Scientist, you are throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. You ought
to go back and re-read 1 Nephi 4 that talks about Laban. Maybe then you'd
take it in context of the larger picture being presented to Nephi. A picture
that he initially was not a supporter of.
@2 bitsPerhaps you’re right, maybe the universe doesn’t
care. Certainly by our time scale (vs. billions of years of evolution) it
doesn’t appear to. Still, it does seem to want to produce ever
more complex life ultimately culminating in conscious and even intelligent
beings capable of incredible experiences like love and even understanding the
universe itself (who knows, maybe that’s the point). But
doesn’t it trouble you that virtually everything religion has said about
the universe has been proven false (e.g., creation story, geocentric universe,
flat earth, etc…). Or that religion has provided no insight into the many
realities we understand today (e.g., cosmology, DNA, physics, electricity, math,
quantum mechanics, chemistry, etc., etc., etc…)?If the
universe does mean something in the grand scheme of things, surely there are
better ways to understand it than engaging in a superstitious bronze-age
conversation, wouldn’t you agree?Reached comment limit…
@Tyler D,What I'm trying to get at is... when the last human
dies (whether it's in 10 years, 100 years, or a million years)...
what's the difference?If you guys are right... nothing.Maybe this little planet is dirtier for awhile. Maybe we will manage
to totally explode it! What difference will that make to the rest of the
Universe? Nothing...We were all nothing before... we're
nothing after... what use was it all?All the planets will come and
go, universes will come and go... what's the use of it all? Nothing...Hmmm.... seems pretty useless if you ask me.
@2 bits – “... what does it MATTER if we survive the next 100
years?”Will it matter in 100 years why you had a great
vacation at Disneyland? So why work yourself into a fit while you’re
there, or concoct an elaborate story about how Mickey Mouse is going to be with
you forever someday if you just pray to him and follow a bunch of rules some
previous visitor to Disneyland made up thousands of years ago? And
since none of this troubled you (or anyone else for that matter) for the
billions of years before you were born, why should it trouble you after
you’re gone? @UtahBlueDevilI think you’re
right (see my “religion is like cake” comment).It would
be nice (i.e., make the world a lot less dangerous) if the hundreds of millions
who believed every word of these bronze-age books were dictated directly from
God felt the same way… hopefully someday.And no, there are
lots of dogmas that can derange people into killing their fellow man –
religion just happens to be the worst of them (because of its
@taylerD - you asked "I’m not sure you’re making the point you
wish to. Don’t you think the fact that we find this sort of stuff in
scripture in the first place is troubling?"Simply put - no. Man
has inserted his own finger prints into everything, including religious and
non-religious. Are we to presume that if we extract religion from the world
that there will be no more conflict, that people will not act selfishly, and
that office will not be misused? People corrupt religion - not the
other way around. I am reasonably comfortable with that. If you decompose most
all religions down to their fundamental teachings, it is rather easy to identify
those that would corrupt religion for their own personal gain. And being
religious does not make anyone that less human... just as being an atheist doest
elevate anyone either.
@Tyler D,Re: "I truly believe that if we are to survive the next
100 years"...If you guys are right... what does it MATTER if we
survive the next 100 years? If there is nothing after this... what
does it matter if we survive 100 years, or 10 years, or aren't even born at
all... it's all the same in the end. Sure you help some people during
those those years (for some people) but the things you learned in those years
die when you die, so what good were they?You go to school. Work
your job. Take care of yourself, and provided for your children... why? What
use is it if it all ends when you die? When you are gone.. there's
nothing. When your children are gone.. nothing. So in the end it was all for
nothing... what benefit was your life when you and your children are gone?If there's nothing after... what does it matter if all humanity
exists 100 years or not? Or if we survive this destructive technology you fear?
If every human never existed... what would change?? Nothing...
@ Tekakaromatagi "You just have to be broad-minded enough not
[sic] to see beyond your own cultural paradigms."You miss the
point. I'm not the one looking to your sacred texts for wisdom. Any that
it contains can be found elsewhere AND where it isn't juxtaposed with the
horrific barbarism that is also presented as God-inspired. So talk
to the people within your own group about "seeing beyond their cultural
paradigms." It is they who apparently are confused about which is wisdom
and which is barbarism, which is deity-sanctioned and which should be ignored.
