Should we Stop Discussing whether Islam is Peaceful ?

[JI7]

Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 05:43 AM - Edit history (1)

anytime some attack happens by islamic terrorists many condemn the attacks by saying they were not real muslims. or not practicing true islam. it becomes a debate about Islam itself and what it represents.

but wouldn't it be better to say it doesn't matter what Islam/any religion says . that certain things are right or wrong in itself.

this would be true of any religion. but it seems to happen more with islam .

i personally don't think any religion is peaceful or good in itself.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Of course it would, but fat chance of that...

As a species, we seem to be driven to find a bogeyman when something goes horribly wrong.

We might evolve out of this, if we have the chance.

[Warpy]

2. Should we stop discussing whether Christianity is peaceful?

Look at the evidence: war on women's health care, bombing women's clinics, shooting doctors, meddling with foreign laws to make being gay a capital offense, the list goes on and that's only the recent stuff.

Face it, none of the religions going back to Abraham have clean hands.

Hell, even the Buddhists have been known to fight. Also, don't forget Richard Nixon was a Quaker.

I don't defend Islam. Or Christianity. Or any other religion. What I do defend is the right of an individual to believe any of them. It's only when that individual thinks he's got the right to tell anyone else what to believe that we have a problem. When he tries to get his dogma inserted into civil law, we have a big problem.

[inanna]

4. + a bazillion

[JI7]

9. yes,i agree with all religions. we see it on DU also when someone says "he isn't a real christian"

when talking about asshole right wingers who are always talking about God.

[hifiguy]

62. It seems that far too many people have never heard of

the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It gets repeated here every day.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Thank you.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. Thanks from me too! eom

[Hortensis]

23. We should start. Both Islam and Christianity are proselytizing

religions that are more like each other in aggression than like most nonproselytizing religions. Islam may be lagging in change as the planet develops, but dozens of millions of American Christians who want to nuke the Middle East are proof that their own tendency to religious atrocities is not in the past.

[ejbr]

24. +1

Labeling all Islamists as potential terrorists feeds into making them, imho. Respect is acquired through respect.

[haikugal]

76. I agree!

[MADem]

3. I know plenty of peaceful Muslims.

I know Muslims who like a glass of wine, or a beer, who eat bacon, and violate all of those "rules" that everyone thinks that everyone follows. I know Muslim women who don't ever wear hijab. There are all kinds of people who find themselves under the umbrella of Islam. They are as different and as varied in their approach to their faith as Christians are to theirs.

They aren't a borg.

"Islam" by itself isn't anything. It's some of the people in that club who are causing the problem, just like there are some people practicing Christianity--in Africa most recently--who behave violently against others in the name of Christian religion.

Beware the broad brush.

[ericson00]

5. while I agree to beware of a broad brush

the fact of all the religious-based extremisms presently around today, more attacks happen in the expressly for and in the cause of Islam that other religions with many more deaths and injuries. In places far and near from the Middle East, allied with and not allied with USA/Israel, places rich and poor, north and south, and so on. I'm against saying all Muslims are bad or evil, but that doesn't absolve the facts about Radical Islam's potency and spread.

[MADem]

6. Christians have done a fine job of racking up the body count too. nt

[ericson00]

7. this isn't about what religion individuals happen to be.

its about their motivations for doing these things. That's why I reject whether its about people who happen to be Christians or people who happen to be Muslims doing these things.

Here's my stance:

If a Muslim kills 5 people because they’re a lone psychopath, that’s not Islamic extremism. If a Muslim kills 5 people in the name of Islam, that’s Islamic extremism.

That goes for any religion. The last part in that quote happens much more re. Islam today than other religions: that last part of the quote.

[MADem]

11. You seriously don't think that Christianity has been used as

an excuse for war?

Look at Hitler's religious imagery.









And without irony, he used one religion to wage war while trying to eliminate another religion.

[ericson00]

15. his party and ideology was not started in order to spread Christianity

and the idea that Nazism pro-religion has been debunked by way to many serious historians time and time again.

Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.[10] His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was skeptical of religion,[11][12] he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator".[13][14] In private, he could be ambiguous.[15][16] Evans wrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion".[17]...In office, the Hitler regime connived at a Kirchenkampf (lit. church struggle). While wary of open conflict with the churches, Hitler generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to perpetrate their persecutions of the churches.[26] According to Evans, by 1939, 95% of Germans still called themselves Protestant or Catholic, with 3.5% 'Deist' (gottgläubig) and 1.5% atheist—most in these latter categories being "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid-1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society".[27] Gottgläubig" (lit. "believers in God&quot , had a non-denominational, nazified outlook on divine beliefs, often described as predominantly based on creationist and deistic views.[28] Despite all the promotion for positive Christianity and thegottgläubig movement, the majority of the three million Nazi Party members continued to pay their church taxes and register as either Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant Christians.[29] Hitler angered the churches by appointing the neo-pagan Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist.

even the pictures you show merely depict political opportunism of him being acceptable to things that came before him, before he started oppressing the churches.

[MADem]

50. Opportunistic pragmatism. Why are you so insular that you suppose

that people from other faiths might not utilize religion as a means to an end?

It's kind of amusing to suppose that just because someone is a Muslim, raised in Islamic society, that they somehow aren't astute enough to use that cultural milieu in support of obtaining and consolidating power. This is only the province of the Christian, then?

[Nye Bevan]

47. Ahem....

Nazi intentions were confirmed on January 3, 1942 when The New York Times published a 30-point program detailing the key doctrines of the new National Reich Church. Below is listed the most blasphemous details of the new religion that Hitler planned to replace Christianity with:

1. The National Reich Church specifically demands the immediate turning over to its possession of all churches and chapels, to become national churches.

5. The National Reich Church is immutably fixed in its one objective: to destroy that Christian belief imported into Germany in the unfortunate year 800, whose tenets conflict with both the heart and mentality of the German.

13. The National Reich Church demands the immediate cessation of the printing of the Bible, as well as its dissemination, throughout the Reich and colonies. All Sunday papers with any religious content shall also be suppressed.

14. The National Reich Church shall see that the importation of the Bible and other religious works into Reich territory is made impossible.

15. The National Reich Church decrees that the most important document of all time-therefore the guiding document of the German people-is the book of our Fuhrer, “Mein Kampf.” It recognizes that this book contains the principles of the purist ethnic morals under which the German people must live.

16. The National Reich Church will see to it that this book spread its active forces among the entire population and that all Germans live by it.

18. The National Reich Church will remove from the altars of all churches the Bible, the cross and religious objects.

19. In their places will be set that which must be venerated by the German people and therefore is by God, our most saintly book, “Mein Kampf,” and to the left of this a sword.

21. In the National Reich Church there will be no remission of sins; its tenet is that, once committed, a sin is irrevocable and will be implacably punished by the laws of nature and in this world.

30. On the day of the foundation of the National Reich Church the Christian cross shall be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels inside the frontiers of the Reich and its colonies and will be replaced by the symbol of invincible Germany-the swastika.[3]

The way that Hitler could pursue the annihilation of Christianity along with the Jews was through his war. Gereon Goldmann, a former Waffen SS solider, revealed the hidden, yet key objectives of Hitler’s war:

“One day a big shot from Berlin came to speak to us. We were stunned by what he said, but we weren’t allowed to tell anyone-it was strictly confidential. This man told us that ‘Victory could only be complete when all the churches were destroyed. Not only the Jewish religion, but also all Christian faiths would have to be eliminated’”.[4]


http://books.google.com/books?id=6QngAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=%22national+reich+church%22&source=bl&ots=aXq1BubKrA&sig=3rJfFBu4YYQvcd_401ca1IO2eZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fhG9UteHC-nJsQS5koC4DQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAzgK

I know it's shocking, but a politician being photographed coming out of a church does not always mean that he is a devout Christian.

[ericson00]

51. +5000000

thank you. I'm seeing the crap you and I had to respond to everywhere online these days.

[MADem]

53. Thank you for proving my point.

Albeit unintentionally.

There's still a church in the picture there--it's just the NAZI church. And they're co-opting in secret, because they know this kind of thing takes TIME.

They first have to take over, and then they can gradually change the rules, once they are in the churches and running the show.


Or, in the modern-day scenario, the masjids.

