Except for the fact that Islam does NOT advocate violence against non-believers, neither does Christianity, and I highly doubt Hinduism does either, but I'm less knowledgeable about that one. The Arab leadership, and the Muslim extremists are perverting the Koran to "prove" their ideals much in the same way the American Republican Party is perverting the Bible to prove theirs.
Where there's power to be taken, nothing is sacred. As long as we give these extremists even the time of day, they are winning.
When you take statements out of context, you can use them to prove anything. While I can't directly talk about the Koran (I've been meaning to read it), but I can about the Bible.
You cannot take statements out of the Old Testament without also including the New Testament books. The OT is about setting up history and pretext for what the NT teaches about life. Yes the OT has some very violent stories, but you cannot read through them and say "oh, this is telling ME, TODAY, to be violent". To do so is to say that killing intellectuals is OK today because the Khamer Rouge did it in Cambodia. Or that it's ok to drop a nuke on someone because we did it to Japan. The Old Testament is history and context so that you understand the importance of the coming of Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament, and no-where does Jesus's teaching tell people to take up arms and cause violence.
This is politics and religion, it shouldn't be on HN.
But it's here, so... From a logical and humanist point of view I would say that the FBI looking out for people who adhere to violent and radical philosophies is a valid activity no matter if the background is islamic or not. There is certainly a point to be made that mainstream Islam is more radical than the mainstream of many other religions on the basis that it is one of the last mainstream movements violently opposed to human rights and democracy. Whether that is universally true I cannot verify and I doubt the FBI can either.
I certainly know a few Muslims who are about as pious as the average Christian who only goes to church when weddings and funerals are taking place. Whether those people are mainstream Muslims and mainstream Christians as opposed to "mainstream citizens" I cannot say and it would probably be counterproductive for law enforcement to make assumptions on what "mainstream" actually means in practice.
"one of the last "mainstream" movements violently opposed to human rights and democracy"
I have been trying to figure out what you mean by this, to no success. Does the violence against blacks in the US during the mid-1900s Civil Rights movement, to say nothing of slavery in the 1800s, carried out often by pious Christians certain of the morality of what they were doing, not serve as an example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within the Christian faith?
I also point out the numerous dictatorships in Central and South America, in devoutly Catholic countries, held by force of arms. The estimated 30,000 desaparecidos of Argentina are certainly due to nothing other than "violent opposition to human rights and democracy", and the actions of the government was certainly influenced by the conservative Catholic views of the leaders - the leader Oganía dedicated the country to the "protection and intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
The third largest religious group, after Christianity and Islam, is Hinduism. I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India. Since it's one of the mainstream movements you mentioned, perhaps you can say something about it?
> Does the violence against blacks [...] not serve as an example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within the Christian faith?
I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.
> I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India.
Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as "what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game, one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.
Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.
Indeed, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "mainstream movement."
I get the feeling that most of the the movements for human rights and democracy have little direct justification in religion faith, at least not in the broad strokes where "moderate Islam" is meaningful.
By that I mean that I see many strongly religious people who use their faith as justification to prevent voting or public participation from women and minorities. Just like I see those using tenants of their religious faith to justify human rights and democracy.
It's hard in the US to make sense of a large portion of the Republican Party - which must certainly be representative of a mainstream movement - without drawing the conclusion that don't have the same sense of human rights as I do, and would prefer that the poor and others in the US have fewer rights and less democratic say. While Martin Luther King Jr. strongly based his views on equality and social rights in his religious faith.
What I have difficulty disambiguating is the effect of specifically Saudi oil money promoting the Wahhabism, which seeks a pure Moslem faith, vs. the other Moslem faiths. I also have to believe that the history of British and French control (eg, the Sykes-Picot Agreement) plus the US involvement in Operation Ajax hasn't helped promote democracy. As a comparison, perhaps Turkey or Indonesia are useful ways to see more secular Moslem majority countries.
8 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] threadWhere there's power to be taken, nothing is sacred. As long as we give these extremists even the time of day, they are winning.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221015548AA... And the Bible, for good measure.
You cannot take statements out of the Old Testament without also including the New Testament books. The OT is about setting up history and pretext for what the NT teaches about life. Yes the OT has some very violent stories, but you cannot read through them and say "oh, this is telling ME, TODAY, to be violent". To do so is to say that killing intellectuals is OK today because the Khamer Rouge did it in Cambodia. Or that it's ok to drop a nuke on someone because we did it to Japan. The Old Testament is history and context so that you understand the importance of the coming of Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament, and no-where does Jesus's teaching tell people to take up arms and cause violence.
But it's here, so... From a logical and humanist point of view I would say that the FBI looking out for people who adhere to violent and radical philosophies is a valid activity no matter if the background is islamic or not. There is certainly a point to be made that mainstream Islam is more radical than the mainstream of many other religions on the basis that it is one of the last mainstream movements violently opposed to human rights and democracy. Whether that is universally true I cannot verify and I doubt the FBI can either.
I certainly know a few Muslims who are about as pious as the average Christian who only goes to church when weddings and funerals are taking place. Whether those people are mainstream Muslims and mainstream Christians as opposed to "mainstream citizens" I cannot say and it would probably be counterproductive for law enforcement to make assumptions on what "mainstream" actually means in practice.
I have been trying to figure out what you mean by this, to no success. Does the violence against blacks in the US during the mid-1900s Civil Rights movement, to say nothing of slavery in the 1800s, carried out often by pious Christians certain of the morality of what they were doing, not serve as an example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within the Christian faith?
I also point out the numerous dictatorships in Central and South America, in devoutly Catholic countries, held by force of arms. The estimated 30,000 desaparecidos of Argentina are certainly due to nothing other than "violent opposition to human rights and democracy", and the actions of the government was certainly influenced by the conservative Catholic views of the leaders - the leader Oganía dedicated the country to the "protection and intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
The third largest religious group, after Christianity and Islam, is Hinduism. I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India. Since it's one of the mainstream movements you mentioned, perhaps you can say something about it?
I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.
> I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India.
Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as "what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game, one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.
Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.
I get the feeling that most of the the movements for human rights and democracy have little direct justification in religion faith, at least not in the broad strokes where "moderate Islam" is meaningful.
By that I mean that I see many strongly religious people who use their faith as justification to prevent voting or public participation from women and minorities. Just like I see those using tenants of their religious faith to justify human rights and democracy.
It's hard in the US to make sense of a large portion of the Republican Party - which must certainly be representative of a mainstream movement - without drawing the conclusion that don't have the same sense of human rights as I do, and would prefer that the poor and others in the US have fewer rights and less democratic say. While Martin Luther King Jr. strongly based his views on equality and social rights in his religious faith.
What I have difficulty disambiguating is the effect of specifically Saudi oil money promoting the Wahhabism, which seeks a pure Moslem faith, vs. the other Moslem faiths. I also have to believe that the history of British and French control (eg, the Sykes-Picot Agreement) plus the US involvement in Operation Ajax hasn't helped promote democracy. As a comparison, perhaps Turkey or Indonesia are useful ways to see more secular Moslem majority countries.