Do you think the religion of Islam will ever be respected in a planet where the majority of people are non-Muslims?

[koti]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What has any religion done to earn respect?

That's kind of avoiding John Cuthber's question by gently implying a false premise that Christian and Islamic doctrines (or any other religious doctrine) are equally toxic in their implementation - they are not, at least not at this point in time.     

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[koti]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is that because of the religion, or because of the culture in which the religion resides?

Cultural implications in fundamentalist Islamic states are an effect of religion not the cause. I'm going to keep on mentioning Saudi's as I have first hand insight on this...everything there revolves around religion, culture is 100% saturated and caused by religion.  

[Manticore]

After the successful siege of Jerusalem the Crusaders began an unholy mass of killing. The Crusaders went on a rampage killing every single person they encountered. They went into houses and dragged out the people inhabiting the place to kill them. They stole everything they found and destroyed statues and things the Muslims and Non-Christians considered holy. Muslim refugees had taken shelter in the mosque of Al-Aqsa. Even though his banner was flying high and low above on the morning of the 16th the Crusaders broke in and slaughtered everyone inside. The chroniclers tell of "streets running with blood and of horses splashing blood up onto their riders' leggings". Order returned on 17 July because basically there was simply no one left to kill. All the Jews of Jerusalem were dead and all the Muslims were dead. The Christians had been expelled before the siege began. The city was empty of all save its conquerors. The Muslim world would never forget and forgive the Crusaders' behavior. Jerusalem was a holy city to the Muslims as much as it was to the Christians. The looting of sacred shrines and the slaughter of innocents confirmed the opinion that the people of the West were savage barbarians with no faith at all except in blood and wealth.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

These are the assumptions you should stop with.

It's not an assumption, it's an observation.

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, koti said:

Cultural implications in fundamentalist Islamic states are an effect of religion not the cause. I'm going to keep on mentioning Saudi's as I have first hand insight on this...everything there revolves around religion, culture is 100% saturated and caused by religion.  

Cultures happen everywhere, some good some not so good, and are shaped by the leaders, whatever they believe; religion is often an excuse but it's never a reason/cause.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, koti said:

That's kind of avoiding John Cuthber's question by gently implying a false premise that Christian and Islamic doctrines (or any other religious doctrine) are equally toxic in their implementation - they are not, at least not at this point in time.     

 

1 hour ago, koti said:

Cultural implications in fundamentalist Islamic states are an effect of religion not the cause. I'm going to keep on mentioning Saudi's as I have first hand insight on this...everything there revolves around religion, culture is 100% saturated and caused by religion.  

Humans have been killing, raping, enslaving, beating, and etc other humans since before the first religion was ever dreamt up. There is no point in history going back to the time of hunter gatherer tribes when humans were collectively benevolent. We, humans, have been our own worst enemy throughout existence killing sacking cities, rapping women, killing children, and etc. Focus in at any moment in time and it always seems like there are specific beliefs (religious/political/ sometype of ism) that is the root cause. Focus in on Spain is the late 1400's and it is Catholocism, South U.S. mid 1800's it is Racism, early 1900's Europe it is Facism and Nazism, and etc. Saying "at least nit at this point in time" is irrelevant. Pull back from a narrow focus look at all of time and recognize that regardless the labels humans have consistantly behaved this way. Sayingit  is "cause by religion" is also irrelevant as the behaviors we see today are the same we have seen well before Islam. Religion is a symptom and not the disease itself. And I say that as a atheist who finds all religion silly. 

[koti]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Cultures happen everywhere, some good some not so good, and are shaped by the leaders, whatever they believe; religion is often an excuse but it's never a reason/cause.

Please provide evidence or at least a logical line of thought which leads to your assumption being remotely true in the case of Saudi's or any other conservative Islamic states. My line is this...I spent time with Saudi's, got to know them, participated in everyday life - every aspect of their culture is a derivative of religion. There aren't any aspects of their lives which are not directly controlled by religion. Starting from people sitting around in fast food places in malls acting like zombies communicating on blue tooth because it's not appropriate to talk in public and ending up in Muṭawwi acting like SS squads chasing innocent people down, throwing them in jail for ridiculous offences and/or cutting their hands of or publicly executing them. All of the cultural aspects are enforced by religious leaders, it's a religious regime period. Why is it so difficult for people to digest that? 
I live in a conservative Christian country, it doesn't get more conservative than Poland, the American south and a couple more places. Putting an equal sign between realities of conservative Christian countries and the conservative Islamic countries is just not right.