You don't think this is EXACTLY what is happening in Da'esh? Or do you suppose that everyone who is Muslim sits at home at night and practices the knife stroke to separate a head from the shoulders, because there's something about that mentioned in Qu'ran?

That's as silly as thinking that Christians, because they have that "eye for an eye" thing in their literature, would maybe practice with grapes, or something.

Most people aren't instinctively brutally violent. They have to be carefully taught. That's what Hitler was doing, that is what Da'esh is doing.

And of course, touting this in 1942 wasn't a "propaganda" move at all to motivate the home base (oh, of COURSE not), or, if they got lucky over the illegal airwaves, to try to de-motivate the civilian population of the enemy.

Hitler was USING the church and the inclinations of the faithful, and trying to switch their allegiances to him.

Da'esh is USING the inclinations of the devout in Islam, and trying to shift their focus to accepting the leadership of a few loony tunes to embrace this idea of a Caliphate as existed in an idealized era in the history of the faith.

[JI7]

8. yes, but that's what i mean. there are good/bad people in all religions

[MADem]

12. I am agreeing with you and riffing on your thesis. nt

[Marr]

71. Wait a minute. You know a bunch of Muslims who don't live according to the religion's rules,

and they're the 'real Muslims', while fundamentalists, who take every single word of their holy texts as the infallible word of god... they're just posers?

[MADem]

73. Of course they are--just like the "real" Catholics with two kids.

The fundies who want power are all about power--if they could get that power by invoking that spaghetti monster, they'd do that.

They just know their audience, is all. They know how to run a successful con.

[Tipperary]

13. Islam subjugates women and persecutes gay people.

I do not care one whit about this "religion."

[ericson00]

14. well said!

its very heartening to see more liberals stand up against Islam!

The progressive movement and the Democratic party itself runs a very serious risk if enough elements in it don't get tough on Radical Islamist Jihadism. Other than it being the right thing to do, the GOP has been itching to get more Jewish vote (who will react much worse than others given the Islamist threat not only to Jews but to Israel) and run on security again. John Kerry lost in 2004 not because of SBVT but because he was seen as weak on terrorism. (See "Trust _____ On Terrorism&quot

[BlueMTexpat]

21. If you are

standing "up against Islam" I would posit that you are not a liberal.

We should not be standing up against any religion per se. We should be standing up against those fanatics - religious or not - who use their particular "ism" to justify any of their actions that harm others.

To me, that is what a "liberal" is. I am not alone:

"Classical Liberalism" = a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Well that freedom should be for all individuals, not just straight men of the dominate faith group

Islamic nations are not parliamentary and they use violent means of enforcing bigoted theocratic laws. Not one Muslim nation allows LGBT to live freely, all punish and several have the death penalty for being gay. Only Muslim nations have such a penalty. Many more subject us to the lash, and not just gay people also artists and writers and others.

And those are not 'fanatics' they are Nation States, US allies. The people who suffer under those rulers are almost all Muslims. If you don't stand for what is right and against what is wrong, you wind up standing with the wrong set of Muslims and helping to legitimize the horrors they subject others to. They do not subject US LGBT to those horrors. They do that to their own. So which group do you stand with, both being Muslims, the man with the whip in one hand and Koran in the other or the man he is flogging mercilessly?

[BlueMTexpat]

63. I am a bit confused by your answer.

I don't believe that I was arguing for freedom "for straight men of the dominant faith group" as opposed to all others.

Why on earth would I, as a woman, who has come by her agnosticism - not atheism - legitimately, that is, after studying, in some cases even living, different religions, do that? My extended family also comprises individuals who espouse literally every known faith, as well as those who do not believe.

I personally believe that there is something more to life than what we are able to see. What that is I simply do not know. But I have experienced enough in my 70+ years to make me comfortable with this belief.

Any religion that tries to define that "something" and put it in terms for people to understand (what is amazing is that so many of the "myths" are similar in many ways) can be helpful to those who need such definition and community. I respect those who actually practice the tenets of their beliefs in ways that do not harm anyone and laud those, such as the truly wonderful Jimmy Carter, who use their beliefs to espouse causes that benefit others.

