BBC.com: Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[FrFan]

For many years I told my friends the best way to fight terrorism from within is education. Unfortunalety since 1982 we let down on education.

I wish someday we will do things differently for example use uniforms in school like in England.

Instead of displaying our flag outside the schools, display it inside.

Teach our national anthem in the schools and sing it once a week/month.

From 3rd grade to 5th grade we're teaching them very broadly revenues and expenses of state and local government, how does the Senate works, direct and indirect taxes. Those kids are too young to learn and to understand this stuff.

Instead we should teach them what is racism, antisemitism, crime against humanity, etc...

 

 

Of course we can. The ultimate question is should we.  I would love to make fun of the beliefs of certain religions but don't because I'm a human being and understand the feelings that will be hurt. I'm not saying there should be law to stop satire or anything like that. I love satire. Its awesome. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be all that shocked with the result. I'm not saying the result (terrorist attack) was justified, Let me say that again, I"M NOT saying it was justified, I'm just saying its not that surprising.

 

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from the consequences.  

I do agree with you. Eventhough I've been raised in a country with such a freedom of speech I think  Charlie Hebdo went a little bit too far in some of its cartoons, religion is a very sensitive topic.

[s0crates]

Well, we can quibble here. I'm not going to say that there was ZERO political component with respect to the origin of Christianity, but with respect to the level of politics, I think at some level the proof is in the pudding.

In this case the pudding includes things like: the crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, and manifest destiny.

Just sayin'.

[grego]

In this case the pudding includes things like: the crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, and manifest destiny.

Just sayin'.

I blame jesus.

[PeterMP]

In this case the pudding includes things like: the crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, and manifest destiny.

Just sayin'.

 

Yes I'm aware of those things and I think everybody in this thread is.

 

I'm also aware it also gave us centuries on either side of those types of events, including the current period, where I suspect that Christians today out number Christians in other periods (due to the growth of the world's population and the spread of Christianity to other continents) where such behaviors are widely rejected by Christians, and the period before that where Christianity was actually established and the documents that we use today with respect to what it means to be Christian were developed and those types of behaviors are also not found.

 

And I'm going to go further and say that I'm going to assume that you realized what I just wrote above (and decided not to include it in your post) and that I, and realistically everybody else in this thread, are also aware of the historical events mentioned in your post as well as the statement I just made above and assume that you were actually trying to make a relevant point with respect to the conversation other than give a history lesson that nobody really needs.

 

And so I'm to take the point that I made above to jpyaks3 and point out AGAIN that if we are forced to conclude that there are not things that solely cause terrorism and terrorists, but there are things that help contribute to terrorism and terrorists, we are going to be forced to conclude that nothing causes terrorists to be terrorists other than some unexplainable destiny.

 

That if we reject things as a contributing factor to terrorism, we will always be able to find some group somewhere (especially if we are going to look through out all of history) that doesn't fit the profile, which will cause us to reject every possible contributing factor.

 

That would force us to conclude that there are no real contributing factors to terrorism and that for unexplainable reasons some people are just destined to become terrorists.  Then the only way to prevent terrorism would be to identify those people before they become terrorists and kill them.

 

Now, I don't believe that, I suspect you don't believe that, and I suspect nobody in this thread believes that.

 

So I suspect that you actually support conversations that deal with degrees and the concept of contributing factors.

 

So I suspect that you don't support rejecting something has a possible contributing factor to terrorism simply because at some point in time that some part of another group behaved in a similar manner.

 

Which suggest that other then giving an unneeded history lesson, your post has zero actual value to the conversation.

 

Just sayin'.

 

**EDIT**

Just to be clear just because Christianity has been used to support violence in the past (and realistically in some cases today) is not evidence that other belief systems do not promote violence (more).

[s0crates]

Yes I'm aware of those things and I think everybody in this thread is.

It seems to me a reminder was in order.

I'm also aware it also gave us centuries on either side of those types of events, including the current period, where I suspect that Christians today out number Christians in other periods (due to the growth of the world's population and the spread of Christianity to other continents) where such behaviors are widely rejected by Christians, and the period before that where Christianity was actually established and the documents that we use today with respect to what it means to be Christian were developed and those types of behaviors are also not found.