Or, by your logic, perhaps they're even more broadminded than you and we
should be listening to them?@ 2 bitsYou might want to
consider another analogy. I mean, between atheists and believers, which group
returns for a hit once a week, and in many cases multiple times a week?
@2 bits – “... the atheism and humanism are like crack.”Perhaps you’re right – perhaps what is most needed today is
not polemic dogmas but a simple search for truth wherever we find it. As my
analogy implied, I believe there are nuggets of truth within the mountain of
manure that is most religions (Buddhism seems to have significantly less manure,
but that’s another discussion). Furthermore, I think (re:
Christianity) these truths can largely be summed in Jesus’ basic ethical
teachings (e.g., the Golden Rule) and in the terrific passage of Luke 17:21,
which to this day still amazes me it wasn’t excised from the Bible by the
Church (since they destroyed most of the other early Christian writings that
essentially taught the same thing).I truly believe that if we are to
survive (given modern destructive technology) the next 100 years, we will need
to develop a truth seeking albeit scientific mindset that will preserve what is
good in religion while jettisoning the 90%+ that is superstition, wishful
thinking, tribal (“our god is the true god”), and antithetical to
sharing a planet with 7B other people.
@2 bits"the atheism and humanism are like crack. They make you
feel good for a while, they ramp you up and make you feel good, but in the end
it lets you down,"Not the least bit true. When I freed myself
from the fog of religion some 43 years ago it was exhilarating and that
exhilaration has waned not one iota. When one is not bound to the dogma of
working for ones supposed salvation after and often at the expense of this life
you are free to focus your energies on the here-and-now; to appreciate yet
another sunset for it's pure natural beauty; and, to do good deeds just for
the sake of doing good deeds. When my time on the planet comes to a close
I'll go knowing it was a great ride and satisfying run.
@Tyler D,If religion is like cake... the atheism and humanism are
like crack. They make you feel good for a while, they ramp you up and make you
feel good, but in the end it lets you down, and just leaves you empty in the
gutter wondering what happened... and where you can get more.
@Karen R:"So you pontificate on the weakness of someone else's
religion, " I did not. My point was to be open-minded enough not to judge
another philosophical tradition by their extremists. My one observation is that
I wonder if schools of thought like Wahhabism is based on the absence of a
central organization that keeps the extreme views from taking hold.With regards to the Old Testament, I can see lots of extremists who have no
religious writings committing terrible acts in the name of their dogma (Khmer
Rouge, Sendero Luminoso, Stalin, Mao). I can see other cultural traditions who
have recent traditions of war and cannibalistic warfare who are quite kind and
compassionate.I think that when you look at the Old Testament if you
are tolerant you can get wisdom, just like looking at Native American or
Polynesian or Aztec legends can get you wisdom.You just have to be
broad-minded enough not to see beyond your own cultural paradigms.
@UtahBlueDevil – “To cherry pick quotes out of one sects doctrine is
about as fair someone doing so to our own scriptures.”I’m not sure you’re making the point you wish to. Don’t you
think the fact that we find this sort of stuff in scripture in the first place
is troubling?Scientist articulated the real issue quite nicely.
Until religious moderates can turn a critical eye to their own teachings and
sacred texts, these sorts of anti-social utterances are going to continue to
plague our world.The fact that Jews & Christians no longer take
this stuff seriously (despite the self-affirmations heard from evangelicals
about the Bible being the “literal and inerrant word of God”) is
little comfort to those of us who see it for what it is – bronze-age
barbaric nonsense.Religion is like a cake – a small of amount
of “nutritious ingredients” mixed in with a whole lot of stuff that
looks good and tastes good (to some) but does little more than rot your teeth.
Is it fair to judge Mormons -- Ron Lafferty?Warren Jeffs?by Mountain Meadows?To the outside world, we are ALL Mormons, but we can recognize the difference, and yet We are out telling the
world not judge an entire group of people, based a tiny small group of
"radicals".Same with this...