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Please provide evidence or at least a logical line of thought which leads to your assumption being remotely true in the case of Saudi's or any other conservative Islamic states. My line is this...I spent time with Saudi's, got to know them, participated in everyday life - every aspect of their culture is a derivative of religion. There aren't any aspects of their lives which are not directly controlled by religion. Starting from people sitting around in fast food places in malls acting like zombies communicating on blue tooth because it's not appropriate to talk in public and ending up in Muṭawwi acting like SS squads chasing innocent people down, throwing them in jail for ridiculous offences and/or cutting their hands of or publicly executing them. All of the cultural aspects are enforced by religious leaders, it's a religious regime period. Why is it so difficult for people to digest that? 

Please read Ten oz's post +1.

[koti]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Humans have been killing, raping, enslaving, beating, and etc other humans since before the first religion was ever dreamt up. There is no point in history going back to the time of hunter gatherer tribes when humans were collectively benevolent. We, humans, have been our own worst enemy throughout existence killing sacking cities, rapping women, killing children, and etc. Focus in at any moment in time and it always seems like there are specific beliefs (religious/political/ sometype of ism) that is the root cause. Focus in on Spain is the late 1400's and it is Catholocism, South U.S. mid 1800's it is Racism, early 1900's Europe it is Facism and Nazism, and etc. Saying "at least nit at this point in time" is irrelevant. Pull back from a narrow focus look at all of time and recognize that regardless the labels humans have consistantly behaved this way. Sayingit  is "cause by religion" is also irrelevant as the behaviors we see today are the same we have seen well before Islam. Religion is a symptom and not the disease itself. And I say that as a atheist who finds all religion silly. 

I'm here now, my children are here now, why would I want to focus on 1400's Spain or pre-Islamic era? I'm sure there were serious disagreements between Australopithecus on who stole who's stick and it had nothing to do with religion but this is not in the slightest in the scope of my interest in the context of this thread. Please read my posts where I describe the Saudi religious regime and focus on this. I am not blind to what you wrote TenOZ and I acknowledge it but it seems to me that you and Dimreepr are completey blind to what Im saying in this thread. Put yourselves on a plane and go to Riyadh FFS. If they let you in that is because unless you have a business visa they don't want you to contaminate their religious regime.

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

2 hours ago, koti said:

That's kind of avoiding John Cuthber's question by gently implying a false premise that Christian and Islamic doctrines (or any other religious doctrine) are equally toxic in their implementation - they are not, at least not at this point in time.     

If no other religions have earned respect it's unreasonable to expect Islam to have done so.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

I'm here now, my children are here now, why would I want to focus on 1400's Spain or pre-Islamic era? I'm sure there were serious disagreements between Australopithecus on who stole who's stick and it had nothing to do with religion but this is not in the slightest in the scope of my interest in the context of this thread. Please read my posts where I describe the Saudi religious regime and focus on this. I am not blind to what you wrote TenOZ and I acknowledge it but it seems to me that you and Dimreepr are completey blind to what Im saying in this thread. Put yourselves on a plane and go to Riyadh FFS. If they let you in that is because unless you have a business visa they don't want you to contaminate their religious regime.

Are you implying there is nothing to be learned from history? Better to just hyper focus in a vacuum of your current perspective. Point of taking a bigger view is to understand that the problem is greater than religion. The issues in throughout the Middle East are greater than religion. Remove Islam and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc and the region wouldn't become Western styled Democracies. There are economic and geo-political forces are play. Religion isn't the reason for quasi war between Saudi and Iran in Yemen, isn't the reason Assad gassed people in Syria, and so on. When you hear U.S. President talk about how the U.S. should have taken Iraq's oil or see Western World leaders visiting and showing support for the Saudi royal family despite their abuses it sort of gives it away that this isn't about religion. It is about what it is always about: power, resources, control, etc.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, koti said:

Cultural implications in fundamentalist Islamic states are an effect of religion not the cause. I'm going to keep on mentioning Saudi's as I have first hand insight on this...everything there revolves around religion, culture is 100% saturated and caused by religion.  

When you say "fundamentalist Islamic states" how can one discern whether the real problem is the fundamentalist part or the islamist part? 

[koti]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

If no other religions have earned respect it's unreasonable to expect Islam to have done so.

I disagree with your line of argument. I have exactly the same amount of respect for President Trump and for Anders Breivik which is exactly zero...this piece of data does not tell you the whole picture of my opinion on both of these people now does it. 

 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Remove Islam and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc and the region wouldn't become Western styled Democracies...

