Irony in Islam

[Severian]

What if a little girl killed someone? Should she then be killed?

 

I presume not, but what if the person who killed the little girl killed her because he fell asleep at the wheel of a car?

 

Again, probably not, but what if a drug user killed the little girl while high?

 

This is getting more into your ballpark I think, even though the drug user may not have been mentally capable of knowing what he was doing. What if someone had slipped something into his drink, so taking the drugs wasn't his idea?

 

I suspect this puts him off the hook again. Now, what if the 'drugs' wheren't external but were some chemical imablance in his brain caused by a medical problem?

 

What if the chemical imbalance was caused not by a medical problem as such but by some external source, e.g. a beating?

 

What if the chemical imbalance was caused by the way the murderer was treated in his childhood?

 

The point I am trying to get at is that you need to feel empathy not just for the murdered child and her parents, but for everyone. Try and get to the root of why the bad thing happens and maybe you will not be so instantly judgemental.

 

Personally I don't think it is my place to judge anyone, about anything, because I am just as flawed as they are. And so are you.

[Bettina]

What if a little girl killed someone? Should she then be killed?

 

I presume not' date=' but what if the person who killed the little girl killed her because he fell asleep at the wheel of a car?

 

Again, probably not, but what if a drug user killed the little girl while high?

 

This is getting more into your ballpark I think, even though the drug user may not have been mentally capable of knowing what he was doing. What if someone had slipped something into his drink, so taking the drugs wasn't his idea?

 

I suspect this puts him off the hook again. Now, what if the 'drugs' wheren't external but were some chemical imablance in his brain caused by a medical problem?

 

What if the chemical imbalance was caused not by a medical problem as such but by some external source, e.g. a beating?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What if the chemical imbalance was caused by the way the murderer was treated in his childhood?

 

The point I am trying to get at is that you need to feel empathy not just for the murdered child and her parents, but for everyone. Try and get to the root of why the bad thing happens and maybe you will not be so instantly judgemental.

 

Personally I don't think it is my place to judge anyone, about anything, because I am just as flawed as they are. And so are you.[/quote']

 

I took the liberty of putting a dotted line in your quote.....

 

Everything above the dotted line would get him life...maybe life in a mental institution like Andrea Yates should have. She, for example, does not belong in a regular prison, but removal from society is a given. Also, I don't know how to handle the little girl that kills. That would be a tough one and no, she wouldn't get life or death obviously.

 

Below the line, too bad, he gets the DP. There is no excuse for what happened to Jessica Lunsford no matter what upbringing he had. There are lots of people who have had a rough life, but they don't go out and kill little kids. You can't wait for god to judge. The killing has to stop and the only way I know is to send a message that if you rape and murder a little kid, you die. Period. I already said I would have empathy for him and I would have tears streaming down my face for him. But I would still pull the switch if it was my daughter or son.

 

And as far as me being flawed, read my empathic post. I'm the queen freak.

 

Bettina

[AweBurn]

I hope AweBurn realizes that I could care less about the now that was before. I am worried about the now thats now' date=' and the now in question is caused by a warlike religion that is run by a bunch of murderous barbarians who think blowing up women and little kids is not only a sign of victory for Alla, but gets them bedded by virgins in the afterlife.

 

I don't see anything equally plausible....

[/quote']

All religions are warlike at somepoint or another. It's a natural state of the evolution. I think America should let it pan out as it would without a major super-power creating termoil in hopes of "protecting its assest's". All im saying is that the West can't judge a brutle religion because Christianity (or what have you) was once just as brutle.

You're right to fear the spread of those "barbaric" ways into America but that WILL NOT happen if we pull all our troops out and let them figure their stuff out.

 

-AweBurn

[Phi for All]

I am worried about the now thats now, and the now in question is caused by a warlike religion that is run by a bunch of murderous barbarians who think blowing up women and little kids is not only a sign of victory for Alla, but gets them bedded by virgins in the afterlife.

Please avoid generalizations like this. Like many other extremist movements both religious and secular, the acts of a few should not be blamed on the whole. Certain factions of Islam, like certain factions of Christianity, like certain factions of secular ethnic groups (i.e. White Supremicists), like certain factions of idealogical groups can behave in extreme, violent ways.

 

Just because some anti-abortionists kill Planned Parenthood personnel is it right for me to assume all anti-abortionists feel the same?

 

Just because some white people have hung people because of the color of their skin is it right for me to assume all whites feel the same?

 

Just because some high school students have gone on rampages and shot up their schools and classmates is it right for me to assume all high school students feel the same?