I tend to agree that the gospels teach nonviolence and love, and I could give examples of Christians throughout history who seem to get that (e.g. American abolitionists, women's rights leaders like Anthony, civil rights leaders like King, etc.)

That said I think your attempt to minimize the history of Christian political violence is misguided for two reasons:

1. It begs the question by saying, in essence, Christianity is good if you ignore the bad stuff.

2. There are contemporary examples of Christian violence (e.g. The Olympic park bombing, anti-abortion killings, Irish paramilitaries, and relatively widespread anti-Hindu violence in India).

I'm inclined to say that Christianity is neither necessary nor sufficient for such violence, although it can obviously be a factor, but it is really a perversion of the Christian message of love. (Much like I'd say Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for terrorism, but can be a factor).

And I'm going to go further and say that I'm going to assume that you realized what I just wrote above (and decided not to include it in your post) and that I, and realistically everybody else in this thread, are also aware of the historical events mentioned in your post as well as the statement I just made above and assume that you were actually trying to make a relevant point with respect to the conversation other than give a history lesson that nobody really needs.

I think I have a relevant point here, although perhaps I need to be more explicit:

1. Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for terrorism.

2. Religions of all types (both Islam and Christianity for example) can motivate terrorism and violence, but the religions themselves are not necessarily bad because of that.

3. Assessing the causes of terrorism involves considering many factors besides the religion of the terrorists.

And so I'm to take the point that I made above to jpyaks3 and point out AGAIN that if we are forced to conclude that there are not things that solely cause terrorism and terrorists, but there are things that help contribute to terrorism and terrorists, we are going to be forced to conclude that nothing causes terrorists to be terrorists other than some unexplainable destiny.

That if we reject things as a contributing factor to terrorism, we will always be able to find some group somewhere (especially if we are going to look through out all of history) that doesn't fit the profile, which will cause us to reject every possible contributing factor.

That would force us to conclude that there are no real contributing factors to terrorism and that for unexplainable reasons some people are just destined to become terrorists. Then the only way to prevent terrorism would be to identify those people before they become terrorists and kill them.

I doubt that. Saying that the causes of violence are multifarious doesn't imply that there are no causes, it only implies that pointing to a "sole cause" is too simplistic.

I think religious hatred (Christian, Islamic, or otherwise) can lead to violence, but that doesn't show the religions themselves are necessarily evil. This is part of why I warn against the infantile thinking that Islam (or religion in general) is evil, such thinking leads to religious bigotry, which leads to violence.

Now, I don't believe that, I suspect you don't believe that, and I suspect nobody in this thread believes that.

So I suspect that you actually support conversations that deal with degrees and the concept of contributing factors.

So I suspect that you don't support rejecting something has a possible contributing factor to terrorism simply because at some point in time that some part of another group behaved in a similar manner.

Which suggest that other then giving an unneeded history lesson, your post has zero actual value to the conversation.

Just sayin'.

I think my point has merit.

The argument being made against Islam (that it promotes violence) can also be made against other religions. It is not fair to say that Islam (or other religions) are therefore evil. Such claims promote religious bigotry and hatred, which is the real problem (not the religions themselves).

It is certainly true that you cannot have religious hatred without religion, but I think the argument is not sufficient to condemn religion. Religion can also be a source of good. We should target not the religion, but the religious hatred. It seems to me an important distinction.

**EDIT**

Just to be clear just because Christianity has been used to support violence in the past (and realistically in some cases today) is not evidence that other belief systems do not promote violence (more).

That isn't my claim.

My claim is that religious beliefs of all sorts can promote violence, but this isn't sufficient to condemn entire religions.

I don't generalize from the Spanish Inquisition to a universal condemnation of Christianity, nor should you generalize from Islamic terrorism to a universal condemnation of Islam.

[grego]

socrates, if youre still barking up the equivalency tree with regards to mohammed and jesus, then i can only assume you dont know the subject matter. 

 

they are two very different religious figures who taught some very different things. 

[s0crates]

socrates, if youre still barking up the equivalency tree with regards to mohammed and jesus, then i can only assume you dont know the subject matter. 