@ Social Mod Fiscal Con - Do we really need to point to all the sections of the
Bible that refer to cleansing the lands of the non-believers. Deuteronomy
13:6, Deuteronomy 13: 13, 2 Chronicles 15:13..... to get you started..... or I
could list a bunch of quotes from Journal of Discourses.... but that would not
promote the cause here at all. To cherry pick quotes out of one sects doctrine
is about as fair someone doing so to our own scriptures. Be really careful
about what you choose to use as evidence because it could like wise be used
against yourself.@ JoeCapitalist2 - couldn't agree with your
second set of comments more. Much better stated, and I would think most
Muslims would have no issues with those sentiments as well.
@ TekakaromatagiSo you pontificate on the weakness of someone
else's religion, but when it's pointed out that your observation also
applies to a religion nearer and dearer to your heart, you retreat behind,
"Well, everyone has their extremists." Which is it: Muslim doctrine is
more amenable to extremism than other religions' doctrine or it's
really no worse?The point remains – and The Scientist
articulated this especially well – that the material for religious
extremism is often supplied by a religion's very own texts. IMO the Old
Testament alone is a wonderful primer for barbaric extremism. When are the
moderates going to acknowledge this? Instead we get apologists who explain away
and otherwise try to excuse the content and enable it to remain
"sacred."So, yes, I think it is fair to judge religions by
their extremists when the non-violent in the ranks persist in holding as
"Godly" the very dogma that fuels extremists' obscene ideals. They
aren't making this stuff up, you know!
@ordinaryfolks"I did not make a sweeping generalization about anyone
other than the extreme. "Then why'd you blame the moderates
for not "cleaning up"? @JoeCapitalist2"What part
of "openly condemns" do you not understand?"I openly
ordered lunch today, but that doesn't mean you know what I ate for lunch
because you didn't hear about it. You both accused me of not
reading your comments but you clearly didn't read mine or yours.
I think that the tone of these comments are great. When I saw this article and
I posted my thoughts, I thought that I would have to be dealing with the various
types saying, "Well, I heard Sean Hannity say that the only difference
between a radical Moslem and a moderate Moslem . . . " Or, "I always
get my news and insights from Pat Robertson and he said . . . ."I am not seeing that. But what I am seeing is a bunch of people who could not
resist to bring up the topic of Christians because they want to make comparisons
between radicals (I guess there are some out there) and non-radical Christians
because they want to tell the world how dangerous Christians and Mormons are.There is more to being a liberal than being intolerant to a different
group of people than Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson.
Have we become a nation of people with a lynch mob mentality? Do we have the
right to judge others, or do we have courts that handle that responsibility?
Are we required to give a "straight arm salute" and "heil" those
who tell us that we must report any unauthorized religious activity? Since when
did the government receive the right to decide what is authorized and what is
unauthorized religious activity? Are we no different than the 3rd Reich? Will
be burn books? Will we round up anyone whose ideas are different that our own?
Will we send them to "concentration camps" to be "re-educated"?
Will be find some kind of "final solution" if they refuse to be
"re-educated"? Have we not progressed from the 1930's? Do we
still have a mentality that allows us to tell others how to worship? Are we certain that Islamic clerics are instructing their followers to kill
us, or have we just assumed that the entire Islamic religion has taken leave of
its senses and has decided to destroy anyone who is not a member of Islam?Be careful.One finger pointing out leaves four fingers
Islam isn't just a religion.
First you would need to define "Fair". "Fair" means different
things to different people and in different contexts.=============I denounce radicals in my religion.... I would expect
nothing more or less from people of other faiths.=============Re: "We need to address the crime, not the religion of the
criminals"... (Mike Richards)I agree.Unless their
faith is what's causing them to commit such atrocities their religious
background is irrelevant.In SOME cases their religion IS what caused
them to commit the crime. Then it's relevant.===============Religion doesn't USUALLY cause people to
commit terrible crimes. In fact... most religions encourage exactly the
opposite.Maybe we should take THAT into consideration while we
debate this subject.===============There are radicals in
ALL walks of life. Religion isn't the determinant thing. We have had
atheists who have committed terrible crimes. Religion doesn't usually
encourage people to commit crimes.
