Islam

[Leonid]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781&q=islam%3A+what+the+west+needs+to+know&total=204&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0# Edited March 10, 2010 by Leonid

[dan2100]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I looked at this just now and I think I remember seeing it a few years ago. I just don't have the extra hour and a half right now.

If it is the same one I remember, it suffers from exactly the type of flawed premise you mention. Kinda like a gotcha game with scripture while ignoring the reality of entire populations.

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan,

I looked at this just now and I think I remember seeing it a few years ago. I just don't have the extra hour and a half right now.

If it is the same one I remember, it suffers from exactly the type of flawed premise you mention. Kinda like a gotcha game with scripture while ignoring the reality of entire populations.

Michael

I thought so. I'll still give it a look. I'm not sympathetic toward any religion -- least of all Islam. But, like you said, there's all these people who seem to not going around doing all the worst things some interpretations of their scriptures would have believe they must do. So, scriptural determinism doesn't meet the reality test.

I also used to pull a little trick in some of the forums I've been in the past. This was to quote a slightly altered passage from Deuteronomy 13, saying it was from the Koran, and then ask if this passage had been abrogated -- because it obviously calls for genocide -- specifically, wiping out entire cities -- for people holding the wrong faith. Of course, it's not from the Koran; it's from the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. Were scriptural determinism true, the world would be a far more dangerous place than even the twenty-four news cycle tries to make us think it is.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

Now that you mention it, I remember a strong emphasis on the abrogation thing, where the later more violent passages in the Qur'an trump the earlier more peaceful ones. Once again, if it is the same film.

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan,

Now that you mention it, I remember a strong emphasis on the abrogation thing, where the later more violent passages in the Qur'an trump the earlier more peaceful ones. Once again, if it is the same film.

Michael

I'm sure any halfway decent film on Islam is going to mention abrogation. I only used it because I thought some in my audience would know it and chime in with, "Oh, yes, they claim this has been abrogated, but, you see, it calls for genocide." Then, of course, I'd reveal the passage is not from Qur'an at all and see their reaction. I tried it a few times, but didn't exactly get that reaction.

Two people actually figured out it was from Deuteronomy too. It's not exactly the Bible's best kept secret...

[Selene]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

Folks:

Serge Trifkovic, appears to have an agenda which is fine, but to somehow post that without a qualifier just furthers my downgrading of Leonid's ethos proofs.

http://www.freeman.o...3/eidelberg.htm

"In her extraordinary work, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Bat Ye'or avoids discussing Islam per se. She lets Islam's thirteen-century record of plunder, rape, and genocide discredit that religion. One would hardly know of such barbarism reading the doyan of Islamic scholars, Bernard Lewis. Judging from his book What Went Wrong? (2002), nothing is intrinsically wrong with the religion that enthralls 1.2 billion people. And Lewis, unlike John Esposito, is not known as an apologist of Islam. Enter Serge Trifkovic, a man of extraordinary intellectual courage. His The Sword of the Prophet departs from the moral "neutrality" of academia and, in six lucid and well-documented chapters, provides a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." Citing the Kuran and the voluminous Hadiths—the Traditions of what Muhammad said and did—Dr. Trifkovic exposes Islam's prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. He examines Islam's fatalistic theology; reviews this religion's devastation of other civilizations; warns of the Muslims' insidious penetration of America and Europe; criticizes U.S. appeasement of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic regimes; and goes to the heart of what must be done to prevent Islam's global ascendancy.

Chapter 1, "Muhammad," portrays a simple preacher who became a fanatical warlord in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. After slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape. One Hadith explains:

'We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, but at the same time we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl [coitus interruptus]. But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger … and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.'"

Now we also have a response from a different agenda...my my it all looks soooo familiar:

The Repulsive World of Serge Trifkovic

by Habib Siddiqui

In recent days, Serge (a.k.a. Srdja) Trifkovic has gained much notoriety among Muslim-haters through his slanderous and poisonous writings against Muslims. His book "The sword of the Prophet" is similar to many such post-Cold War era books that are written to keep alive the perceived "threat" of Islam before our eyes, while guaranteeing themselves profitable fees, consultancies, recurrent appearances in TV and lucrative book contracts. To these bunch of bigoted, eavesdropping, lying and self-promoting journalists, in these days, esp. after 9/11, there is no better and easier way to draw attention and sell books than to demean and dehumanize Muslims and Islam.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/habibsiddiqui3.html

Adam

Edited March 10, 2010 by Selene

[Leonid]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

I think that scriptures or rather interpretation of scripture does have influence on believers. This is in fact the only source of religious thought.