Where I find fault is when those who accept those religious definitions decide that those definitions, beliefs and actions must apply to all others without exception, and especially when they use those beliefs to cause harm or to justify causing harm to others. I also find fault when one set of beliefs - rather than the individuals who misuse them - is considered fair game for bigotry.

What is so complicated about that?

Are you sure that you meant to respond to me the way that you did?

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. It's not just the fanatics who subjugate women and persecute gays.

These things are built into the very framework of the religion, and are components of the culture itself. Misogyny and homophobia are not exclusive to Islamist radicals, but instead permeate pan-Islamic culture. Global Islam is an arch-conservative metaculture, with pockets of liberalism.

Those brave individuals who speak out against these injustices are to be admired (and feared for, since they're more likely to be the victims of violent fanatics than any Westerner), but they're voices in the wilderness. I think of them as the counterparts to those in the early 60's who started the ball rolling towards what would become a massive cultural shift in terms of liberal ideology in the West.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. I lived for eight years

in a Muslim culture. I am a woman. I was never "subjugated," mistreated, or persecuted by Muslims. And yes, I spoke out against what I perceived as injustice.

Yes, there are women who are indeed treated badly. But that is more because of bad individuals who interpret their religion for their own ends. There are also many - men and women both - who spoke out against such subjugation and have been working tirelessly to improve the situation. They are indeed heroes.

There are battered and subjugated women, not only in the US, but everywhere. Some use religious beliefs to justify such treatment. Others are simply thugs who do as they damn well please.

Frankly, subjugation of women and persecution of gays were - and in many ways still are - part and parcel of the Catholic religious culture that I was raised in. In fact, I was more "subjugated" by Catholics than ever I was by Muslims.

Do you actually know firsthand anything about what you are talking about? I would bet that most of those who post the most strident anti-Muslim posts here do not - it is all either anecdotal or seen from outside.

Bigotry is simply wrong. Be against those who use their "ism" - whatever their "ism" is - to harm others.

[leftynyc]

16. There will be others coming

along who will do their very best to tell you why Christianity is JUST AS BAD. It'll be bullshit in terms of who is making laws that make being gay a death penalty offence or women being able to date without getting stoned to death for adultery but they'll be along any minute now. Why? Because Bill Maher was right.

[Snobblevitch]

17. While I bellieve all all religous extremists to be a bad influence,

I too have notcrecently seen suicide bombings that killed dozens in the name if Christ. (Even though I think Bill Maher is pretty much an ass.)

[leftynyc]

18. I like Maher

not as a man because I find him shockingly misogynist but he knows politics and I watch his show religiously (had to use that word here as it made me smile). PC bullshit like what you see on DU regularly regarding Islam proves him right every single fucking day.

[ericson00]

19. Its good to be back

And the fact that fellow liberals are turning against Islam is beautiful! The PC perception that Obama had in 08 was one of the reasons I didn't vote for him in the primary. I love his domestic policy but his view of Islam as well as Israel are part of why I think his worldview is off. I hope more Dems and progressives drop the rose colored view of Islam, the party notices, so we a. can win 2016, and keep our country sane and defeat jihadism

[leftynyc]

28. I'm not against Islam

I'm against excusing all the violence done in its name today by far too many using deflections and whining about the crusades. I certainly can't be put in the category of those who wish to close mosques and stop all immigration from Muslim countries. But I'd be making damn sure anyone wanting to immigrate had nothing to do with any violence anywhere. My biggest fear is that this insane notion that there is no problem with Islam - even if it's a perverted form of Islam - is part of the reason Democrats are losing elections they should be winning. One attack on US soil and we can kiss the entire government goodbye.

[ericson00]

31. I'm with you. I'm against the demagogues from the GOP's side

and from the progressive side. You can't close mosques or say "no Muslim presidents," but you also cannot deny that there are serious problems with Islam. One also cannot deny that too many liberals engage in the politics of reaction: if the GOP says something is bad, liberals bend over to say its good. The reverse is true as well: Democrats say something is good, GOP says bad. Radical Islam is too important for that stuff.

Also, here's a great piece on the refugee situation.

[leftynyc]

34. That's a very good piece

and right on the money. If the price of being so pc (so openminded our brains fall out) is continuing to lose elections, I'm not willing to pay that price. Pretending there is no problem is not an answer.

