Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:38:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1562 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > > It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those
> > > > fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is
> > > > perpetrated by Muslim fanatics.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd "venture" 99% of the terrorism the UK has suffered has been perpetrated
> > > people who'd call themselves "Christians".
> >
> > The difference is that 99.5% of *Christians* would condemn their actions.
>
> How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in
> the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it.
> It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you
> write 99.5% of the people in general? That would probably be a much wider truth.
I'll make my point below.
>
> > How
> > many in the Arab world condemn Extremist Muslims' actions? The silence is
> > deafening.
>
> Where do you get your vast knowledge of what goes on in the arab world? CNN
> and such? They transmit what you're expecting to hear already.
I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you
correctly point out, they are agenda-driven.
> Talking with actual arabs is a lot more instructive; forget the mosques - if
> you were arab and wanted to understand the "western" civilization, would you
> go to churches before anything else?
>
> Try that. You'll be surprised how close the average arab and the average
> european/american man feel the same issue (I know I was).
I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT
against these crazies, because the lack of vocal opposition from the Arab world
translates to implicit support. I want to hear about protests against Muslim
extremists in the Arab world. Instead, I hear Imams *fueling* the fires of
hatred.
>
> > > However, Christianity is not what
> > > drives them. ? it?s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of
> > > political ideology.
> >
> > So why bring Christianity into the discussion in the first place?
>
> Why bring Islam?
Because these extremists are *using* Islam to justify their evil actions. The
Muslim world should be *far* more vocal in their distancing of themselves from
radicalism. I don't hear it though.
>
> > > Likewise, was the Oklahoma bombing perpetrated by a Christian, or a "loony" >who
> > > happened to be a Christian? Furthermore, I'd be the last person to link
> > > Israeli terrorism to the Jewish faith, [How many have died in the Middle East
> > > due to
> > > the interpretation of religious texts by right-wing extremists/nationalists in
> > > the Christian and Jewish faiths?] but is Zionism not a form of religious
> > > fundamentalism?
> >
> > Again, you analogy is flawed. The overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews
> > *CONDEMN* terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of their respective
> > religions. This is not the case in the Islamic world.
>
> Again I must call your attention to the fact that the "Islamic world" goes
> from Morrocco to the Western China; and what you see on the telly is always
> the same places, always the same people, always the same words.
Again I say that I don't watch the telly:-) I read and listen.
> The further one gets from the Middle East region, the more one realizes how
> wrongly our perception of muslims in general is guided - even though you'll
> never admit it, if the dominant religion in the Middle East were
> Christianism, there would still be conflict!
You would have to paint a scenario, because I can't see your point.
>
> > > All this does not mean that nationalists [etc] do not use religion as a
> > > recruiting tool. Nor does it mean that religion is not a common factor which
> > > links some of the world?s ?victims?. Do you think the USA was attacked in 2001
> > > because it is not a Muslim state, or because of perceptions regarding the US
> > > foreign policy?
> >
> > If you believe that the US foreign policy is the cause of the attack on 9-11,
> > then how would you explain the countless acts of terror of Islamic
> > Fundamentalists around the world?
>
> Part circumstance (they happening to be the religion "in between" all other
> major religions, that is, Christianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism), and part
> opportunity (they benefit from a sudden income of wealth without having a
> stable society already.
> I don't believe what happened in 9-11 was only due to American foreign
> policy, though.
>
> > The fact is that they are simply intolerant
> > of *anyone* who does not view the world as they do. The reason for their
> > terrorism is their hatred and intolerance.
>
> Ok, let's try this angle:
> When I was younger, my parents used to take me to a Dominican Friars' chapel
> to attend mass; years later, when I knew it had been the Dominican Friars
> who were in charge of the Inquisition, I was confused: if they had done that
> and the gospels were still the same now as then, was I attending a service
> guided by a criminal organization?
> So I spoke with one of the Friars about this. What he told me then, I'll
> never forget: "Those who did that were insane men in a time of great
> changes; they found a motive, means, and then it became an escape goat. As
> soon as the 'novelty' became common knowledge, the need for social
> revolution faded - and the insanity was abandoned"
> What I read in his words regarding "time of changes" was the age of
> exploration: gold, then like now, makes men behave irrationally. Only
> today's gold comes from oil pits rather than Monteczuma's treasure :-)
>
> My point: massive intolerance it's not intrinsecal to Islam. *Now* it's
> happening with Islam, as it happened with Christianity 500 years ago, and
> the same way it's more than likely to happen with other creeds for as long
> as there are men and women willing to follow organized religion.
> Why is Islam the current, so to speak, unstable society? Because there has
> been a quick shake of the social foundation in the past half century, and
> the society was not ready yet. So there was a conservative reaction, a
> "return to the purist values"; the escape goat became Israel (as always),
> the means became the oil-dollars, and it all began.
So we agree that there is massive Muslim intolerance, but what are we to *do*
about it? Christianity may have gone sour 500 years ago, but what was the
worst case scenario back then? As you mentioned, things corrected themselves.
Today, however, the stakes are *vastly* higher. One small group conceivabley
has the power to extinguish millions of lives with the press of a button. We
cannot afford to ride out the storm-- the potential price is too high.
It is my fear that it is going to take the detonation of a WOMD to wake the
world up to the threat that faces it. Is that the only difference from my
position and yours and others who feel war isn't justified? I'm curious-- what
would your reaction be to the scenario where a biological agent was released on
the eastern seaboard of the US which killed 5 million Americans? And say it
was a strain that could be traced to Iraqi facilities. Would that change your
position at all?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Why bring Islam? (...) Problem is, you're not going to. Not saying there aren't lots of repressive regimes in the non Muslim world, mind you, but there sure aren't very many NON repressive ones in the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot of a detail and not the panoramic view. (...) And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's? they went to the stake. The modern day (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it. It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you write 99.5% of the people in (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