Islam is militant religion and the history of Islam confirms it. But other religions are not less militant than Islam. History of Christianity is history of bloodshed, war, suffering, sacrifice, torture in spite the fact that New Testament is about love and nothing but love. The only difference is that Islam was and is inseparable from the structures of power while Christianity had been divorced from it.

[Selene]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

I think that scriptures or rather interpretation of scripture does have influence on believers. This is in fact the only source of religious thought.

Islam is militant religion and the history of Islam confirms it. But other religions are not less militant than Islam. History of Christianity is history of bloodshed, war, suffering, sacrifice, torture in spite the fact that New Testament is about love and nothing but love. The only difference is that Islam was and is inseparable from the structures of power while Christianity had been divorced from it.

And Jewish history?

Shinto history?

Pagan history?

My my my...seems to be a trend.

Adam

[dan2100]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

I think that scriptures or rather interpretation of scripture does have influence on believers. This is in fact the only source of religious thought.

Islam is militant religion and the history of Islam confirms it. But other religions are not less militant than Islam. History of Christianity is history of bloodshed, war, suffering, sacrifice, torture in spite the fact that New Testament is about love and nothing but love. The only difference is that Islam was and is inseparable from the structures of power while Christianity had been divorced from it.

By "scriptural determinism," I think Wright means -- and I certainly use it this way -- something stronger than just influenced by scriptures. I think he means that the scriptures or their interpretation would be the major or dominant factor in the religious person's thought and actions. In other words, if it's true, one would expect to be able to look at the scriptures in question and read off how the believer would act. This doesn't appear to be the case for most believers of any faith. Yes, we can find subsets, but the amazing thing is how little such a reading of scripture would tell us about the thought, action, and character of most self-identified believers. (And the same goes, I think, for ideological determinism. People who claim to hold a certain ideology often think and act in ways that seem worlds apart from what I'd expect them to think or act based on their ideology. Rand seems to have understood this with her notion of compartmentalization.)

Regarding the "structures of power" argument, what does this have to do with scriptural deteminism? Even in cases where religious people have power, they don't all seem to merely read their scriptures off into policy. (Of course, given that all these scriptures are full of ambiguities and outright inconsistencies, one would expect either ambiguous/inconsistent policies or policies that aren't exactly predictable from looking at the particular scriptures the leaders supposedly follow.)

[bmacwilliam]

http://video.google....arch&plindex=0#

I haven't seen and might not be able to see this for a while, but I'm hoping it isn't under the spell of what Robert Wright, in his The Evolution of God, calls "scriptural determinism." By that term, he means those "who think that scripture exerts overwhelming influence on the religious thought of believers, and that their social and political circumstances matter little if at all."

I think that scriptures or rather interpretation of scripture does have influence on believers. This is in fact the only source of religious thought.

Islam is militant religion and the history of Islam confirms it. But other religions are not less militant than Islam. History of Christianity is history of bloodshed, war, suffering, sacrifice, torture in spite the fact that New Testament is about love and nothing but love. The only difference is that Islam was and is inseparable from the structures of power while Christianity had been divorced from it.

More or less I agree with this. However, one thing that we must be careful of is the notion that "All religions have a bloody history and current radical elements, so they're all equal in this regard." It sounds rational, but it's not.

The facts say different. There is no counterpart to the institutionalized and in many cases, nationalized Islam-based violent hatred of Israel, Jews, and the west. There are multiple orders of magnitude greater numbers of terrorists and extremists in Islam compared to other religions. Heads of state, heads of church regularly spew hatred all the time. Ahmed-idiot in Iran does this on a daily basis it seems. How many thousands of extreme Madras's are there polluting the minds of young people all over the Middle East?

Sure, there are analagous counterparts in all or most religions, but NO WHERE NEAR the numbers of Islam right now. It's not even close! Yes, there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, but there are far far more non-peaceful Muslims than other religions. How many millions? There IS a problem here.

