Communists), uneducated populaces who have been in the very recent past exploited considerably and (broadly speaking) their former and current exploiters, but unlike most such populations (like, say, most of Africa and much of Asia), they are in a position of considerable importance due to the Middle East's oil reserves and strategic location. That's simplifying things (it also ties into the Cold War, how the Ottoman Empire broke up and a bunch of other factors), but the main point remains that it has nothing to do with them being Islamic, other than the fact that there is a certain community of feeling between Islamic populations and a shared general respect for certain holy places. This factor is relevant but shouldn't be overstated either; Persians are not Turks or Arabs or Pashtuns regardless of their religion, Sunnis are not Shiites (nor are they the only branches of Islam, nor are they monolithic, especially Sunnis), and every Middle Eastern country has numerous times chosen its own interests over those of any concept of pan-Islamism. Quote:And while we are not fighting a war against Islam per se, we are fighting a war against ideologues that use Islam as their primary crutch. Which makes this a war just chock full of dirty underhanded nastiness that divides our country even further. Which is what a certain rich diseased cave-dwelling troll wants, I'm sure.I honestly find it baffling that anybody could call that "hallowed ground" and really mean it. The WTC attacks were a great tragedy and certainly affected the geopolitical arena, but in terms of actual destruction and lives lost, they were frankly unimportant and no amount of myth-making will change that fact. The United States has lost far more people in the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they aren't "hallowed ground". Yes, the country was attacked. It has been attacked before that and will be attacked again. If that's "hallowed ground" and worthy of some sort of special treatment, what do the Iraqis get? They sure lost a hell of a lot more in every conceivable measure. But aside from what I consider a bafflingly pseudo-religious regard for the effects of a (tragic, unfortunate, and unjustified, yes, but still minor in terms of lives and money lost) terrorist attack, you're still completely missing the point. Why does a mosque being near it matter? Most of the hijackers were Saudi, as is that fellow in the cave who planned the attacks. Is building any business owned by Saudis somewhere near the WTC offensive? I'm sure some would say yes, but I think anyone honest would admit that this would cause no widespread outcry at all, and people outraged by this have mentioned the nationality of those behind the initiative as an afterthought if at all. Is a travel centre opening two blocks away (in downtown of one of the largest cities in the world, let us remember) somehow outrageous and disturbing this "hallowed ground"? No, nobody would care. Why do you, or anyone else, care if there is a mosque there? Sure, the hijackers were Islamic. They were also Saudi Arabian, Caucausian, male, religious (so would building a church be offensive?), legal immigrants, and many other things that nobody seems to care about whether other representatives exist somewhere in the area. So I'll ask again: Why does a mosque matter, and a travel centre not? The answer is, to some people, those hijackers apparently represented Islam. And therefore the WTC attacks happened because of Islam and are therefore linked with Islam in the same way certain other unmentionable tragedies are linked with the German National Socialist party. But this is wrong. The hijackers did not represent Islam, and more importantly, they didn't do what they did because of Islam. Thinking they did is to fall into the trap of thinking "Islamic" means more than "Christian" does. It doesn't. First off, there is no central Islamic authority, and hasn't been one since 1919 (and even he only represented Sunnis, and how much he represented anything varied depended on who you were asking). Second off, the Saudi gentleman in the cave does not have any authority to determine what is correct for Islam, as previously mentioned. Third off, there is no doctrinal justification in Islam for being religiously upset because the Saudi government let the United States government maintain military bases in the country. Oh, yes, no doubt you could find some line in the Qu'ran to justify that position, but since you can also find lines in the Qu'ran that insist you treat Jews well, that making war is wrong, that women should be treated with respect, and that committing suicide is sinful, it becomes clear that any side will cherry-pick whatever they want out of a historical text to support whatever they actually wanted to support anyway. Which, amazingly enough, is also true for the Bible (quoted in support of peace and war, slavery and emancipation, and many other things). And every other religious and political and sociological text ever written (think Marx would even have recognised the Soviet Union as an outgrowth of his ideas of liberating the masses from exploitation by an all-powerful ruling class?). Islam is an excuse for people to get what they want (in this case, a conservative, "moral", powerful pan-Arabic state not beholden to "Western" powers), and if it were not convenient, they would find another excuse. Equally devout Christians both accept the modern science of biology or espouse creationism - it's certainly true that you don't