 

I know the news is full of hate and violence and sex. The news is like the Jerry Springer Show. Please don't believe that the people you see sensationalized are representative of the whole. Racism and discrimination are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Bettina]

All religions are warlike at somepoint or another. It's a natural state of the evolution. I think America should let it pan out as it would without a major super-power creating termoil in hopes of "protecting its assest's". All im saying is that the West can't judge a brutle religion because Christianity (or what have you) was once just as brutle.

You're right to fear the spread of those "barbaric" ways into America but that WILL NOT happen if we pull all our troops out and let them figure their stuff out.

 

-AweBurn

 

I might be wrong when I say this, but America didn't have a problem with the Islamic religion until Afganistan declared war on us. They flew planes into our buildings killing over 3000 people because they didn't like our way of life, our freedoms, our democracy, and our bikini clad women. To me, that was an act of war and when we ordered them to surrender their mastermind Bin Laden, they refused and backed up his works. They protected him so we went to war against Afganistan....which, to the mideast, is an attack on Islam itself.

 

What I find disgusting about the Islamics is the fact that they try to kill as many women and children as they can thru suicide bombings instead of trying to kill soldiers. To them, killing children must be a turn on as is beheading people. Sorry, but I see them as savages and barbarians.

 

Now, lets look at the news today when Iran, another backward place, is helping Hamas in Palestine. They will funnel millions for weapons to be used against Israelis because both Iran and Palestine want to "wipe Israel off the map".

 

So, are you willing to let the Iranians "sort things out themselves" ? Or do you think we should let them build nukes in the name of allah...and maybe give some to Hamas.

 

Awhile ago, in London, terrorist explosions blew up the subway stations. Many were killed, but a young man wrote four words on the palm of his hand and held it up high. It said "We are not afraid"....Well I'm not like that. I am afraid.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

Please avoid generalizations like this. Like many other extremist movements both religious and secular' date=' the acts of a few should not be blamed on the whole. Certain factions of Islam, like certain factions of Christianity, like certain factions of secular ethnic groups (i.e. White Supremicists), like certain factions of idealogical groups can behave in extreme, violent ways.

 

Just because some anti-abortionists kill Planned Parenthood personnel is it right for me to assume all anti-abortionists feel the same?

 

Just because some white people have hung people because of the color of their skin is it right for me to assume all whites feel the same?

 

Just because some high school students have gone on rampages and shot up their schools and classmates is it right for me to assume all high school students feel the same?

 

I know the news is full of hate and violence and sex. The news is like the Jerry Springer Show. Please don't believe that the people you see sensationalized are representative of the whole. Racism and discrimination are part of the problem, not the solution.[/quote']

 

Phi, I understand what you are telling me, but its much, much more than just a few and thats what makes me afraid.

 

Bettina

[AweBurn]

I might be wrong when I say this' date=' but America didn't have a problem with the Islamic religion until Afganistan declared war on us. They flew planes into our buildings killing over 3000 people because they didn't like our way of life, our freedoms, our democracy, and our bikini clad women. To me, that was an act of war and when we ordered them to surrender their mastermind Bin Laden, they refused and backed up his works. They protected him so we went to war against Afganistan....which, to the mideast, is an attack on Islam itself.

 

What I find disgusting about the Islamics is the fact that they try to kill as many women and children as they can thru suicide bombings instead of trying to kill soldiers. To them, killing children must be a turn on as is beheading people. Sorry, but I see them as savages and barbarians.

 

Now, lets look at the news today when Iran, another backward place, is helping Hamas in Palestine. They will funnel millions for weapons to be used against Israelis because both Iran and Palestine want to "wipe Israel off the map".

 

So, are you willing to let the Iranians "sort things out themselves" ? Or do you think we should let them build nukes in the name of allah...and maybe give some to Hamas.

 

Awhile ago, in London, terrorist explosions blew up the subway stations. Many were killed, but a young man wrote four words on the palm of his hand and held it up high. It said "We are not afraid"....Well I'm not like that. I am afraid.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

I think it is a common misconception that the Mid-East hate our freedoms and "bikini clad women". They realize that our ways of life are very different from theirs but as long as their chunk of land is free from our influence, they dont give a damn if America was one huge orgy-fest. What they do care about is our imperialism. They dont want our way of life to be forced on them. The misconception that you pointed out is simply a smoke screen to convince Americans that we should exterminate them. I understand you thoroughly dislike their barbaric ways and it brings back not-so-fond memories of Vietnam but I see those acts as last ditch efforts to protect their way of life. They flew planes into buildings in NY and bombed the London subway because they want us to get the point...stop forcing your government, religious virtues, and culture on us.

 

I find those acts as unforgivable as any other mass murder but in all of these cases i think it takes a bit more inspection to deduce the true meaning of their acts.