I am not anti-Muslim (like some here), but I certainly am anti-Islam. Islam is a body of thought and on that basis it is worthy of the harshist of criticisms and we should never feel like we need to tiptoe around this. Islam (as well as other religions) warrant this criticism, but it's pretty darn clear which one is the worst.

Bob

Edited March 11, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

More or less I agree with this. However, one thing that we must be careful of is the notion that "All religions have a bloody history and current radical elements, so they're all equal in this regard." It sounds rational, but it's not.

The facts say different. There is no counterpart to the institutionalized and in many cases, nationalized Islam-based violent hatred of Israel, Jews, and the west. There are multiple orders of magnitude greater numbers of terrorists and extremists in Islam compared to other religions. Heads of state, heads of church regularly spew hatred all the time. Ahmed-idiot in Iran does this on a daily basis it seems. How many thousands of extreme Madras's are there polluting the minds of young people all over the Middle East?

Actually, there is. Some followers of Judaism violently suppressed followers of earlier religions within their region. Some followers of Christianity did the same once they attained power. Where did all those pagans go? They were, for the most part, violently suppressed. And followers of both these religions have a history of violently suppressing dissenters within their ranks -- often by killing them off.

Sure, there are analagous counterparts in all or most religions, but NO WHERE NEAR the numbers of Islam right now. It's not even close! Yes, there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, but there are far far more non-peaceful Muslims than other religions. How many millions? There IS a problem here.

But most of this can be looked at in light of the social and political circumstances Wright mentions in his book. (And the same goes for Judaism and Christianity. In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous. In the context of advanced Western liberal polities, followers of them are generally peaceful and "abrogate" or ignore the more violent passages in their scriptures. If not, you really need to explain why all these people aren't reading Deuteronomy 13 and applying it to everyone else. Certainly, many followers of these faiths had no problem applying that particular idea in times past -- as during the Thirty Years War, for instance, between various Christian sects in Western Europe.)

I am not anti-Muslim (like some here), but I certainly am anti-Islam. Islam is a body of thought and on that basis it is worthy of the harshist of criticisms and we should never feel like we need to tiptoe around this. Islam (as well as other religions) warrant this criticism, but it's pretty darn clear which one is the worst.

I'm anti-religion (in general) too -- if anyone's keeping track. I don't think anyone here has advocated tiptoeing around criticizing Islam or any other faith (or philosophy, belief system, or idea). I certainly haven't. And I have no problem with criticizing anything. But I do want to make sure the criticisms are valid and, when applied to religious movements and peoples, take into account things like Wright's views of scriptural determinism. (Which is not to say I agree with all else in Wright's book, though I do recommend it.)

Edited March 11, 2010 by Dan Ust

[bmacwilliam]

Actually, there is. Some followers of Judaism violently suppressed followers of earlier religions within their region. Some followers of Christianity did the same once they attained power. Where did all those pagans go? They were, for the most part, violently suppressed. And followers of both these religions have a history of violently suppressing dissenters within their ranks -- often by killing them off.

Certainly, I only disagree with your tense. I say "WAS" not "IS" and that's part of my point. I do not deny the violent history of all or most religions. What I'm saying is Islamic-based violent history hasn't ended yet. There is far more violence in the name of Islam - now, let's not deny this.

But most of this can be looked at in light of the social and political circumstances Wright mentions in his book. (And the same goes for Judaism and Christianity. In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous. In the context of advanced Western liberal polities, followers of them are generally peaceful and "abrogate" or ignore the more violent passages in their scriptures. If not, you really need to explain why all these people aren't reading Deuteronomy 13 and applying it to everyone else. Certainly, many followers of these faiths had no problem applying that particular idea in times past -- as during the Thirty Years War, for instance, between various Christian sects in Western Europe.)

Again, past is past, now is most important. Now, the thought of fighting a holy war is a totally alien thought to the vast majority of secular western society. This isn't the same in the Middle East. Islam seems to have more staying power - in a bad way. Sure, we also cannot deny the powerful social and political forces, I agree. But this doesn't mean you can equate the religions either.

After all, fill in the blanks...