 

they are two very different religious figures who taught some very different things.

I didn't say that Mohammed and Jesus are equivalent (nice straw man though). I said religious hatred promotes violence, and this is not exclusive to any particular religion.

[grego]

I didn't say that Mohammed and Jesus are equivalent (nice straw man though). I said religious hatred promotes violence, and this is not exclusive to any particular religion.

 

well, it wasnt easy to follow that last post, to be fair. its fixed now, though. 

 

so, were no talking about the teachings of these religious figures?

[s0crates]

well, it wasnt easy to follow that last post, to be fair. its fixed now, though.

so, were no talking about the teachings of these religious figures?

Yeah that post was a mess. I think I cleaned it up. I'm curious whether or not you still object to my reasoning there.

When it comes to the teachings of any religion, there is always some debate. Religious scholars have long known that scripture is subject to interpretation (the misguided contemporary idea of scriptural literalism notwithstanding). We could interpret the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed in various ways, and obviously there is disagreement about how to do this, but for what it is worth:

I tend to interpret Christianity as saying: 1 - Love God and 2 - Love one another. "There is no commandment greater than these." I think it is first and foremost a message of love. Of course not every Christian reads it that way.

I tend to interpret Islam as saying: There is only one God ("al-Ilah" = the God). "There is no God but the God." I think it is first and foremost a message of unity, or brotherly love. "Peace be upon you." Of course not every Muslim reads it that way.

Now it would be fair to highlight the main difference between Christian love and Islamic love, which seems to me this: Christian love involves turning the other cheek, whereas Muslim love involves justice.

Although we might compare the idea of "jihad" to just war theory in Christianity, "Defend yourself against your enemies, but do not attack them first: God hates the aggressor" (2:190).

Given all the talk in this thread about forced conversion, I might also add this passage to the analysis, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:257).

[PeterMP]

It seems to me a reminder was in order.

I tend to agree that the gospels teach nonviolence and love, and I could give examples of Christians throughout history who seem to get that (e.g. American abolitionists, women's rights leaders like Anthony, civil rights leaders like King, etc.)

That said I think your attempt to minimize the history of Christian political violence is misguided for two reasons:

1. It begs the question by saying, in essence, Christianity is good of you ignore the bad stuff.

2. There are contemporary examples of Christian violence (e.g. The Olympic park bombing, anti-abortion killings, Irish paramilitaries, and relatively widespread anti-Hindu violence in India).

First, I don't think I have minimized Christian political violence any where in this thread.

And let's be clear, if you go back and look at what I posted, I was talking about the integration of religion with the political system.

You've taken a comment that was about something else and commented on it with respect to something else

AT BEST, I'm guilty of minimizing the integration of Christianity and politics.

(and I KNOW you are capable of having high level discussions where you make such distinctions)

I'm inclined to say that Christianity is neither necessary nor sufficient for such violence, although it can obviously be a factor, but it is really a perversion of the Christian message of love. (Much like I'd say Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for terrorism, but can be a factor).

I think I have a relevant point here, although perhaps I need to be more explicit:

1. Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for terrorism.

2. Religions of all types (both Islam and Christianity for example) can motivate terrorism and violence, but the religions themselves are not necessarily bad because of that.

3. Assessing the causes of terrorism involves considering many factors besides the religion of the terrorists.

Is there anything other than terrorism itself that is necessary or sufficient for terrorism?

bin Laden was from an economically successful family and at least access to high level education.

He's nationality is Saudi, and the Saudi's haven't been subjected to (much) colonialism.

I doubt that. Saying that the causes of violence are multifarious doesn't imply that there are no causes, it only implies that pointing to a "sole cause" is too simplistic.

And of course, I've already said in this thread:

"I agree. It isn't JUST Islam (it might not even be at all Islam. I don't know, but a lot of people want to seem to dismiss Islam being a contributing factor at all pretty quickly based on what appears to me to be pretty weak evidence).

It isn't JUST one thing."

Now, is it possible that Islam is a contributing factor?

Is it possible that is it more greatly contributes to violence than (most) other major religions?