Hmm. Question: Why are all the leftists on here crying about how we need to
not judge all Moslems; that there are plenty of good people, etc in Islam (all
true), yet.... why do they not extend the same courtesy to, say, the "Tea
Party" and conservatives? They defend Moslems as poor innocent
picked on souls, but savage people who want their government to leave them
alone. Ask them who is more dangerous: a Mormon or a Moslem, and they will
answer the Mormon every time.
@Karen R:"This is true for Christianity too. I think it's endemic
to religion. When there's no requirement to prove your claims, the
possibilities become endless."Let's not stop there. I
think everytime I talk with someone who is politically correct, their
conclusions are always based on some poorly defined dogma that can't be
easily identified. I am asking myself if there is a PC holy book that I
haven't ever heard about?Atheism also has had its extremists
throughout history. Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge.If you believe in
socialized medicine then that's socialist. Hitler was a national
socialist.When I attended the University of Utah there was a gay
right activist who thought that the Jews deserved the Holocaust because the Old
Testement condemned homosexual behavior. Then there was the guy who got a list
of 'hate groups' from the Southern Poverty Law Center and walked into
an office of the American Family Association and shot a security guard.There are extremists all over the place. Not just Moslems and Christians.
All religions are extreme. Though they may vary somewhat in the manner of
gaining new members and the manner of control of those members, the purpose of
religion is to gain control over people. None of the major
religions can claim any virtue when all have participated in killing people. It
would be hard to judge which one who has killed the most or the in the most
cruel manner. Beheading and being burned at the state might be the worse ways
to die. But poverty and starvation are also pretty bad.
UtahBlueDevil:I don't personally know many Muslims. Most of my
perceptions come from what I see in the news. I don't hate Muslims or think
that a majority of them hate me or other Christians.I also know we
have white supremacists groups like the Klan here in America but they represent
a tiny fraction of 1% of our population. Every time they march, an equal or
bigger group is there to shout disapproval of their actions.I
don't think a large percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but even if it
is only 1%, that is way too many. If one percent of Mormons supported terrorism
(about 150,000 people) I would consider that a huge problem. One percent of
Muslims represent millions of people. There are certainly too many
of them supporting Jihad to pretend that it isn't a huge problem. Until the
Muslim community actively gets their numbers down to something like .00001% by
treating them like we do the Klan, it will remain a huge problem.
Is it fair to judge a religion by its homophobia, racism and misogyny?Yes.
There are extremists in every religion. Let me repeat that, EVERY religion has
@ JoeCapitalist2 - your comment would be spot on if that were what was actually
going on in Mosques around the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I spend a 1/3 of my time in the middle east. I work with average Joe's
who work in my industry on a regular basis. I was in Indonesia the day of
9/11. I was trapped there for 2 weeks until international flights were restored
out of that region. There was no cheering for what happened. There was no joy
or celebration for that acts of these terrorist - by average people. Sure, there are the few groups who are at the extremes of society who acted
out. Heck, we still have clan marches in this country. We still have white
supremacists groups that are not shy about their beliefs. But they do not
represent society at large, and neither do these headline grabbers used by the
media represent average muslims. So please, before you start
branding Muslims as preaching support for terrorism and genocide from their
mosques, be really sure what you are claiming. Do you know any
Muslims? Do they hate Christians? Your brand of hate-batting has no place -
Pendergast,Not just homicide. Genocide, fascism, totalitarianism,
sexism, racism, incest, infanticide, theft, deception, imperialism, political
and military occupation and revolution, pedophilia, coercion, blackmail, fraud,
hypocrisy, and so many horrible things.These are all found to be
justified and/or exemplified in scripture and the history of peoples who claim
those scriptures are "the word of god".We should judge
religions based on their official doctrines and teachings throughout history.
Ideas have consequences. The ideas must be judged on their own merits as well as
on the consequences that have been extrapolated from them.Once a
"standard" has been declared, believers must be judged against that
standard. But the standard must also be judged against humanity's ethical
and moral sensibilities. And on both counts, believers are found to be failing
to live up to their standards, and their standards are found to be unethical,
immoral, and downright terrible.
to The ScientistIsn't interesting how the Words from God have
several examples of justifiable homicide?
