one less to blow us up
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 18 Jun 15 2.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens. Women tend to be treated as second class citizens in the UK as well. I think you can draw a line under most countries, irrespective of their dominant religion, and say, they're wanting. I would be cautious about describing any country as wonderful or ideal. As they say in American Dad, in regard to Saudi Arabia "America isn't a great place, but its better than some" Arguing that x is better than y, because y is more of a c**t than x, isn't particually valuable, given that x is still a c**t.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 serial thriller The Promised Land 18 Jun 15 3.10pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 18 Jun 2015 2.22pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. Point taken, however the UK is about as progressive and multicutural as it gets, and yet we have women and children running of to join IS to blow themselves up, so your theory about only developing countries having extremists is not quite right. Take Dubai as another example place is positvely loaded with cash and western influence, get caught with your tits out on the beach though and off to chokey for you! The country is not the problem, it's what is at the base of that religion, that causes the issues. But what is at the base of Islam? In the Qu'ran the prophet says on numerous occasions that peace and charity are fundamental. You can similarly find dozens of references to gender equality. That's perhaps why hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to these ideas, why women in Turkey and Senegal enjoy such favourable representation in Parliament, or why Zakat, the complusory charitable donations Muslims make, is so prevalent. But I would say that the actual basis for Islam lies in a belief in the Prophet and a reverence to the Qu'ran. Therefore, as with the Bible and Christianity, Islam is used to justify terrible atrocities. But what you have to remember is this: there are 10 million people living under IS control, but 1600 million Muslims in the world. Around 2000 British Muslims have fled to join IS, but there are 2 million British Muslims. Of course there are more moderate Muslims who also have intolerant and oppressive beliefs, but there are hundreds of Millions who don't, thus tarring them all with the same brush is just stupid and dangerous. I would also argue that the proportion of British Muslims fleeing to join ISIS is perpetuated by the negative and ostracising portrayal of Muslims in our society, inevitably leading to many feeling socially alienated. I can't prove that, it's just my opinion.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 18 Jun 15 3.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 2.49pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 1.01pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself. Surely you can; the sects of Christianity include Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists etc, but they are all Christian. Similarly, Islam includes fans of Sony & Cher etc. Edited by derben (18 Jun 2015 1.03pm)
We tend to assume by Christian, Catholic or Protestant faiths (again themselves very diverse categories) and the King James (the s**t) bible. In truth the term Christainity really is used mostly as a political term, where by a faith group will attempt to co-opt anyone who follows Christian faiths to their cause. Hence you get statements like 'As a Christian I cannot support x' when in fact that isn't a consensus at all All the Christian faiths believe the Jesus was God on earth in a human form. All Muslims believe that Mohammed was a messenger sent by Allah.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
The diversity within those groups, let alone between them, is problematic in saying that there is a Christianity per se - Rather there a numerous Christian faiths that exist, each different in many ways, that share a central figure and interpretation (or lack of interpretation is some cases).| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 15 3.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.10pm
Quote dannyh at 18 Jun 2015 2.22pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. Point taken, however the UK is about as progressive and multicutural as it gets, and yet we have women and children running of to join IS to blow themselves up, so your theory about only developing countries having extremists is not quite right. Take Dubai as another example place is positvely loaded with cash and western influence, get caught with your tits out on the beach though and off to chokey for you! The country is not the problem, it's what is at the base of that religion, that causes the issues. But what is at the base of Islam? In the Qu'ran the prophet says on numerous occasions that peace and charity are fundamental. You can similarly find dozens of references to gender equality. That's perhaps why hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to these ideas, why women in Turkey and Senegal enjoy such favourable representation in Parliament, or why Zakat, the complusory charitable donations Muslims make, is so prevalent. But I would say that the actual basis for Islam lies in a belief in the Prophet and a reverence to the Qu'ran. Therefore, as with the Bible and Christianity, Islam is used to justify terrible atrocities. But what you have to remember is this: there are 10 million people living under IS control, but 1600 million Muslims in the world. Around 2000 British Muslims have fled to join IS, but there are 2 million British Muslims. Of course there are more moderate Muslims who also have intolerant and oppressive beliefs, but there are hundreds of Millions who don't, thus tarring them all with the same brush is just stupid and dangerous. I would also argue that the proportion of British Muslims fleeing to join ISIS is perpetuated by the negative and ostracising portrayal of Muslims in our society, inevitably leading to many feeling socially alienated. I can't prove that, it's just my opinion. The Police reckon that about 500-600 people went to Syria to join IS / ISIS. And I think you are right the Muslim population is unfairly demonized by the actions of an insignificant percentage (less than 1%) and there is a tendency to 'lump them all in togeather', whilst conveniently leaving out the fact that IS and Islamic terrorists in general have killed so many more Muslims than westerners.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 18 Jun 15 3.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 2.53pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens. Women tend to be treated as second class citizens in the UK as well. I think you can draw a line under most countries, irrespective of their dominant religion, and say, they're wanting. I would be cautious about describing any country as wonderful or ideal. As they say in American Dad, in regard to Saudi Arabia "America isn't a great place, but its better than some" Arguing that x is better than y, because y is more of a c**t than x, isn't particually valuable, given that x is still a c**t. Isn't it a matter of degree. Even if the treatment of woman is not ideal in the UK, it is of magnitudes better than how they are treated in Muslim countries. Similarly I'm sure about x is better than y; isn't that a bit like saying Fascism isn't that bad because Portugal's Salazar regime was not as bad as Hitler's Germany?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 18 Jun 15 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens.