Let's get away from discussing Christianity.

Is it possible that that yes while Buddhists have been violent in the past and sometimes are violent today that Buddhism in of to itself is less of a contributing factor to violence than Islam?

If we could somehow imagine two equal possibilities other than religion that in Islam there is a greater probability to violence?

Is that not possible?

Why not?

Also is it possible that the nature of Islam (which is realistically what was being discussed in the post you responded to) that the nature of Islam and its history makes it more likely to be integrated into political systems than Buddhism?

Is that not possible?

Why not?

My claim is that religious beliefs of all sorts can promote violence, but this isn't sufficient to condemn entire religions.

I don't generalize from the Spanish Inquisition to a universal condemnation of Christianity, nor should you generalize from Islamic terrorism to a universal condemnation of Islam.

Who condemned all of any religion in this thread?

Are you trying to make points that aren't relevant to any point being made in this thread?

Why?

[s0crates]

First, I don't think I have minimized Christian political violence any where in this thread.

You seemed to respond to my historical examples by saying they were irrelevant, I was responding to that. I think the history is relevant and important.

 

And let's be clear, if you go back and look at what I posted, I was talking about the integration of religion with the political system.

My response to that involved examples of Christianity as a political tool. I specifically mentioned the role the church played in Rome and beyond throughout western history.

 

AT BEST, I'm guilty of minimizing the integration of Christianity and politics.

What role do you think religion should play in politics?

It seems to me many people of religious faith (Christianity and Islam included) think that role should be big. I tend to disagree with them though.

This isn't to say religion is bad. In fact I think it would be a help if religious leaders focused on the timeless and universal messages of love and justice found in religions.

 

Is there anything other than terrorism itself that is necessary or sufficient for terrorism?

Probably no single thing is a sufficient cause of terrorism. I imagine some combination of factors might suffice though.

However I can think of a few factors that might be necessary for terrorism. First and foremost among those factors is hatred, which is why I'm uneasy about anything that may fuel such hatred (say religious intolerance or generalizations about entire groups of people, for example).

 

Now, is it possible that Islam is a contributing factor?

Yes, Islam might contribute to violence, just as other religions may contribute to violence.

 

Is it possible that is it more greatly contributes to violence than (most) other major religions?

No. This seems to be where we disagree.

"It was Christians, not Muslims . . . who in the fifteenth century expelled the Jews from Spain where, under Islamic rule, they had enjoyed one of their golden ages . . . Indeed, if comparisons are what we want, Muslims consider Christianity's record the darker of the two. Who was it, they ask, who preached the Crusades in the name of the Prince of Peace? Who instituted the Inquisition, invented the rack and the stake as instruments of religion, and plunged Europe into devastating wars of religion? . . . To put the matter minimally, Islam's record of the use of force is no darker than that of Christianity.

Laying aside comparisons, Muslims admit that their record respecting force is not exemplary. Every religion at some stages in its career has been used by its professed adherents to mask aggression, and Islam is no exception." -Huston Smith

 

Is it possible that that yes while Buddhists have been violent in the past and sometimes are violent today that Buddhism in of to itself is less of a contributing factor to violence than Islam?

Yes. Although Buddhism may be the exceptional religion when discussing religious violence. They seem to have a better record than all the Abrahamic faiths anyway.

[PeterMP]

You seemed to respond to my historical examples by saying they were irrelevant, I was responding to that. I think the history is relevant and important.

They weren't relevant to any point that was being made, and they still aren't.

 

My response to that involved examples of Christianity as a political tool. I specifically mentioned the role the church played in Rome and beyond throughout western history.

And from there, you started talking about violence in general.

You said that I minimized Christian violence. The conversation was never about Christian violence until you suggested that I had minimized it.

 

What role do you think religion should play in politics?

It seems to me many people of religious faith (Christianity and Islam included) think that role should be big. I tend to disagree with them though.

I'm against the state endorsing or favoring any religion or religion at all.

 

Can we agree there is less emphasis in current Christianity in starting a clearly Christian state than currently in Islam?

 

No. This seems to be where we disagree.