The so-called "extremists" ground their activities in extreme doctrines
found in the so-called holy books/scriptures. Your Holy books are filled with
extremism. Your gods are extreme, and their commands are extreme (kill your only
son, kill the Amalekites, kill Laban, kill the infidel).If religions
do not want to be judged by their extremists, rip the extremist doctrines and
stories out of the holy books, immediately, thoroughly, and unapologetically.
Disavow them. Deny that they are "the word of God".Every
word or verse or concept that could even be remotely interpreted as violent,
inhumane, or contrary to peace, must be expunged completely. Remove the
dominionism that preaches world domination and its implicit as well as explicit
threats against non believers. Denounce it all, publicly and repeatedly. There
must be no possibility for misunderstanding.Until you do so, it is
legitimate and fair to judge you by the actions of your extremists. They are
your most "faithful" adherents!And as Brigitte Gabriel
pointed out, it is they who are driving the "Islamic Agenda".
to BYUalumYour last sentence is the 1st step in what David (6:26
p.m. Oct. 8) cites in his 1st sentence. The examples you use are so
rich in irony.Therein lies the problem w/ ALL organized religions
(maybe not Buddhism)... there is 1 size must fit all mind set & an
unwillingness to compromise.
Mike Richards:But if in LDS wards all around the world, sermons were
being preached every Sunday about how heroic that hijacker was and how all our
children should look up to him and admire his actions against the "evil
airlines" (or whatever the hijacker was fighting against), then it would be
completely rational for the media and citizens in general to criticize the
church even though only a single member commited the crime.
Great comment Mike... spot on.
Many of us clearly remember the media reporting that a "Mormon Sunday School
teacher" hijacked a 727. That hijacker was an "extremist"; however,
nothing taught by the LDS Church could be construed as a directive to Sunday
School teachers (or anyone else) to hijack an airplane.Some would
smear the LDS Church because of the actions of one of its members. Some people
are smearing Islam because of the actions of some of its members.If
we checked, we would probably find that almost every criminal is a member of a
religious organization. And, if we checked, we would surely find that none of
those religious organizations advocated criminal activity on the part of
members.We need to address the crime, not the religion of the
atl134I said:"Until a majority of the Muslim world openly
condemns the actions of the terrorists"You replied:"What if they do and you just don't hear about it ..."What part of "openly condemns" do you not understand? If the whole
Muslim world was openly condemning terrorism, there would not be any question in
your or anyone else's mind about it.
Why do Moderate Muslims have to denounce fundamentalist Islamic fighters? Why
can't orthodox, or conservative, or devout muslims do the same? It seems to
me we're seeking to soften a religion that has some fundamental issues to
work through, because they can't do it themselves. The fact that we can
only work with Moderates is a problem.You cannot compare this to
Christianity, because the most devout Christians pale by comparison. And the
implications of the final quote in this article are terrible. Mr. Aslan believes
that it's the people who are to blame, not the religion. Imo, that's
bigotry. That's suggesting that there are people just born bad and violent
and that regardless of their religion they'd just be bad and that religion
plays no role. If that's true, he just claimed that people born fighting in
ISIS are just born bad. Ridiculous. Something is rotten in Islam
today, I really hope they can work it out...
Hey BYUAlum -" [We are] not alert and awake to the dangers of
the radical groups . . . " Well, some obviously are not alert to
the dangers of radical groups . . . Like the "Conservative"
organizations that have grown increasingly more radical over the years.Republicans increasingly criticize the Federal Government. HATE for the
federal government is growing. ANTI-government sentiment is becoming more the
rule than the exception within Right Wing circles, as embodied especially within
the Tea Party and its offshoots.Anti-government Cliven-Bundy
supporters gunned down cops in Las Vegas and defiled their bodies with a
Republican Tea Party Flag and a Swastika banner. And they assumed they would go
down in history as patriots and heroes.Why would they assume that?
It's because their anti-government, increasingly radical and violent
attitude is constantly reinforced on Right Wing Radio and RW internet sites.
Sure, it's all a fantasy. And it's not real. But in their little
alternate universe, their ideas are very real and valid."[History is] repeating itself. Can't we for once put political
correctness aside and just look at history?"I don't know.