 

They dont hate us for being different. They hate us for being different and assuming they should be that way also...They haven't suicide bombed the Swiss recently and I think its fairly obvious why...The Swiss defend their boarders to the death but the moment you're outside of them you follow the rules of the land there. Do you sympathize with these premises as leading to the extremists we hear about so often in the media? Does it soften your hatred of those non-extremists who still feel oppressed?

 

I'm here to pursue the truth.

[Phi for All]

Phi, I understand what you are telling me, but its much, much more than just a few and thats what makes me afraid.

Unofficially, there are over a billion and a half Muslims worldwide. If even 1% were bloodthirsty terrorist bombers bent on perverting the intent of their religion there would be 15 million of them after us. Believe me, the active terrorists you see splashed all over the newspapers may barely number in the tens of thousands. It doesn't sound like the Bettina I know to want to kill 100,000 people because a couple of them might be terrorists.

 

Don't get me wrong. I detest terrorism on many levels, the foremost being that our response to it has done nothing but fan the flames. A heavy military response only gains followers for terrorists who are protesting against oppression. Bombs, tanks and planes to fight small terrorist cells is like using a rifle on cockroaches.

 

Secondly, terrorism is ineffective. Terrorism is a propoganda tactic but militarily it is the biggest failure EVER. It has never won the terrorists anything strategic. No policy gets changed because of terrorist attacks (at least not the policies the terrorists were trying to change). If anything it serves only to increase military response, and THAT is what they really want.

 

Terrorism only serves to allow a very small fringe extremist element to gain followers attracted to their seeming sacrifice against a much stronger foe. They thrive on the underdog syndrome and the more we match them hate for hate, the more power and backing they gain.

 

Please understand why it is important for you to stop saying things like, "What I find disgusting about the Islamics is the fact that they try to kill as many women and children as they can thru suicide bombings instead of trying to kill soldiers." Compared to the vast majority, those with terrorist leanings are a tiny minority, but they grow in number as long as people like you keep painting them all with the same brush. You are condemning many people who object to terrorism as much as you do. I doubt that the majority of Muslims would ever hold you, a Caucasian from the US south, responsible for what the KKK has done in the name of Christianity in the past.

 

Feel free to comment on the Islamic terrorists, but please refrain from racist remarks which assume all Islamics are terrorists.

[Bettina]

I think it is a common misconception that the Mid-East hate our freedoms and "bikini clad women". They realize that our ways of life are very different from theirs but as long as their chunk of land is free from our influence' date=' they dont give a damn if America was one huge orgy-fest. What they do care about is our imperialism. They dont want our way of life to be forced on them. The misconception that you pointed out is simply a smoke screen to convince Americans that we should exterminate them. I understand you thoroughly dislike their barbaric ways and it brings back not-so-fond memories of Vietnam but I see those acts as last ditch efforts to protect their way of life. They flew planes into buildings in NY and bombed the London subway because they want us to get the point...stop forcing your government, religious virtues, and culture on us.

 

I find those acts as unforgivable as any other mass murder but in all of these cases i think it takes a bit more inspection to deduce the true meaning of their acts.

 

They dont hate us for being different. They hate us for being different and assuming they should be that way also...They haven't suicide bombed the Swiss recently and I think its fairly obvious why...The Swiss defend their boarders to the death but the moment you're outside of them you follow the rules of the land there. Do you sympathize with these premises as leading to the extremists we hear about so often in the media? Does it soften your hatred of those non-extremists who still feel oppressed?

 

I'm here to pursue the truth.[/quote']

 

If your here to pursue the truth, then pursue this. It is Islam who wishes to change the world to their way of thinking, not America, or Britain, or any other civilized country. Do you like their way of life? Then maybe you should check out the links below and see what oppression was doing to women and children in afganistan before we made changes. I am proud of what we did and what we are doing to fight evil in this world.

 

Look at those links below.... After that, if you still feel that they have a right to protect "their way of life", then your sick or just a coward. Its too bad you have a blind eye and label everyone elses ideas as misconceptions, yet have no ideas of your own. I could go further, but it would get me a warning, if I don't get one now.

 

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

 

http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm

 

http://www.womenaid.org/humanrights/shadows/news.htm

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/23/eveningnews/main243429.shtml

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

Unofficially' date=' there are over a billion and a half Muslims worldwide. If even 1% were bloodthirsty terrorist bombers bent on perverting the intent of their religion there would be 15 million of them after us. Believe me, the active terrorists you see splashed all over the newspapers may barely number in the tens of thousands. It doesn't sound like the Bettina I know to want to kill 100,000 people because a couple of them might be terrorists.