[Jim Beard]

52. I read the article and it was very good

I have been against Syrian immigration every since I saw the way those in Hungry ran through the barricades. What I saw was mostly young men defying the law of a country they may live in. I saw CNN reporter running along beside them telling how bad Hungry was. I have kept my mouth shut but I feel I can express my feelings now.

[leftynyc]

58. The US has much stricter

protocols than Europe for refugees. In fact, I just learned (and I haven't confirmed yet but will look it up) that single men aren't even eligible. They aren't considered "most vulnerable". As long as all protocols are being met and thorough investigations are being done, I'm okay with that. But I certainly do understand anyone who wants to take a "pause" given recent events. And I'm not willing to give up the entire government to the right wing just so I can be pc.

[Jim Beard]

69. Its sad to say that our country has ALMOST always been horrible to refugees or immigrants

California treated the Chinese like crap after they helped build the railroad, even sent them back to China. Hell, California closed its border to Oakies (Oklahoman's) during the depression. There was another instance of the Federal government but I am 69 and can't remember what I forgot.

Ah, I remembered... The Mariel Boat lift when Castro opened his prisons and let them flood into our country. Assad has done the same.

[leftynyc]

74. We definitely have our

darker history. This one effected my family personally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

82. Which country doesn't have its darker history?

The world has made progress.

There's just more progress to be made.

[leftynyc]

90. 100% True

I wish people would remember that. There is no country on the planet that completely clean hands.

[snagglepuss]

78. You mean the Syrians were acting like Americans on Black Friday though

stampeding Americans simply wanted stuff. THe stampeding Syrians have been through hell, on one hand, Assad bombing neighbors and killing indiscriminately, on the other hand ISIS wreaking terror all of which followed by a desperate flight from Syria. Desperate people don't act rationally especially when rumors abound that borders are going to be closing.

[Jim Beard]

84. They are choosing the wrong people to support.

If they had joined the one the US supports, there would be no problen. It was their choice.

[smirkymonkey]

87. +1000

[trotsky]

25. Go back a thousand years.

There have been a few centuries now of enlightenment and secularization in the West to blunt Christianity's sharp edges. But you cannot deny the religion's violent, bloody past. (And that a considerable number of Christians today are still of that mindset.)

[leftynyc]

29. I don't deny the PAST

but I'm much more concerned about the present where people are getting shot and blown up at concerts and at cafes. That is happening NOW. All you're trying to do is excuse it by bringing up things from centuries ago that have zero to do with it. And don't claim you aren't trying to excuse it - it's precisely why you brought it up.

[trotsky]

33. I'm concerned about the past. As we all should be. We have to learn from it.

Elements of Christianity that caused those bad things are still there in the bible. People are still reading them literally and acting on them. I think it is dangerous to take the attitude of "Oh that was in the past and everything is fine now" as you are doing.

[leftynyc]

35. Spare me the drama

When there are terrorists blowing up planes, concerts and cafes in Jesus's name, we'll have this conversation. Until then, you're just deflecting from those who are doing that crap just in the last few weeks in Allah's name. Just how long is it going to take you to learn THAT lesson?

[trotsky]

36. Drama? Because you don't want anyone to discuss the violent past of your religion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary

I am not defending Islam here, only pointing out that your religion's hands are also bloody. However it came of age when there wasn't the technology available to do mass killings such as airplanes or automatic weapons. It's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.

[leftynyc]

38. I'm not a Christian

so trash Christianity all you like. In fact, trash any religion you like until you're blue in the face, I truly don't give a shit. All you're doing is pretending there isn't a problem with Islam TODAY. That you're unable to face that reality is not my problem.

[trotsky]

39. The reality of the problem is that many religions - not just Islam - have violence in their texts.

Violence that is endorsed, and sometimes ORDERED, by their gods.

The problem is not Islam per se but the notion that religion is special and cannot be criticized lest one deserve violent retribution - as even the pope has said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30838667

[leftynyc]

42. Violence in books is one thing

When you carry out barbaric mass murders in the name of that religion, that's something else entirely. I don't see Christians giving out fatwas for people making fun of Jesus. I don't see Jews holding a knife to someone's throat ordering them to convert or die. I don't see Hindus, Druze, or anyone else committing mass murders in the name of their G-d. Today, the problem is a perverted form of Islam.