Tekakaromatagi says, "I think that the difficulty with Islam is that it is
so diffuse that anyone can make up anything as Moslem doctrine so there are all
these schools of thought..."This is true for Christianity too.
I think it's endemic to religion. When there's no requirement to
prove your claims, the possibilities become endless.I don't
believe organizations like ISIS would be avoided if religion didn't exist.
Humans have always been susceptible to extremist dogma, regardless of its
nature, because it is adept at exploiting fear, privation, and ignorance. But how many religious sects, even moderate ones, can say they
don't do this as well? Isn't a primary reason for religion's
existence to mollify the human fear of death? Isn't teaching that belief
without evidence is a virtue a promotion of ignorance? And how many religions
use the human need for community as leverage to keep them in the fold?So, IMO, moderate strains of religion do bear some responsibility for
extremist strains. They utilize the same materials and have no more
justification for doing so than the extremists on their wings.
Are the Mormons not criticized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre? What did they
do about it at the time, Brigham Young excommunicated the the leaders who
perpetuated the crime. Today although settled by Mormons Salt Lake City is only
30%-50% Mormon. People are free to leave the Mormons and Mormons actively
excommunicate extremists. Now consider Turkey, a supposed example of moderate
Islam. They are criticized for creating the term genocide for their treatment
of Christians. Today Turkey's population is 92% Islam. I'm not sure
how the moderate Islamists treated the perpetrators of the genocide of
Christians, but I have a hard time believing that 92% of any free population
would willingly agree to the same religious beliefs or any beliefs. Moderate
Islam only publicly denounces extremist. They do not excommunicate and not only
are members of the Islamic faith not allowed to leave Islam, but adherence to
Islam is enforced by many governments. For any moderate to be real they must
allow people to leave the Islamic faith.
"Is it fair to judge a religion by their extremists?"No, of
The Germans didn't take the Nazi movement in 1930 seriously until it was
too late.The Japanese didn't take their imperialistic leaders
seriously in 1940's until it was too late.Same for the Russians
and many other countries who were not alert and awake to the dangers of the
radical groups that too soon took over their countries and destroyed many, many
lives.Can't we for once put political correctness aside and
just look at history? It's repeating itself. If we don't take care of
ISIS, they will be taking care of us. And don't look to the U.S. government
to do anything. They have made that perfectly clear.We, the people,
must rise up at the polls on 11-4-14 and vote all these liberals and RINOs out
of office.....period. Clean house! The people must awaken and speak!
@Atl"What if they do and you just don't hear about it because
there's more important things in the news than some sermon at a mosque in
Tennessee, Spain, Ethiopia, or Jordan?"Sermon is the correct
term. About 10 years ago in Saudi Arabia there were some Al Qaeda types who
were trying to start a revolution. A Saudi woman journalist wrote a piece
condemning them. I didn't know that you could curse someone so strongly
without resorting to swear words. She said something to the effect, "It
isn't enough to put their pictures in the newspapers. Put their photos on
billboards, on telephone poles, in the corner stores until ever the mute stones
have memorized their appearance. Can there be any hiding from what they have
done?"It isn't fair to judge a religion by the extremists,
simply because it isn't accurate and it isn't fair. People are guilty
for what they personally do.I think that the difficulty with Islam
is that it is so diffuse that anyone can make up anything as Moslem doctrine so
there are all these schools of thought. Some have gone off the deep end.