Western World leaders visiting and showing support for the Saudi royal family despite their abuses it sort of gives it away that this isn't about religion. It is about what it is always about: power, resources, control, etc.

But ofcourse that removing religion and substituting it with education is the solution. The Saudi royal family is a great example, most of them are really good, rational people, especially the younger generation which attended best US colleges.   

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[koti]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

When you say "fundamentalist Islamic states" how can one discern whether the real problem is the fundamentalist part or the islamist part? 

Religious fundamentalism is an intrinsic part of Islam, these two cannot be separated. Terrorism is a whole different issue on its own and it has to be separated from the subject of this thread. 

[Manticore]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Religious fundamentalism is an intrinsic part of Islam, these two cannot be separated. Terrorism is a whole different issue on its own and it has to be separated from the subject of this thread. 

That is utter nonsense. Tanzania is about 35% Muslim and in 13 years here, with many Muslim friends, I've never met one that I would classify as a fundamentalist.

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, koti said:

I'm here now, my children are here now, why would I want to focus on 1400's Spain or pre-Islamic era? I'm sure there were serious disagreements between Australopithecus on who stole who's stick and it had nothing to do with religion but this is not in the slightest in the scope of my interest in the context of this thread. Please read my posts where I describe the Saudi religious regime and focus on this. I am not blind to what you wrote TenOZ and I acknowledge it but it seems to me that you and Dimreepr are completey blind to what Im saying in this thread. Put yourselves on a plane and go to Riyadh FFS. If they let you in that is because unless you have a business visa they don't want you to contaminate their religious regime.

2

How is that different to most western societies, secular or otherwise, that refuse to take their fair share of the victims of war?

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Manticore said:

That is utter nonsense. Tanzania is about 35% Muslim and in 13 years here, with many Muslim friends, I've never met one that I would classify as a fundamentalist.

Well maybe because they are not sticking to the doctrines of Islam aka they are not "true" Muslims.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How is that different to most western societies, secular or otherwise, that refuse to take their fair share of the victims of war?

What does not taking victims of war have to do with anything were talking about here?!
To be clear, I despise my government stance on Syrian refugees but this has really nothing to do with this thread.  

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, koti said:

Religious fundamentalism is an intrinsic part of Islam, these two cannot be separated. Terrorism is a whole different issue on its own and it has to be separated from the subject of this thread. 

It's an intrinsic part of humanity, despite your bias; terrorism is no different but plays on your bias.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

Well maybe because they are not sticking to the doctrines of Islam aka they are not "true" Muslims.

What does not taking victims of war have to do with anything were talking about here?!
To be clear, I despise my government stance on Syrian refugees but this has really nothing to do with this thread.  

Hate/fear has everything to do with this thread, you can disguise it with words but hate will always inspire an extreme reaction and fear often leads to violence; whatever the religion/belief,

[Manticore]

10 minutes ago, Manticore said:

That is utter nonsense. Tanzania is about 35% Muslim and in 13 years here, with many Muslim friends, I've never met one that I would classify as a fundamentalist.

Whoops! I took the first figure I found there. Other estimates range from 19.8% to 65%.

There does seem to be religious conflict in Zanzibar.

[koti]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's an intrinsic part of humanity, despite your bias; terrorism is no different but plays on your bias.

Oh really...so Tibetan monks have the same intrinsic fundamentalism built into their doctrines as Islam and the rest of the humanity like you say? What a bunch of nonsense you're trying to feed me. I would also appreciate if you stop pissing me off with your constant insinuations (my alleged bias in this case)

Edited August 7, 2017 by koti

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Oh really...so Tibetan monks have the same intrinsic fundamentalism built into their doctrines as Islam and the rest of the humanity like you say? I would also appreciate if you stop pissing me off with your constant insinuations (my alleged bias in this case)

Why not, the secular, Soviet Union did under Stalin... Like I said, some good some not so good.

[Manticore]

16 minutes ago, koti said:

Well maybe because they are not sticking to the doctrines of Islam aka they are not "true" Muslims.

 

So, you're saying that all Muslims are fanatics, and the 99+% that are not, are not true Muslims.

[dimreepr]

Let's get this straight, Koti. I don't blame you for hating what terrorists do, I blame you for blaming religion as the source of hate. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[koti]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Why not, the secular, Soviet Union did under Stalin... Like I said, some good some not so good.

Would you just hold on for a second and address the Tibetan monk vs Islamic doctrine issue which I presented before you go on a tangent with presenting a whole new dimension of Stalin and secular former Soviet Union?