Murders Committed: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Age of Youngest Wife: Jesus_______Buddha_______Mohammed________

These "prophets" aren't comparable. Even if you think they're all full of crap, one of them was most definitely more demented and cruel than the others.

And you said "In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous."

Yes. Some more than others.

Bob

[dan2100]

Actually, there is. Some followers of Judaism violently suppressed followers of earlier religions within their region. Some followers of Christianity did the same once they attained power. Where did all those pagans go? They were, for the most part, violently suppressed. And followers of both these religions have a history of violently suppressing dissenters within their ranks -- often by killing them off.

Certainly, I only disagree with your tense. I say "WAS" not "IS" and that's part of my point. I do not deny the violent history of all or most religions. What I'm saying is Islamic-based violent history hasn't ended yet. There is far more violence in the name of Islam - now, let's not deny this.

That's where I'm unsure. I don't know the absolute amount of violence today broken down by religious affiliation.

I understand your "is" versus "was" usage earlier and this kind of plays into my point, I think -- that being scriptural determinism doesn't work here as Wright would tell us. Rather, other factors -- social, political, etc. -- come into play. I think you agree with this, though you still seem to think, all else being equal, believers in Islam will be more violent than those of other faiths and even those of other Abrahamic faiths.

But most of this can be looked at in light of the social and political circumstances Wright mentions in his book. (And the same goes for Judaism and Christianity. In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous. In the context of advanced Western liberal polities, followers of them are generally peaceful and "abrogate" or ignore the more violent passages in their scriptures. If not, you really need to explain why all these people aren't reading Deuteronomy 13 and applying it to everyone else. Certainly, many followers of these faiths had no problem applying that particular idea in times past -- as during the Thirty Years War, for instance, between various Christian sects in Western Europe.)

Again, past is past, now is most important. Now, the thought of fighting a holy war is a totally alien thought to the vast majority of secular western society. This isn't the same in the Middle East. Islam seems to have more staying power - in a bad way. Sure, we also cannot deny the powerful social and political forces, I agree. But this doesn't mean you can equate the religions either.

But that's a big difference: "secular western society" is very different from societies that are not secular or not Western, whether those be Islamic ones or not.

After all, fill in the blanks...

Murders Committed: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Age of Youngest Wife: Jesus_______Buddha_______Mohammed________

These "prophets" aren't comparable. Even if you think they're all full of crap, one of them was most definitely more demented and cruel than the others.

And you said "In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous."

Yes. Some more than others.

I'm not sure what the "Youngest Wife" thing has to do with this -- unless you're using that as a measure of violence against women. Your test, though, might have come out very different had you asked:

Murders committed by people professing the religion of: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Don't you agree?

(If my memory's correct, too, we don't have good records on any of the three -- least of all on Buddha and almost as little on Jesus. So, we don't know even if they existed or what their characters and actions were like if they did. We know a bit more about Mohammed, though I'd be careful because most (or all?) of the biography of him comes from believers and was only written down, if my memory's correct, years after his death. Of course, the expectation here would be that the biography would be made more appealing from the stand post of whoever's doing the writing of it. This works much better, though, in the favor of making Buddha and Jesus look more peaceful and honorable than they might have been -- were they real people. (The surprising thing would be that anything questionable survives at all.))

[bmacwilliam]

Actually, there is. Some followers of Judaism violently suppressed followers of earlier religions within their region. Some followers of Christianity did the same once they attained power. Where did all those pagans go? They were, for the most part, violently suppressed. And followers of both these religions have a history of violently suppressing dissenters within their ranks -- often by killing them off.

Certainly, I only disagree with your tense. I say "WAS" not "IS" and that's part of my point. I do not deny the violent history of all or most religions. What I'm saying is Islamic-based violent history hasn't ended yet. There is far more violence in the name of Islam - now, let's not deny this.

That's where I'm unsure. I don't know the absolute amount of violence today broken down by religious affiliation.

I understand your "is" versus "was" usage earlier and this kind of plays into my point, I think -- that being scriptural determinism doesn't work here as Wright would tell us. Rather, other factors -- social, political, etc. -- come into play. I think you agree with this, though you still seem to think, all else being equal, believers in Islam will be more violent than those of other faiths and even those of other Abrahamic faiths.