 

Don't get me wrong. I detest terrorism on many levels, the foremost being that our response to it has done nothing but fan the flames. A heavy military response only gains followers for terrorists who are protesting against oppression. Bombs, tanks and planes to fight small terrorist cells is like using a rifle on cockroaches.

 

Secondly, terrorism is ineffective. Terrorism is a propoganda tactic but militarily it is the biggest failure EVER. It has never won the terrorists anything strategic. No policy gets changed because of terrorist attacks (at least not the policies the terrorists were trying to change). If anything it serves only to increase military response, and THAT is what they really want.

 

Terrorism only serves to allow a very small fringe extremist element to gain followers attracted to their seeming sacrifice against a much stronger foe. They thrive on the underdog syndrome and the more we match them hate for hate, the more power and backing they gain.

 

Please understand why it is important for you to stop saying things like, "What I find disgusting [b']about the Islamics[/b] is the fact that they try to kill as many women and children as they can thru suicide bombings instead of trying to kill soldiers." Compared to the vast majority, those with terrorist leanings are a tiny minority, but they grow in number as long as people like you keep painting them all with the same brush. You are condemning many people who object to terrorism as much as you do. I doubt that the majority of Muslims would ever hold you, a Caucasian from the US south, responsible for what the KKK has done in the name of Christianity in the past.

 

Feel free to comment on the Islamic terrorists, but please refrain from racist remarks which assume all Islamics are terrorists.

 

Again, I hear you, but what bothers me is that out of the billions of muslims, not many are condemning what there evil brothers are doing. Yes, some do, but most don't. Maybe what I should say is "What I find disgusting about the Islamic Muslim terrorists is the fact that they target women and children"

 

I'm still the Bettina you know, its just that I can't deal with what I see on TV, especially when I know the worse is yet to come and it will be done by Muslim extremists and fanatics. They have the desire and the will to kill as many innocents as they can. Wait till they get a nuke.

 

Edit... This is why I feel all civilized nations, US, Britain, France, Germany, etc, should all go in and fight them, not just leave it to a few, like the Swiss have always done.

 

Bettina

[Phi for All]

Again, I hear you, but what bothers me is that out of the billions of muslims, not many are condemning what there evil brothers are doing. Yes, some do, but most don't.

They ARE condemning terrorism, the stories are out there. They just aren't front page because that doesn't sell as many papers or boost net revenue for commercial time.

 

What do you do when some American extremist group does something horrible? What did most Americans do when Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb in OKC? They read the story and shook their heads and talked to their friends and neighbors about what a tragedy it was. Did "many" of them get worldwide airtime to condemn it? No. The press picked who got interviewed based on what people wanted to hear so they could sell the news better.

Maybe what I should say is "What I find disgusting about the Islamic Muslim terrorists is the fact that they target women and children"

Absolutely. I doubt you'd get many people to disagree.

 

I'm still the Bettina you know, its just that I can't deal with what I see on TV, especially when I know the worse is yet to come and it will be done by Muslim extremists and fanatics.

Glad to hear it's still you. Just bear in mind that they ARE extremists. If Timothy McVeigh had got hold of a nuke and set it off in Tehran, would you want Muslims to think you were to blame because you're an American and you didn't get on TV to condemn his actions?

[AweBurn]

If your here to pursue the truth' date=' then pursue this. It is Islam who wishes to change the world to their way of thinking, not America, or Britain, or any other civilized country. Do you like their way of life? Then maybe you should check out the links below and see what oppression was doing to women and children in afganistan before we made changes. I am proud of what we did and what we are doing to fight evil in this world.

 

Look at those links below.... After that, if you still feel that they have a right to protect "their way of life", then your sick or just a coward. Its too bad you have a blind eye and label everyone elses ideas as misconceptions, yet have no ideas of your own. I could go further, but it would get me a warning, if I don't get one now.

Bettina[/quote']

A) Your mention of them hating our lifestyle and not our way of pushing our life style on others IS a misconception. I dont blame you or any other Americans that believe they genuinely hate the American way of life because thats the way the media portrays it.

 

B) It's not a matter of whether or not you or I agree with their way of life it's a matter of if we have the right to step in and change it. I am most definatly not "sick" or a "coward", on the contrary im a very compassionate person who cares deeply for the rights of everyone in the Mid-East but i also realize they dont want my help.

 

When they drive car bombs into military strongholds in Iraq i get the idea that the citizens don't want our culture forced upon them. This isnt Saddam were fighting anymore....now were fighting to convince the populous that our ways are the right ways. I know from first hand experience that this won't hold up for long and the country will eventually be thrown into a state of termoil that the US won't be able to correct.