The problem with moderate clerics denouncing the behavior of ISIL and other
extreme versions of Islam, is that the would have to directly contradict the
teachings of the Quran in doing so. Yes, there are moderate Muslims
in the world, and Imams who teach peace, but they have to be very careful in how
they phrase their message. For instance, they can't directly teach that
all men are equal and they should love all people regardless of their religious
beliefs, as that would come in conflict with Quranic teachings:Quran
(2:191-193) Quran (3:151) Quran (8:12)Quran (8:39)Quran
(9:5)Quran (9:29)(these are only a small sampling of this type of
teaching in the Quran)
Until the Islamic world, who seems to remain silent and inactive concerning all
extremism, determines to take action, these groups will always be a problem. And
it will be a problem that will, in the end, do more damage to Islam than anyone
ISIL is a brand of Islam that has turned their terror upon anyone that
doesn't agree with them. They declare that all must either convert to
their views or die. They carry out this demand upon all religions, even upon
fellow Muslims with more moderate views.So is ISIL not Muslim? It
seems to me that it is absolutely Islamic, just a very violent and demanding
form of it. Their brand if Islam is certainly not held by a majority of
Muslims, but it is incumbent upon Islamic clerics, Islamic Imams, Islamic
observers and believers, Islamic political leaders, and Islamic nations to speak
out and oppose this brand of Islamic terror--or that terror that is carried out
in the name of Islam and Islam's god. If not, then those Imams, clerics,
leaders, people, observers and nations absorb the risk of being labeled in
passive agreement. Peaceful Islam must join the world in opposing
atl134How can you possibly miss the point that I made that there is
legitimate criticism of extremist elements that ought to be made, with the
corollary that "moderates" don't need to be. That is the entire
context of my comment, that "moderates" of any religion should reclaim
their faith from the extreme. You are making a victim where none is
intended, and in my opinion I did not make a sweeping generalization about
anyone other than the extreme. Are you trying to say that no
criticism can be made of extreme religious points of view? Is religion above
@ordinaryfolks"We become known as bigots and intolerant when we
criticize these extreme elements. "No, it's when someone
brands an entire group as those extreme elements, that's when one is
considered bigoted or intolerant. @JoeCapitalist2"Until a
majority of the Muslim world openly condemns the actions of the
terrorists"What if they do and you just don't hear about it
because there's more important things in the news than some sermon at a
mosque in Tennessee, Spain, Ethiopia, or Jordan? (Btw, I have no idea how Muslim
services work, so sermon might be totally an incorrect word to use).
While it may not be fair to judge any large group (country, organization, or
religion) for the bad behavior of just a small percentage of its members, you
can judge the whole group based on how it treats those bad seeds.If
the Catholic Church was behaving today like it did during the inquisition while
claiming to be following the will of Christ and if all the other Christian
denominations either supported those actions or remained silent against the
autrocities; then it would be fair to say that Christians in general are to
blame.Until a majority of the Muslim world openly condemns the
actions of the terrorists and teaches against that behavior within their own
communities, it is fair to lay a large portion of the blame at their doorstep.
Interesting topic. Brigitte Gabriel gives a fantastic answer to it. You can
look her up on youtube.
One of the problems with all of the world's religions is that these
religions allow themselves to be defined by the extremist (and generally
fundamentalist) elements. I do not understand how and why the average
religionist of any sort allows his/her faith and traditions to be hijacked by
the creepy dogmatism of a few. And worst still is the absolute silence that
takes place from the average religionist on the subject of extremists in their
faith traditions. Why is it so hard for non-dogmatic Christians, Jews or
Muslims to call out the crazy? To the outsider of all these faith
traditions, it would appear that the ability to criticize one another for
extremism is taboo. And then, those of us on the outside, are asked to tolerate
what inevitably happens when extremism is tolerated. We become known as bigots
and intolerant when we criticize these extreme elements. Frankly, it is a no
win situation.So I say to any religionist, clean up your act within
your faith tradition, then go out in the world to proselytize, evangelize or
proclaim the purity of your belief.
Radical Islam is to the Islamic religion what anti-semitism is to Christianity.
Muslims should loudly denounce Radical Islam, just as Christians should denounce
hatred for the Jews.Of course, Radical Islam hates the Jews, the
Christians, moderate Muslims and every person who is not a Radical Islamist.
They are at war with the world, and simply denouncing them offers no protection
against their vitriol.
Should we or even someone in government decide what is acceptable in a religion?
Don't we have laws that punish those who kill or torture or cause terror?
Can't those laws be enforced without defining the doctrine of a
religion?We have a Constitution that allows all religions to have
whatever doctrine that they want. The question of whether that doctrine is of
God is between the leaders of that religion and God. God has warned us about
taking His name in vain. That applies to using His name to justify
non-doctrinal actions or activities.If we allow government to define
doctrine, then the 1st Amendment is moot. I don't think that that is what
we want. I think that we want to punish anyone who uses religion as an excuse
to harm others. There are sufficient laws on the books to handle that
responsibility without setting aside the 1st Amendment.