"It was Christians, not Muslims . . . who in the fifteenth century expelled the Jews from Spain where, under Islamic rule, they had enjoyed one of their golden ages . . . Indeed, if comparisons are what we want, Muslims consider Christianity's record the darker of the two. Who was it, they ask, who preached the Crusades in the name of the Prince of Peace? Who instituted the Inquisition, invented the rack and the stake as instruments of religion, and plunged Europe into devastating wars of religion? . . . To put the matter minimally, Islam's record of the use of force is no darker than that of Christianity.

Laying aside comparisons, Muslims admit that their record respecting force is not exemplary. Every religion at some stages in its career has been used by its professed adherents to mask aggression, and Islam is no exception." -Huston Smith

 

Yes. Although Buddhism may be the exceptional religion when discussing religious violence. They seem to have a better record than all the Abrahamic faiths anyway.

You've seemed to contradict yourself.

"Is it possible that is it more greatly contributes to violence than (most) other major religions?"

How can the answer to that question be no.

But the question to this answer:

"Is it possible that that yes while Buddhists have been violent in the past and sometimes are violent today that Buddhism in of to itself is less of a contributing factor to violence than Islam?"

Yes.

More importantly with respect to the first question, how do you know?

Why is it not possible that Islam is more a contributor violence?

Your quote of Smith can be true and Islam be more of a contributor.

[s0crates]

They weren't relevant to any point that was being made, and they still aren't.

I disagree. If you say the "proof is in the pudding," then I think an analysis of the pudding is in order.

 

And from there, you started talking about violence in general.

Which also seems to me relevant to the topic.

If someone says Islam causes violence, it seems fair to consider other potential causes of violence, as it is to consider whether and to what degree religion in general may cause violence.

 

I'm against the state endorsing or favoring any religion or religion at all.

I strongly agree here.

I imagine a significant number of religious folks (especially among the Abrahamic faiths) are opposed to us on this,

 

Can we agree there is less emphasis in current Christianity in starting a clearly Christian state than currently in Islam?

Sure, as long as we can agree the currents change.

History is not the sort of thing that can be safely omitted from consideration. Islam has a history of tolerance, and Christianity has a history of intolerance, but neither of them are that way necessarily.

I'm not sure why you are so determined to frame the discussion in such away as to ignore such historical considerations.

 

You've seemed to contradict yourself.

"Is it possible that is it more greatly contributes to violence than (most) other major religions?"

How can the answer to that question be no.

But the question to this answer:

"Is it possible that that yes while Buddhists have been violent in the past and sometimes are violent today that Buddhism in of to itself is less of a contributing factor to violence than Islam?"

Yes.

I haven't contradicted myself. Notice I said Buddhism might be an "exceptional" case when compared to the "Abrahamic faiths" in particular.

This acknowledgment does not logically require me to say Islam is any more violent than Christianity, or even "(most) other religions."

 

More importantly with respect to the first question, how do you know?

History, however irrelevant you may find it.

 

Why is it not possible that Islam is more a contributor violence?

Because the facts of history demonstrate otherwise.

 

Your quote of Smith can be true and Islam be more of a contributor.

How so? He specifically says Islam's history is "no darker" than other religions, and Islam is "no exception" to the rule that religions have violent histories. The claim "Islam is a bigger cause of violence" seems to be the exact opposite of that.

[PeterMP]

I disagree. If you say the "proof is in the pudding," then I think an analysis of the pudding is in order.

Which also seems to me relevant to the topic.

If someone says Islam causes violence, it seems fair to consider other potential causes of violence, as it is to consider whether and to what degree religion in general may cause violence.

But the comment wasn't about violence, but about the role of the religion in politics.

And I've never claimed that Islam does contribute to violence more than other religions.

I've said I don't understand how people dismiss it as a possibility. 

I imagine a significant number of religious folks (especially among the Abrahamic faiths) are opposed to us on this,

Sure, as long as we can agree the currents change.

Can we agree that the founders of Christianity seemed less interested in politics than early Muslims?

That early Christians weren't worried about making peace treaties or what happened if they were broken and things like that?

 

That early Christians weren't as interested in creating/maintaining a Christian state as early Muslims?