 

C) The Constitution of the United States doesnt say ANYTHING about righting all the wrongs abroad. We create a safe basis for a sturdy economy/infrastructure/religious and cultural expression and perpetuate that within our boarders. The US Armed Forces are there to protect our boundries-no more, no less- and I assure you the best way to do so would be to pull out of the Mid-East and admit our attempts to stablize their country were well intentioned but not our job.

 

D)

It is Islam who wishes to change the world to their way of thinking, not America, or Britain, or any other civilized country.

That is the misconception. If that is their goal-and i assure you it isn't-what does flying planes into our buildings do to assist them in converting us to their ways? Not a very effective strategy if you ask me. It seems theyre trying to accomplish something else with these horrible actions....maybe deter us from continually invading their countries? It seems thats a more plausible purpose.

 

 

-AweBurn

 

Edit:

This is why I feel all civilized nations, US, Britain, France, Germany, etc, should all go in and fight them, not just leave it to a few, like the Swiss have always done.

Please clarify your terms here. When you talk of this oh-so-laborous work that all nations should do together, you're really speaking of straight up imperialism. The Swiss realize that they wouldnt want any other world power to show them how to run their country and, therefore, (categorical imperitive..) realize it's not something they should do. If you can't see the hypocrisy in the USA saying they dont believe anyone else should screw with thier home-turf yet they continually topple governments abraod to protect "OUR INTERESTS" (aka-oil) then this conversation is not worth my time.

[Bettina]

A) Your mention of them hating our lifestyle and not our way of pushing our life style on others IS a misconception. I dont blame you or any other Americans that believe they genuinely hate the American way of life because thats the way the media portrays it.

 

B) It's not a matter of whether or not you or I agree with their way of life it's a matter of if we have the right to step in and change it. I am most definatly not "sick" or a "coward"' date=' on the contrary im a very compassionate person who cares deeply for the rights of everyone in the Mid-East but i also realize they dont want my help.

 

When they drive car bombs into military strongholds in Iraq i get the idea that the citizens don't want our culture forced upon them. This isnt Saddam were fighting anymore....now were fighting to convince the populous that our ways are the right ways. I know from first hand experience that this won't hold up for long and the country will eventually be thrown into a state of termoil that the US won't be able to correct.

 

C) [b']The Constitution of the United States doesnt say ANYTHING about righting all the wrongs abroad. [/b] We create a safe basis for a sturdy economy/infrastructure/religious and cultural expression and perpetuate that within our boarders. The US Armed Forces are there to protect our boundries-no more, no less- and I assure you the best way to do so would be to pull out of the Mid-East and admit our attempts to stablize their country were well intentioned but not our job.

 

D)

 

That is the misconception. If that is their goal-and i assure you it isn't-what does flying planes into our buildings do to assist them in converting us to their ways? Not a very effective strategy if you ask me. It seems theyre trying to accomplish something else with these horrible actions....maybe deter us from continually invading their countries? It seems thats a more plausible purpose.

 

 

-AweBurn

 

Edit:

 

Please clarify your terms here. When you talk of this oh-so-laborous work that all nations should do together, you're really speaking of straight up imperialism. The Swiss realize that they wouldnt want any other world power to show them how to run their country and, therefore, (categorical imperitive..) realize it's not something they should do. If you can't see the hypocrisy in the USA saying they dont believe anyone else should screw with thier home-turf yet they continually topple governments abraod to protect "OUR INTERESTS" (aka-oil) then this conversation is not worth my time.

 

Section A)... We are not trying to push our lifestyle on them. We are trying to change theirs to a more civilized one so they fit into what the rest of the world is doing. There lifestyle, calls for the killing of infidels....you and me. That has been brewing for years and needs to be changed no matter what.

 

Section B)... This bothers me the most. The car bombs going off in Iraq, are from Islamic Muslim Terrorists not from the Iraqi driving a taxi or the women baking bread, the new policemen and firemen, or the people who want to be free. As far as the "Do we have a right to step in" is concerned, its an emphatic YES. Sure, you care about justice in the middle east as long as they don't ask you personally. So what does that make you.

 

Section C)... Who's job is it then? And...does "Isolationism" ring a bell?

 

Now, I will grant you that I have issues with us going into Iraq militarily. I still have not seen the reasons for it and it most probably could have been handled diplomatically. However, we have a fool for a president. But not with afganistan. I would have gone in there anyway even if they didn't bomb us.

 

A hypothetical story.....

 

Lets say while I'm singing in church, (I really do) I see a muslim man suddenly stand up and start physically beating his wife. (forget that he is in my church) He continues beating her because she spoke when she wasn't supposed to, or maybe lifted her burka and showed her face, or the multitude of other rules I gave you in those links. He continues to beat her relentlessly, until a man in the rear of the church runs down and punches him into the floor until he bleeds and had to be brought out on a stretcher.