But most of this can be looked at in light of the social and political circumstances Wright mentions in his book. (And the same goes for Judaism and Christianity. In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous. In the context of advanced Western liberal polities, followers of them are generally peaceful and "abrogate" or ignore the more violent passages in their scriptures. If not, you really need to explain why all these people aren't reading Deuteronomy 13 and applying it to everyone else. Certainly, many followers of these faiths had no problem applying that particular idea in times past -- as during the Thirty Years War, for instance, between various Christian sects in Western Europe.)

Again, past is past, now is most important. Now, the thought of fighting a holy war is a totally alien thought to the vast majority of secular western society. This isn't the same in the Middle East. Islam seems to have more staying power - in a bad way. Sure, we also cannot deny the powerful social and political forces, I agree. But this doesn't mean you can equate the religions either.

But that's a big difference: "secular western society" is very different from societies that are not secular or not Western, whether those be Islamic ones or not.

After all, fill in the blanks...

Murders Committed: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Age of Youngest Wife: Jesus_______Buddha_______Mohammed________

These "prophets" aren't comparable. Even if you think they're all full of crap, one of them was most definitely more demented and cruel than the others.

And you said "In certain social and political contexts, these religions become extremely dangerous."

Yes. Some more than others.

I'm not sure what the "Youngest Wife" thing has to do with this -- unless you're using that as a measure of violence against women. Your test, though, might have come out very different had you asked:

Murders committed by people professing the religion of: Jesus_______ Buddha________Mohammed________

Don't you agree?

(If my memory's correct, too, we don't have good records on any of the three -- least of all on Buddha and almost as little on Jesus. So, we don't know even if they existed or what their characters and actions were like if they did. We know a bit more about Mohammed, though I'd be careful because most (or all?) of the biography of him comes from believers and was only written down, if my memory's correct, years after his death. Of course, the expectation here would be that the biography would be made more appealing from the stand post of whoever's doing the writing of it. This works much better, though, in the favor of making Buddha and Jesus look more peaceful and honorable than they might have been -- were they real people. (The surprising thing would be that anything questionable survives at all.))

Lot's of stuff in there, but I don't think we disagree on much. Sure, it's a good point that lots of murders have been committed in the name of the "prophets".

Historic accuracy of Jesus/Buddha aside, it's not really central to my point. My point is what are the characteristics of the central figures (accurate or not - doesn't matter) according to doctrine that the believers choose to believe and revere. In this case it doesn't matter if it's true, they choose to worship them, that's what's important.

One of them is described as a violent murderous pedophile warlord who killed hundreds (600-900) men (prisoners IIRC) himself. One of them married a 9 year old girl (or was she 6?). This is a "holy" man? A peaceful man? A deity worthy of worship?

[bmacwilliam]

That's where I'm unsure. I don't know the absolute amount of violence today broken down by religious affiliation.

I think you agree with this, though you still seem to think, all else being equal, believers in Islam will be more violent than those of other faiths and even those of other Abrahamic faiths.

"But a recent survey estimates that a quarter of America’s 2.4 million Muslims consider suicide bombing in the name of Islam acceptable in some circumstances. And various polls have found that a majority of Muslims in the Middle East and over one-third of Muslims in Europe are sympathetic to jihad and terrorism against the west. "

Even western Muslims support violence at an unacceptable level. When you at least partially control for political/social situation, it still looks bad. Islam has to be an important factor in this.

[Leonid]

Dan Ust "This doesn't appear to be the case for most believers of any faith. Yes, we can find subsets, but the amazing thing is how little such a reading of scripture would tell us about the thought, action, and character of most self-identified believers."

Scriptures as such are usually chaotic mixture of contradictory unintelligible and cryptic texts. They cannot make a religion, that is-an organized system of believes. But their interpretations could. However, given the contradictory character of scriptures, their interpretations are also often contradictory. What could turn this or that interpretation of a scripture into religious law? Only dominant political power. Whoever is able to enforce certain religious view and make it obligatory to all believers (and infidels who're under his rule) is also able to create religious orthodoxy, mainstream religion which in turn defines thought, action, and character of believers.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Lot's of stuff in there, but I don't think we disagree on much. Sure, it's a good point that lots of murders have been committed in the name of the "prophets".