I think it's important to recognise what we're arguing here Derbs. You're attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures, and that this is epitomised in Muslim countries. All I'm trying to prove to you (and anyone who's still reading this) is that there is nothing inherently bad about Islam, that it can promote peace and tolerance just as easily as violence and oppression, in the same way that any belief can. That's why I'm offering these examples of Turkey, Malaysia etc - not because I see them as ideal societies - but because they directly negate the point you're trying to make, and challenge the widespread ignorance towards Islam that the majority of people in this country hold.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 18 Jun 15 3.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.27pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens.
I think it's important to recognise what we're arguing here Derbs. You're attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures, and that this is epitomised in Muslim countries. All I'm trying to prove to you (and anyone who's still reading this) is that there is nothing inherently bad about Islam, that it can promote peace and tolerance just as easily as violence and oppression, in the same way that any belief can. That's why I'm offering these examples of Turkey, Malaysia etc - not because I see them as ideal societies - but because they directly negate the point you're trying to make, and challenge the widespread ignorance towards Islam that the majority of people in this country hold. Egypt! That went well didn't it! I don't think I am attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures. I am arguing that it is generally (note, generally) not democratic, misogynistic, intolerant, and vindictive.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 18 Jun 15 3.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 3.33pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.27pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens.
I think it's important to recognise what we're arguing here Derbs. You're attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures, and that this is epitomised in Muslim countries. All I'm trying to prove to you (and anyone who's still reading this) is that there is nothing inherently bad about Islam, that it can promote peace and tolerance just as easily as violence and oppression, in the same way that any belief can. That's why I'm offering these examples of Turkey, Malaysia etc - not because I see them as ideal societies - but because they directly negate the point you're trying to make, and challenge the widespread ignorance towards Islam that the majority of people in this country hold. Egypt! That went well didn't it! I don't think I am attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures. I am arguing that it is generally (note, generally) not democratic, misogynistic, intolerant, and vindictive.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jun 15 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Serial answer me this then. In what religion in this country are you most at risk from radicalisation ? Before you answer consider : Although Jehovah’sitnesses are a pain in the arse, not a single one has knocked on my door, waited for me to answer and blew him self up all over my front gardenn, nor has the Bhuddist who lives next door, hacked my head off whilst I was off to the shops, even the mentalist catholic up the road decided not to set me on fire because I didnt agree with his sky fairy on gay marriage. As I said right at the start it is purely and simply risk management.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 18 Jun 15 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.55pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 3.33pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.27pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens.
I think it's important to recognise what we're arguing here Derbs. You're attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures, and that this is epitomised in Muslim countries. All I'm trying to prove to you (and anyone who's still reading this) is that there is nothing inherently bad about Islam, that it can promote peace and tolerance just as easily as violence and oppression, in the same way that any belief can. That's why I'm offering these examples of Turkey, Malaysia etc - not because I see them as ideal societies - but because they directly negate the point you're trying to make, and challenge the widespread ignorance towards Islam that the majority of people in this country hold. Egypt! That went well didn't it! I don't think I am attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures. I am arguing that it is generally (note, generally) not democratic, misogynistic, intolerant, and vindictive.