 

I commend that man for standing up and defending that women even though she didn't want to be defended because she feared more retribution. Or, it was customary for her to be beaten if she didn't follow the rules set down by allah for the meaning of her existence.

 

However, I condemn those who stood there in front seeing first hand what was going on and did nothing, because they didn't want to get involved. That basically sums up my feelings on life and certain countries, like Russia, China, and the Swiss especially. So, which one in the crowd are you? From your post above, you kind of made that clear to me.

 

Since this is no longer worth your time. I will give you the last word and will refrain.

 

Bettina

[AweBurn]

My comments are meant to show i would prefer to lead by example rather than forcing our ways on others. I completely agree that the man protecting the defenseless woman is doing the right thing but his methods are too violent. I think it can be best TAUGHT to these people rather than FORCED on them.

 

Our first lesson should be in not meddling in other peoples affairs and concentrating on that which you can actively influence....YOUR FAMILY.

 

I'm glad to see you sing for your local church. I am a minister at mine. Please dont blame religions for the aggression of these very oppressed people. They have so many countries fooling with their lives they dont know which way is up. I dont blame any of those men, women and children for feeling the way they do.

 

-AweBurn

[Martin]

...

 

I'm glad to see you sing for your local church. I am a minister at mine. Please dont blame religions for the aggression of these very oppressed people. They have so many countries fooling with their lives they dont know which way is up. I dont blame any of those men' date=' women and children for feeling the way they do.

 

-AweBurn[/quote']

 

I applaud some of Aweburn statements. I really liked what you said in post #182

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=251662&postcount=182

 

about "It is a common misconception...."

about not liking to be pushed around and overwhelmed all the time by western media, commerce, mcdonalds, hollywood, imperialism in other words----not liking to see one's traditional values eroded so quickly, the continuity of generations broken, the culture one grew up with smashed and dying in one or two generations.

 

I feel that. Some of us in the United States have taken to homeschooling our kids just to buffer them from the overwhelming commercial and degraded culture--or some parents, for very similar reasons, resort to traditional christian religious schools.

 

there is a fight against commercial media culture happening for similar reasons on both sides of the divide!

 

Aweburn it is great you are a minister of a church! I am a secular liberal arts college humanist with throwback tendencies to the values of 1950s America. I happen to enjoy singing circa 1800s vienna masses---haydn, mozart, beethoven, schubert---because of the full gamut of emotions, the fugues, and the counterpoint. I dont believe in God but I see you as an ally.

 

We have to understand the others, and we can.

[AweBurn]

I dont believe in God but I see you as an ally.

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation. I think you would be happy to know I dont believe in God in the traditional sense. Im affiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist church. If in need of a nice sense of community with other religious liberals, i would suggest looking to the UU scene.

 

The UU church in Harvard Square is a fanstastic destination to see what we're really about if you're in the area.

[Martin]

Thank you very much for your appreciation. I think you would be happy to know I dont believe in God in the traditional sense. Im affiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist church. If in need of a nice sense of community with other religious liberals' date=' i would suggest looking to the UU scene.

 

The UU church in Harvard Square is a fanstastic destination to see what we're really about if you're in the area. [/quote']

 

Awesome!

 

I started a thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18807

what we can learn by listening (i mean sensitively) to the people

advocating war with islam

 

one chorus I sing with does its concerts at the First Unitarian of Berkeley which is up on the ridge (officially in Kensington not Berkeley) overlooking the bay.

[Martin]

 

Since this is no longer worth your time. I will give you the last word and will refrain.

 

Bettina

 

 

Bettina I don't know about AweBurn but I dont particularly WANT the last word.

 

I am interested in what you are saying (the message of moral imperatives, not especially the emotive tone, but I can tolerate the tone for the sake of the message)

 

I disagree very much, but I like your posts in this thread and i hope you do not shut up, or get shut up.

 

I would not be surprised to discover that, instead of not being worth AweBurn while, your impassioned position statement is actually what MAKES this thread worthwhile for some of the participants.

 

be well, Bettina, and let your voice be heard

[Phi for All]

Since this is no longer worth your time. I will give you the last word and will refrain.

Hey! Who said he was the only one reading? Not fair! Don't the rest of us deserve to hear what you have to say?

A hypothetical story.....

 

Lets say while I'm singing in church, (I really do) I see a muslim man suddenly stand up and start physically beating his wife....{snip}

I can appreciate your analogy. It really bothers me that so many cultures, including parts of our own, put women in a subservient position. In my experience, I've come to realize that most of my own shortcomings are made up for by my wife, and that when we function as a unit we have a much higher level of competency. I appreciate the fact that women see things differently than men and view it as a benefit and not a detriment.