Historic accuracy of Jesus/Buddha aside, it's not really central to my point. My point is what are the characteristics of the central figures (accurate or not - doesn't matter) according to doctrine that the believers choose to believe and revere. In this case it doesn't matter if it's true, they choose to worship them, that's what's important.

One of them is described as a violent murderous pedophile warlord who killed hundreds (600-900) men (prisoners IIRC) himself. One of them married a 9 year old girl (or was she 6?). This is a "holy" man? A peaceful man? A deity worthy of worship?

Well hold on a second here, neither Jesus nor Gautama Buddha, peace be upon them were leaders of a nation. When it's time for war then people must fight. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that but that's reality. Muhammad pbuh wasn't a warlord either, he was the head of a country.

Also, what do you know of those 600-900 men that were killed? Do you know about the situation? If so, tell us what exactly happened?

Lastly, there's been a lot of misinformation created by the Ummayads regarding the age of that wife, but I can tell you for certain that regardless what hadiths the Ummayad's fabricated, they can't escape the facts. She wasn't 6 or 9. She was at least 10 years older and that's been proven.

[Leonid]

"And Jewish history?

Shinto history?

Pagan history?

My my my...seems to be a trend.

Adam "

You forgot to mention Hinduism, Buddhism, Animalism, worship of ancestors, Wicca and many others. But you've said enough to prove my point. Exactly because the connection of Shinto, Pagan or Hinduism with the power of state was weak or not existed at all, they never exhibited the kind of violence or intolerance as Abrahamic religions did. Judaism in its very beginning was a theocracy. Moses, judges, prophets were religious and political leaders. The early history of Judaism as it reflected in the Old Testament is a history of violence and extreme religious intolerance which Christianity and Islam inherited. Destruction of ancient Israel ended the violent period of Jewish history. Jews became dispersed minority, prosecuted by religions which Judaism begot-Christianity and Islam. Christianity was insignificant prosecuted minority cult until Emperor Constantine made it State's religion in 4th century AC. The rest is a history, history of almost 1500 years of religious wars, extreme violence, torture, prosecution etc...Only separation of religion from the state in the West put this carnage to the end. Today one is allowed to be "light" Christian, to change his/her faith or even become an atheist. Islam was a theocracy from the beginning. Mohammed was religious and political leader. In fact Islam was the power which created Arab statehood. In many respects the connection between Islam and state still very strong even today everywhere in Muslim world. That is the reason for the unacceptable high level of violence and intolerance of Islam. Some Islamic countries are theocracies, others, so called "secular" Muslim countries maintain strong connection between the state and religious establishment. The only way to change this situation is to promote secularism in the Muslim world, that is-separation of religion from state.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid

[Selene]

"And Jewish history?

Shinto history?

Pagan history?

My my my...seems to be a trend.

Adam "

You forgot to mention Hinduism, Buddhism, Animalism, worship of ancestors, Wicca and many others. But you've said enough to prove my point. Exactly because the connection of Shinto, Pagan or Hinduism with the power of state was weak or not existed at all, they never exhibited the kind of violence or intolerance as Abrahamic religions did. Judaism in its very beginning was a theocracy. Moses, judges, prophets were religious and political leaders. The early history of Judaism as it reflected in the Old Testament is a history of violence and extreme religious intolerance which Christianity and Islam inherited. Destruction of ancient Israel ended the violent period of Jewish history. Jews became dispersed minority, prosecuted by religions which Judaism begot-Christianity and Islam. Christianity was insignificant prosecuted minority cult until Emperor Constantine made it State's religion in 4th century AC. The rest is a history, history of almost 1500 years of religious wars, extreme violence, torture, prosecution etc...Only separation of religion from the state in the West put this carnage to the end. Today one is allowed to be "light" Christian, to change his/her faith or even become an atheist. Islam was a theocracy from the beginning. Mohammed was religious and political leader. In fact Islam was the power which created Arab statehood. In many respects the connection between Islam and state still very strong even today everywhere in Muslim world. That is the reason for the unacceptable high level of violence and intolerance of Islam. Some Islamic countries are theocracies, others, so called "secular" Muslim countries maintain strong connection between the state and religious establishment. The only way to change this situation is to promote secularism in the Muslim world, that is-separation of religion from state.