[trotsky]

43. Yet those religions have done the same in the past...

and have adherents today who still want to. No, they aren't as common today but the elements are still there. Wait, I know, the past doesn't count. Whatever. Enjoy your blinders.

[leftynyc]

44. So you must have link

to stories that tell the tale of how there are still adherents today that want to commit mass murder. Where are they? Who are they? Where do they live? Making shit up to make yourself feel better is what children do. Talk about blinders. Enjoy your delusion that if not only for.......what exactly would make these other mass murders take place? You don't say.

[trotsky]

56. Take off the blinders. Open your eyes.

Those Christians are out there.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/theodore-shoebat-execute-gays-and-gay-accepting-christians
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/christian_pastor_says_gays_worthy_of_death_at_conference_with_3_gop_presidential_candidates
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/tennessee-televangelist-god-commands-christians-to-kill-gays/

Have you perhaps heard of the KKK? They're Christians.

I'm going to stop interacting with you now because you have grown so hostile and vicious. I have provided evidence of my statements, you have provided only anger and insults. Good day.

[leftynyc]

59. If you think comparing

what some rural preacher is whining about vs state sponsored laws like the death penalty for being gay and stoning women for dating, I certainly can't stop you. I think it's ridiculous but whatever.

[Throd]

45. What's stopping them then?

They have adherents who want to, and yet they don't. But they're just as bad?

Stay worked up about the Spanish Inquisition if that makes you feel progressive.

[atreides1]

54. That's simple

They're not in complete control, yet!

Or does anyone here really believe that those adherents won't begin their own pogroms, should they ever achieve control of the US government! Does anyone really trust the religious right and the politicians they control?

Indiana is working on a law that protects LGBT community, only it really doesn't...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/11/18/3723348/indiana-lgbt-road-map-to-discrimination/


Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-muslim...that's pretty much the GOP flag that's flying today. The attacks in Paris has only fueled the fear that many Americans seem to have in abundance!

Let's not assume that the religious right won't push for their own "Jihad", they will...and I believe that it'll make ISIL look like pikers!!!

[Throd]

60. If they really believed that strongly they would just go do it. Martyrdom for the cause.

Jihadis don't ask for a permissive or enabling environment before they murder.

[trotsky]

55. Secular governments, enlightenment thinking.

I already noted that.

[smirkymonkey]

88. Give it up. Your argument is pointless. The past is no longer relevant when discussing

the terrorism of today.

[Jim Beard]

86. Its not religeon, its Thugs>

Most were piety thieves and no accounts. Always in trouble with the law. I am beginning to believe there is no religion to it or they feel that this religion approves of it. Either way, its twisted minds.

[melman]

48. "came of age"

1400 years and counting and it's still "coming of age"? WTF.

[Android3.14]

22. I'm just glad that Christianity doesn't subjugate women and persecute gay people

[leftynyc]

46. Ask yourself a very simple question

If you were a gay person, would you rather live in the US or somewhere in the West or in an Islamic country? Trying to make a comparison to those odious westboro church clowns who put up signs about fags with a state sponsored law outlawing being gay and the punishment for that being death is quite simply not honest.

[Android3.14]

64. "West or in an Islamic country" is Apples and oranges

The OP is attacking the religion, not the country.

A better questions would be, which would you rather live, in Christian Uganda or Islamic UAE?

[leftynyc]

72. No, not really

Or is there any Islamic country that is friendly to gays? Many European countries are Christian countries.

[Android3.14]

75. Yes, really - Mali, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Albania

5 Muslim Nations where Gay is Legal

I empathize with the anger and xenophobia at Islam, but I deride the fallacy that majority Christian nations treat gays and women better. Some do, some do not.

The issues the Islamic nations exhibit when it comes to the treatment of minority populations and gender are more related to the meddling of the west than to any inherent characteristic of a particular religion.

[treestar]

79. that doesn't make them all terrorists

that's a separate issue

[alc]

26. can we still talk about "Islamic governments"?

And the laws those governments have with respect to women and LGBT among other things.

And the punishments those governments have (wrt women, LGBT, blaspheme, etc).

And the funding those governments give to other groups (many which look like terrorists) in order to expand those laws to other countries.