 

Unfortunately countries are not like families and their processes and reactions are not as simple as we would want them to be. But outrage and condemnation are good things, especially in a democracy. They insure that the future generation will improve the process, refine it and make it more effective for more modern times.

 

Your passion for justice is needed as a powerful tool for progress. I like hearing from young people who are frightened but determined, who haven't given up and become complacent. You show great courage so just remember that bravery is impossible without first being afraid.

[Dak]

If your here to pursue the truth' date=' then pursue this. It is Islam who wishes to change the world to their way of thinking, not America, or Britain, or any other civilized country.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Umm... america certainly does try to change the world to their way of thinking (capitalism and democracy... just see how they interact with non-free trade, non-democratic contries); if you're under the impression that america hasn't descided that democracy is the One True Way^TM, and that it should spread it around the world, then you are just plain wrong. America spent billions trying to halt the spread of communism, just because it didn't agree with it.

 

Much as i'd like to say that Britain doesn't do this anymore because we're nice, that would be a lie. We only don't do this anymore 'cos we can't -- we had an empire untill quite recently, we used it to exert our will upon foreighn nations, and we only dont any more because we cant. If we still had an

empire, i've no doubt we'd be using it to force others to our One Actual True Way^©.

 

Also, christianity is fairly guilty of wanting to convert everyone to their way of thinking... what differentiates islam from the others?

[gcol]

Quote Dak:

 

Also, christianity is fairly guilty of wanting to convert everyone to their way of thinking... what differentiates islam from the others?

Christianity is beating more swords into ploughshares, Islam seems to be doing the opposite.

[matt grime]

I might be wrong when I say this, but America didn't have a problem with the Islamic religion until Afganistan declared war on us.

 

I don't believe Afghanistan declared war on the US either literally or metaphorically. Nor do I believe that the problem is with the entire religion, though there is apparently evidence that many Americans conflate the two terms terrorist and muslim. But many Americans are alleged to conflate Hussein with 9/11 too. I hope that is just urban myth. Incidentally, Bin Laden would have been opposed to the regime of Hussein too since it was secular. Women in Iraq held positions of power (they still do, though when the new government forms and is strongly theocratic, as it inevitably will be, that might set back some of the rights and freedoms we supposedly support), and benefited from many freedoms that are alien to those in countries in the middle east that are considered partners of the west.

 

 

 

They flew planes into our buildings killing over 3000 people because they didn't like our way of life, our freedoms, our democracy, and our bikini clad women.

 

They, meaning the pilots, presumably, were principally Saudi Arabian (like Bin Laden), not Afghanistanis.

 

The reasons for the attack are far more complicated than that. The last one, bikini clad women, is clearly not something that all followers of Islam have a problem with. Look at Dubai if you don't believe me.

 

 

To me, that was an act of war and when we ordered them to surrender their mastermind Bin Laden,

 

As I said, Bin Laden is Saudi, not from Afghanistan. He was not the mastermind of the Taliban, though they certainly refused to hand him over after repeated requests by the US and in defiance of the UN.

 

It is unclear to whom your pronoun 'they' pertains, it appears to shift continually from being Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, those specifically taking part in the attack on 9/11 and the nation of Afghanistan.

 

 

they refused and backed up his works. They protected him so we went to war against Afganistan....which, to the mideast, is an attack on Islam itself.

 

What I find disgusting about the Islamics is the fact that they try to kill as many women and children as they can thru suicide bombings instead of trying to kill soldiers.

 

Don't you feel that is a little rash to brandish an entire religion based upon the actions of some people who during the 1980s were supported by the US government?

 

To them, killing children must be a turn on as is beheading people. Sorry, but I see them as savages and barbarians.

 

From briefly scanning this thread I seem to be under the impression that you condone the death penalty, too. There is no 'moral' way to kill someone, and an 'immoral' one with the death penalty, surely.

 

Now, lets look at the news today when Iran, another backward place, is helping Hamas in Palestine.

 

Ah, Iran, which was (hopefully) going to be a model of democracy in the middle east until in 1953 the US decided to support the installation of a theocratic dictatorship, which led in the late 70s to the overthrow by the Muslim clerics and arguably saw the start of the modern fomenting of anti-American sentiment in the middle east. It cost Carter the election, and led to Reagan taking power and creating the underpinnings of what we now call Al-Qaeda, but was then an anti-soviet freedom fighting group supported by the CIA (Bush Snr of course was head of the CIA, though I don't know if the time scales agree). Ill thought out intervention has a way of biting back.