 

History is not the sort of thing that can be safely omitted from consideration. Islam has a history of tolerance, and Christianity has a history of intolerance, but neither of them are that way necessarily.

I'm not sure why you are so determined as to frame the discussion in such away as to ignore this consideration.

I'm not omitting history from consideration.

I've never suggested that Christianity doesn't contribute to violence. Heck, I've never claimed that Islam contributes more or Christianity less.

 

I haven't contradicted myself. Notice I said Buddhism might be an "exceptional" case when compared to the "Abrahamic faiths" in particular.

This acknowledgment does not logically require me to say Islam is any more violent than Christianity.

I'm not suggesting that is a requirement. You are saying it isn't.

Do you really believe that Christianity and Islam contribute an exactly equal amount to violence?

That one of them doesn't contribute more than the other?

What is the likelihood of that happening?

 

History, however irrelevant you may find it.

Because the facts of history demonstrate otherwise.

How so? He specifically says Islam's history is "no darker" than other religions, and Islam is "no exception" to the rule that religions have violent histories. The claim "Islam is a bigger cause of violence" seems to be the exact opposite of that.

I actually missed the darker part of the comment.

The second part I think fits if we say:

0 < A < B

So it is your claim that Islam and Christianity contribute to violence exactly to the same degree?

That if you were forced to put a percentage on the value, you'd give them the same exact number?

Can I just say that I think the possibility for two different things like that being exactly the same is very unlikely.

I understand that coming up with an actual number is hard if not impossible, but the concept that they must be (or even are likely to be) equal seems ridiculous to me.

And it isn't just because it is religion. Think of any similar topic and and possible contributing factors, I have a hard time believing the value of two different systems being exactly the same being remotely small.

[s0crates]

If one man stones a prostitute and another burns a women at the stake, I should think it is nearly impossible to determine which has done worse.

[PeterMP]

If one man stones a prostitute and another burns a women at the stake, I should think it is nearly impossible to determine which has done worse.

 

Is it safe for me to interpret that as it is possible that Islam contributes more to violence?

 

That while it is difficult if not impossible to know/judge, it is possible?

 

Is it really that hard to say it directly?

 

Can I get a verdict on the political nature of early Christians as compared to early Muslims?

 

That was the topic when you originally interjected yourself (not violence by Christians even though that was what you actually decided to comment on).

 

Do you want to actually comment on that?

 

Were very early Muslims more interested in creating/maintaining Islamic states than early Christians with respect to Christian states?

 

Anybody?

[grego]

If one man stones a prostitute and another burns a women at the stake, I should think it is nearly impossible to determine which has done worse.

Not sure about prostitution, but the punishment for adultery in Islam is either stoning or 100 lashes along with one year banishment.

What did jesus say about punishment for prostitution?

[s0crates]

Not sure about prostitution, but the punishment for adultery in Islam is either stoning or 100 lashes along with one year banishment.

What did jesus say about punishment for prostitution?

I think what he said gets directly to the point I'm driving at here.

[grego]

I think what he said gets directly to the point I'm driving at here.

What point is that? Cuz I think I'm missing it.

[PeterMP]

What point is that? Cuz I think I'm missing it.

 

I'd suggest that it is related to the idea that there is an agreed upon punishment for adultery, which then suggest that every Muslim believes in what most westerners would consider a harsh penalty for adultery.

 

That a long time and respected poster like SHF here either believes that people that commit adultery must be severely punished or he's not actual Muslim despite his claims that he is.

 

That it isn't at all possible to be Muslim and not hold that there should be a harsh penalty with respect to adultery.

 

Which is essentially telling at least millions of people that claim to be Muslim that they aren't Muslim.

 

Now, I'll point out that I can point that out, and say I think that sort of thinking is wrong and simultaneously say that it is bad if 85.5% of Muslims think of al Qeada unfavorably (and I'll note the actual poll has that number much lower).

 

**EDIT**

I originally left out the un in unfavorable.  Sorry for any confusion

**/EDIT**

 

That it is possible that Islam contributes to violence more than (most) other major religions.