get many secular or atheist creationists, but that's for fairly obvious reasons. Moreover, in the United States, many of those Creationists are actually Catholic, despite the fact that the supreme head of the Catholic Church has made an official (and thus, by religious doctrine, infallible and divinely guided) proclamation of evolution's truth. Is this because there's something intrinsically broken and anti-science about Christianity? Of course it isn't. They believe that because of their actual political/philosophical leanings (and some considerable amounts of propaganda), which are completely independent of their religion - otherwise there could not possibly be a Catholic creationist, as by their own beliefs they are literally opposing the word of God in saying God created the world in a biblically literal fashion. The struggle between those who accept the overwhelming weight of modern science and those that espouse a mystical solution is not an argument between atheism/secularism and religion, but rather an argument between two groups of people, one of which uses religion as an excuse to believe what they would believe no matter what their religion actually said (actually, both of whom do, but that's another argument). So it is for Islam. So many tribal, poor, uneducated people treat women and minorities poorly and hate the rich people who recently (sometimes very recently) exploited and conquered their lands? Well, you might call me a bit jaded, but I just have to conclude that they'd be largely similar no matter what religion they were, and the fact that the ones we hear about a lot are Islamic have to do more with the intersection of "largely Muslim populated areas" and "oil wealth and strategic importance" than anything intrinsically to do with Islam itself. The hijackers did not attack because they were Muslim - they attacked because they were hostile to the United States and its allies in the Saudi government on the grounds of reactionary moralism, and while Islam was a good justification for this, it wouldn't have (and demonstrably didn't) made one bit of difference what was written in the Qu'ran. Islam is not a country, a creed, or even a coherent belief system (this is not an insult; it is simply true to say that of every religion with more than a handful of followers) - it has no real relevance to what happened to the WTC, and to think that a mosque is somehow offensive or representative of the ideology behind those attacks is to play right into the hands of that oft-mentioned Saudi gentleman. If you went back in time and magically switched the entire Middle East to Zoroastrianism but somehow kept historical events the same, conservative moralists in Saudi Arabia would still hate the Saudi government and the US and seek to attack them (violently or not depending on their other inclinations). Same if they were Buddhist. Or even Christian, and if you think Christians would treat other Christians less shabbily than Christians and Muslims have treated each other, you haven't studied history much. His real ideology is not "Islam", because Islam isn't an ideology. That's why it shouldn't matter whether a mosque is somewhere within two blocks of the WTC attacks, no matter how "hallowed" you believe they are. Islam is simply irrelevant (except in the very broadest terms) to the struggle going on between America and her allies (including her Islamic allies) and al-Qaeda and its allies - losing sight of that not only hands the man in a cave an unearned victory, and helps alienate your geopolitical allies by treating them like enemies, it's simply wrong.
Ayiekie beat me to it, and probably did it much better than I could; that's an excellent rebuttal and/or restatement of many of the points so far in this discussion. Thank you for making those posts, and furthermore, doing so in a restrained and civil tone.
I do want to follow up on one thing Ayiekie said. Blackaeronaut, why is Ground Zero hallowed? Yes, it is the site of a tragic loss of American life due to enemy action, but what has consecrated it? 3000 deaths? Does death consecrate? If so, why are hospitals not hallowed grounds? Is it death per unit time, or deaths per unit acre? If so, are Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki not in their entirety hallowed grounds? If they are, why have they been allowed to be rebuilt? Is it simply American deaths that hallow grounds? (In which case, do not the non-Americans lost in the WTC attacks reduce the inherent holiness of the grounds?) If Ground Zero is so hallowed, why are we building commercial buildings on top of it? Yes, there's a memorial and a museum planned. Why aren't they the only structures if the ground is so holy? The answer is they aren't. There's nothing particularly holy about a killing field, except maybe to a god of death or war. Calling Ground Zero "hallowed" is nothing but propaganda and an appeal to emotion. The former is despicable, the latter unnecessary except insofar as the Bush Administration squandered the patriotism and unity the attacks ignited in the American people, using them to fuel a private agenda against Iraq in addition to the proper pursuit of those who committed the attack. -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
Very well then, I withdraw my argument. However it still doesn't feel quite right. Call it what you will, but this still has a certain unquantifiable feeling of not-right. As I mentioned, it could just be the name.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)