Ahh, so Leonid, you must have missed the connection between Shintoism and the God Emperor that brought us all that love and peace that the Japanese spread throughout Korea, China, Southeast Asia, Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Midway, Corrigador, Tarawa. Philippines and Saipan.

"During the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the emperor was restored to the head of the government and Shinto was established as the state religion. The emperor was considered the divine descendant of the sun goddess. This direct lineage from the gods was reflected in a feeling of Japanese superiority, which in turn fed the miltary expansion of the Japanese Empire. State Shinto was considered the official belief of the entire Japanese race and was embodied in the huge number of shrines, large and small, throughout the country."

Facts are important to making arguments.

So does that still prove your point, did it dull the point a bit?

Adam

[Leonid]

Adam "Ahh, so Leonid, you must have missed the connection between Shintoism and the God Emperor"

No I haven't. But you apparently completely missed my point. Feelings of superiority are not religious commandments. Many secular nations have or had these feelings (for example Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany). There is nothing in Shintoism per se which could justify violence and intolerance. Besides, at the time of Meiji Restoration it was already well established religion and didn't need state power to sustain it, but the state needed Shintoism as a source of divine justification. Shintoism therefore is a poor analogy to Islam. It existence wasn't depended on the power of state; its connection with the state was weak. Nevertheless, thank you for providing the nice illustration of my main idea: the marriage between state and religion always begets war.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid

[Selene]

Adam "Ahh, so Leonid, you must have missed the connection between Shintoism and the God Emperor"

No I haven't. But you apparently completely missed my point. Feelings of superiority are not religious commandments. Many secular nations have or had these feelings (for example Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany). There is nothing in Shintoism per se which could justify violence and intolerance. Besides, at the time of Meiji Restoration it was already well established religion and didn't need state power to sustain it, but the state needed Shintoism as a source of divine justification. Shintoism therefore is a poor analogy to Islam. Nevertheless, you just confirmed my idea: the marriage between state and religion always begets war.

Leonid:

I notice patterns...one pattern is that it seems like folks miss your points a lot...yes.

"Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"? Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always.

By the way since the marriage between the state and religion always [100% of the time] begets war...precisely which war did the Dali Llama and his wife the state of Tibet start?

Adam

waiting patiently to rewrite the Tibetan history

[Leonid]

Adam ""Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"?"-ask yourself. You were the one who was talking about feelings of superiority. That's clear that only mystical regimes base their policies on "feelings". (Japan, Nazi Germany).

Adam:" Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always."

Yes, it is. Look it up. But better stick to the subject-matter, otherwise you start to talk cryptic language again like “precisely which war did the Dali Llama and his wife the state of Tibet start?" (And your decoder isn’t ready yet).

Dali Lama and his wife aren't Heads of State and Tibet is not a state in its usual sense, that is-a tool of coercion. Besides, if you were following news you would know that the war in Tibet has been already started, not by Dali Lama but by another power which is based on mysticism of muscle-communist China.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid

[Selene]

Adam ""Feelings" has a different meaning here than when you condemned Michaels use of the word "feelings"?"-ask yourself. You were the one who was talking about feelings of superiority. That's clear that only mystical regimes base their policies on "feelings". (Japan, Nazi Germany).

Adam:" Or is there some official "O"bjectivist meaning that is true through all times and places...you know like always."

Yes, it is. Look it up. But better stick to the subject-matter, otherwise you start to talk cryptic language again like “precisely which war did the Dali Llama and his wife the state of Tibet start?" (And your decoder isn’t ready yet).

Dali Lama and his wife aren't Heads of State and Tibet is not a state in its usual sense, that is-a tool of coercion. Besides, if you were following news you would know that the war in Tibet has been already started, not by Dali Lama but by another power which is based on mysticism of muscle-communist China.

You are just totally clueless and have absolutely no sense of being played!

Nite nite Leonid.

[Leonid]

Adam "You are just totally clueless and have absolutely no sense of being played!'

Your jokes are of such a nature that you have to tell people where to laugh. The principle which is beyond your play is realy simple- where you run out of arguments you say " don't worry, I'm just kidding.". Very well. I'll take you as such-the joker of the thread.

http://www.paluszki.com/

Sweet dreams, sleep tight.

Leonid

Edited March 13, 2010 by Leonid