Jainism?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 18 Jun 15 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.55pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 3.33pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 3.27pm
Quote derben at 18 Jun 2015 2.46pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 1.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 11.47am
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2015 10.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2015 10.49am
Turkey, among many listed above, are NOT Islamic countries, though they do have majority Muslim populations, Turkey for example is largely secularist (like pakistan, though both have increasing Islamist problems). Having a large, or dominant Muslim population doesn't make you Islamic, anymore than having a large Catholic or Protestant population makes you a Christian Country (even the US has separation of Church and State). I think that's a fair point Jamie, but in the context of the argument around whether Islam itself is somehow more inherently backward than other religions and beliefs, Turkey is a fairly good example of progressive Islam, be it on a population scale rather than a governmental one. You can't really view Islam or Christainity as religions, because each comprises of a wide scope of different religions, including some very liberal and some very extremist sects (the difference between the Ismaili and Wabbi sects is very dramatic, as dramatic as the difference between the US Christian Right and the UK Quakers). I wouldn't say any religion is more or less backwards, than the nation in which its active. You'll probably find that Catholics in the UK are more progressive than those of Uganda. Similarly Loyalists in Northern Ireland couldn't be much more different than Church of England Protestantism. Religion tends to reflect the views and mores of the people practicing it, within a country, rather than the religion itself.
As for not calling Christianity or Islam religions, I think that's a semantic issue. For me you can still identify them as religions, conforming to similar creeds, scriptures and historical perceptions, while also acknowledging the hundreds of sects within those wider networks. Certainly it's easier to homogenise Buddhism or Catholicism, with central divine authorities, than Islam, which makes up 1/4 of the world's population yet has no central institution. This is getting absurd. There are hardly any (perhaps Turkey) Muslim countries that you could call democratic. The vast majority of them treat women as second class citizens. Many of them have the death penalty and other barbaric penalties for religious offences. Homosexuals are persecuted. Yet you describe them as 'wonderful'. Many too are anti-Semetic and generally hate the West. Just look at what is in front of your nose rather than filtering everything through your politically correct lens.
I think it's important to recognise what we're arguing here Derbs. You're attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures, and that this is epitomised in Muslim countries. All I'm trying to prove to you (and anyone who's still reading this) is that there is nothing inherently bad about Islam, that it can promote peace and tolerance just as easily as violence and oppression, in the same way that any belief can. That's why I'm offering these examples of Turkey, Malaysia etc - not because I see them as ideal societies - but because they directly negate the point you're trying to make, and challenge the widespread ignorance towards Islam that the majority of people in this country hold. Egypt! That went well didn't it! I don't think I am attempting to argue that Islam is inherently morally inferior to other religions and cultures. I am arguing that it is generally (note, generally) not democratic, misogynistic, intolerant, and vindictive.
Taking the contemporary world situation, Islam is of magnitudes greater than Christianity in being non-democratic, misogynistic, intolerant, and vindictive - quite the opposite to your remarkable assertion that Islamic countries are "far more tolerant and inclusive than ours". Would the flogging of the woman in Indonesia (a country you have described as "wonderful" While you are at it, perhaps you could explain how Islamic countries are "far more tolerant and inclusive than ours" on the issue of homosexuality? Edited by derben (18 Jun 2015 5.31pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
have happened in the UK?| legaleagle 18 Jun 15 7.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There can be many similarities between counties that are "muslim" and "non muslim" ,just like with human beings (shock horror!). I think its worth not overlooking some of the regimes whose leaders would have seen and proclaimed themselves as upholders of christian civilisation,for example Franco's Spain,Salazar's Portugal,the junta in Argentina (1976-83,estimated 400 torture camps and 30,000 killed). N.Korea,Zimbabwe and China,currently pretty high up on many's scale of intolerance and repression of human rights, are not "muslim" countries. If we take a "muslim" country like Malaysia,there is inbuilt discimination in the "system" against people of non Malay origin,ie Indian and Chinese.This is more straight racism as opposed to religious. In Myanmar/Burma ,we presently see intense persecution of a muslim minority by a "buddhist "majority. I believe there are 79 countries at present where homosexuality is illegal,including such "non-muslim" countries as Angola,Ethiopia,Singapore,Antigua,Jamaica,Solomon Islands et al. 13 US states still have "anti-sodomy" laws on the books (notwithstanding the Supreme Court overruling their use).Many likely resulting in part at least from the influence of "christian fundamentalism". Russia in 2013 enacted a law prohibiting any positive mention of homosexuality in the presence of minors, including online. EU member Lithuania has a similar law. Its not a simple and inherent link of "Islamic":anti gay,and intolerant versus "non Islamic states:the opposite. A linking factor may be repressive regimes with little history of effective democracy coupled with the susceptibility of countries from varied "religious backgrounds" to fall under the yoke of dictatorship at times. The "Freedom House" organisation's list (hardly lefties) in 2012 of the 16 most repressive states had only 5 that would generally be thought of "Islamic" plus places like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan which,though having majority muslim populations suffer from regimes of the more traditional dictatorial kind and the majority of the population would be thought of as not "very religious". Which IMO goes to show things can be complex to analyse rather than simplistically in terms of "muslim":"non-muslim". Edited by legaleagle (18 Jun 2015 7.24pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.