 

And early Christians were less interested in creating Christian states than early Muslims.  That Paul was less interested in Christian states than the people that directly followed Muhammad were interested in creating/maintaining Muslim states.

 

Those sorts of views aren't mutually exclusive, and I think we do our selves a disservice by trying to have vague conversations and not admitting things that appear to be true.

 

That we SHOULD be able to say the sort of thinking that appears to be represented in that post to me is wrong, and simultaneously honestly and clearly be able answer the questions I've been posing through out this thread that people have been refusing to answer directly.

[Jumbo]

PeterMP, on your adultery angle, and I don't intend to derail, but isn't there similarity to aspects of the Christian faith where masturbation or sex out of holy matrimony (among many examples) is damnable sin, and while you may (do) fail to eliminate the sinful behavior (as also with "lying"), to be forgiven you have to at least be truly repentant "in your heart" (my quotes) and try your utmost to change the behavior (even if you fail repeatedly). But with most Christians (over history and now) who masturbate (a rather large number I'd suggest) or have out of wedlock sex (ditto) reality suggests they aren't "truly repentant in their heart" and fully intend to do "it" again, so they are not "really Christian" either by argument?

 

Point being mass segments of each of the "Abrahamic (Semitic) religions do things or ascribe to thinking that make them "not truly of their faith" by dogma yet still consider themselves faithful adherents and are still generally perceived and treated as such by even clergy (inc. with my Christian examples) and congregation (or equivalent). 

 

Yet another framing:

 

"I'm Muslim, and I don't believe in stoning women for adultery. But I AM Muslim, and am accepted as such by my Muslim fellows."

 

"I'm Christian, and I do masturbate (or have sex out of wedlock),....etc."

[s0crates]

What point is that? Cuz I think I'm missing it.

"Let the one without sin cast the first stone."

I think that explains itself.

It seems to me Christians have been casting stones at Islam, and I've reminded them that Christianity is not without sin.

[grego]

"Let the one without sin cast the first stone."

I think that explains itself.

It seems to me Christians have been casting stones at Islam, and I've reminded them that Christianity is not without sin.

OK.

But now we're generalizing. You're talking about Christianity and Islam in terms of the Catholic Church, for example, where there's a structure, a leader, etc.

There are many sects within Christianity and Judaism and Islam, among other large religions.

One shouldn't hold a small church in Wyoming responsible for what Westboro Baptist does, even though both say they are Christians, just as one shouldn't lump all Muslims in with isis.

This is why I try to keep the focus on the 'founders' on the religions, as in, what did they actually teach.

Muhammed was a different kind of religious figure than jesus. There's nothing wrong with Muhammed being a more political, military leader. I was in the military. I can relate.

A point that few seem willing to accept is that Muhammeds conquests in terms of his military activity is what these radicals are emulating, in word and deed.

Is it possible that some of what they are following is something they've taken out if context? Absolutely. Is it the only contributing factor to terrorist activity? Absolutely not. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

But when the argument of equivalence comes up (as it inevitably does) I think it's wise to distinguish between good and bad religious people within a belief system, for starters (while avoiding generalization), get down to what people believe, and where they get their beliefs from.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Something is systemically and culturally wrong in a large number of Muslim countries. That's not prejudice. That's a simple statement of fact (albeit one coming from a secular Western position).

 

Here is the puzzle and frustration though: It hasn't always been this way. The Ottoman Empire for a large portion of its history was more tolerant of religious diversity than Christian Europe. Even after WWI, the populations of these countries were not radicalized.

 

This is a fairly recent phenomenom. Which should both be frightening and somewhat hopeful. Frightening in the fact that it shows no signs of abating and hopeful in the sense that something that has grown with in a generation or two can vanish within a generation or two - as Germany, Japan, and maybe even Colombia have shown.

 

I don't pretend to have any freaking idea how to deal with this issue in the here and now.

[Kosher Ham]

Might have turned into the best religious thread I have read here in quite some time.

 

Very interesting takes from all involved. Thank you.

 

Much respect for the way you are all presenting your points and defending them.

 

The only ways to learn for me, is to read, write, listen, or find.

 

I read, write, listen to something everyday. 3 out of four isn't too bad.