Not all Islamic governments (and certainly not all Muslims). But a lot of them are pretty barbaric and in no way peaceful. And, at least for me, it's hard to look at our government's treatment of women and LGBT as in any way comparable to theirs and excuse them because "we're just as bad".

The religion component doesn't matter and we can just focus on the actions - they use religion to control followers and justify their actions. At the same time, I don't see how it helps to avoid saying they are "Islamic governments" and their followers are "radical Muslims" (emphasis on RADICAL). And it's very likely that understanding the religious aspect of their motivation will be important in stopping them and making the lives of other Muslims and women and LGBT in the ME bearable. We can either kill ALL of the non-peaceful individuals (Muslim and other). Or (maybe) help the "non-radial Muslims" convince the "radical Muslims" to be peaceful, or come to a different understanding of the religion, or something? But that will require accepting that there are some very powerful, non-peaceful Islamic governments and followers and Islam is a significant motivator for the individuals and tool for those in power.

Change isn't going to happen through elections. So how might it happen? And how can we help? Or do we just stay out of their business.

[get the red out]

27. I agree

I don't think that helps in the "how to address terrorism" question.

[FLPanhandle]

32. Islam is not progressive

Nor are most religions.

None of them should be defended and supported by liberals.

[hifiguy]

65. Bra-fcking-vo!

This is the correct answer.

[Throd]

66. But some on DU see it as anti-Western, so it gets a pass.

[ericson00]

83. hopefully, not anymore

and this trend I see here of liberals finally starting to call out Radical Islam is very encouraging. I hope it spreads to other blogs and that other likeminded people go to DKos, etc. as well and spread the gospel of truth!

[Throd]

66. But some on DU see it as anti-Western, so it gets a pass.

[Throd]

67. But some on DU see it as anti-Western, so it gets a pass.

[redwitch]

37. Yes please. nt

[LanternWaste]

41. I imagine the inherent peace or violence of a thing is predicated on interpretation.

I imagine the inherent peace or violence of a thing (including, but certainly not limited to religion) is predicated on interpretation of tenet. A lay follower's interpretation is no more nor no less valid than a lay observer's interpretation.

An objective analysis, authored by those with knowledge of cultural relevance, textual criticism, and historical data is more often than not, my go-to primer for something I'm not wholly familiar with. And I certainly won't pretend to posses the knowledge needed to judge whether its peaceful or not... as there are so many others who maintain that fictional pretense much better than I.

[Yo_Mama]

49. Yes, because of course some Muslims are and some are not. But it's better to discuss agendas

rather than names.

We do not agree with people who destroy and kill randomly and ignore human rights. We need to focus upon the objective behaviors.

[hifiguy]

61. None of the Abrahamic fairy tales is about peace. Period.

The poetical prose always stand cheek-by-jowl with the more extensive passages about how The Invisible Man in the Sky demands that his true believers go forth and slaughter/rape/kill/torture the unbelieving heathens, and that they should do so in his name. Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris have documented this to rather extraordinary lengths.

Religion is BULLSHIT.

[closeupready]

70. It's a free country. You can do or not do whatever you want.

[TIME TO PANIC]

77. Islam is no more violent than Christianity.

If Islam didn't exist, there would still be an Isis in some form or another.
Their extremism comes from geo-political circumstances. When you look over history Christianity has been just as violent. This discussion over whether Islam is more violent than other religions is just going to cause more hate and intolerance.

[mwrguy]

80. "ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents." - Barack Obama

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. Well, if the President said it, it must be true.

No religion condones the killing of innocents, but some get a little hazy on how "innocent" is defined.

[Marr]

85. That simply isn't true.

Islam clearly advocates such. So does Christianity, for that matter-- but everything from the Enlightenment to the Civil Rights Movement has slowly put religion into a fairly restrained box in the west. This isn't the case in the Middle East.

The fact of the matter is that fundamentalists like those in ISIS can justify their particular world view with scripture much more readily than any modern, moderate Muslim. Christian fanatics can do their same-- but they don't have the kind of sway that their counterparts have in the Muslim world.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

89. Most Christians don't give as much weight to the

Old Testament, which is why there aren't as many Westboro Baptist Churches.