 

They will funnel millions for weapons to be used against Israelis because both Iran and Palestine want to "wipe Israel off the map".

 

The PLO agreed to support the existence of an Isreali state, currently Hamas is refusing to honour this pledge. So some Palestinians are not committed to wiping Israel off the map. Please try to bear the moderates in mind.

 

So, are you willing to let the Iranians "sort things out themselves" ? Or do you think we should let them build nukes in the name of allah...and maybe give some to Hamas.

 

Attempts to meddle in the Middle East and impose certain western views by force are one of the things that has led us to this current problem. Plus Isreal has nuclear weapons, something they tried to hide, and even now after 'releasing' him from prison after 18 years (11.5 in solitary confinement) they keep attacking the civil liberties of the man who revealed their existence, Mordechai Vanunu.

 

Awhile ago, in London, terrorist explosions blew up the subway stations. Many were killed,

 

52 were killed in the attack. As a comparison, 13 people were killed in the Bloody Sunday shooting [source: freely available information, just one of those things you know]. In 1990 35,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran, 15,000 are estimated to have died in another earthquake in Iran in 2003 [source bbc news]. 3,000 people die per day in motoring accidents, 3,500 people per year in the UK [http://www.roadpeace.org/pr/hollowv.html]

 

It said "We are not afraid"....Well I'm not like that. I am afraid.

 

Perhaps you are worrying abuot the wrong thing if it is fear of attack that concerns you.

 

 

'The West', if that is even a meaningful phrase has a long and checkered history of intervention and double standards in the Middle East. As an example look at the duplcity of Blair in making the case for war with Iraq. As late as Feb 2003 he asserted to the House of Commons that Hussein would be allowed to stay in power if he handed over any WMD and complied with the UN resolution 1441. Now he is making claims of moral necessity to remove him since there are no WMD.

[Bettina]

Matt Grime.....

 

I don't care what nationality Bin Laden or his pilots were. He was based in Afganistan and was protected by the Taliban which was the "ruling government" at the time. A government who not only supported terrorism, but oppressed their women and children to a degree never realized anywhere else in the world.

 

It was under Bin Ladens orders that those pilots flew the planes into our buildings and it was that government who was unwilling to give him up when we found out it was him.

 

To me, this was an act of war, metaphorically speaking, or otherwise and I am proud of the soldiers who went in and toppled that government. I would have gone in just to free those 8 year old girls who weren't allowed in school.

 

I don't care about past history of any country. I care about the now that is now. I care about the world thats going to be, but unfortunately I see death coming from Islamic extremists.

 

Another thing. You are dead wrong that I don't have to worry about any attack and I can't believe you treat whats going on so lightly. The rest of your post about how many people are killed on the highways was useless information that had nothing to do with the intent of what I posted.

 

Either way, in my scenario of the man in church, you pretty much just told me what you would have done.

 

Bettina

[Aardvark]

I don't believe Afghanistan declared war on the US either literally or metaphorically.

Afghanistan did in effect declared war by refusing to cooperate in handing over the terrorist criminals of Al Qaeda, instead choosing to continue to provide them with sanctury after 9/11.

 

Nor do I believe that the problem is with the entire religion, though there is apparently evidence that many Americans conflate the two terms terrorist and muslim.

 

Unfortunately there is a significant correlation between terrorism and Islam. Most Muslims are not terrorist, that is a truism, but a significant number are or are supporters of it.

 

Incidentally, Bin Laden would have been opposed to the regime of Hussein too since it was secular.

 

Perhaps you forget that Hussien had Bin Laden declared 'Man of the Year' after 9/11?

 

 

Women in Iraq held positions of power (they still do, though when the new government forms and is strongly theocratic, as it inevitably will be,

 

Highly doubtful. The recent elections in Iraq did not show a demand for strongly theocratic government, esp as Iraq is religiously mixed which would make a highly theocratic government almost impossible to enforce.

 

Perhaps you would like to substantial your odd opinion?

 

that might set back some of the rights and freedoms we supposedly support), and benefited from many freedoms that are alien to those in countries in the middle east that are considered partners of the west.

 

Democracy might set back freedoms whilst dictatorship helped protect them?

 

You need to reexamine your ideas.

 

 

The reasons for the attack are far more complicated than that. The last one, bikini clad women, is clearly not something that all followers of Islam have a problem with. Look at Dubai if you don't believe me.

 

Dubai is on a high state of alert because of the terrorist threat from those followers of Islam who do have a problem with bikini clad women.

 

There are enough Muslims with a problem there to result in danger of bombings and machine gun attacks.

 

 

As I said' date=' Bin Laden is Saudi, not from Afghanistan. He was not the mastermind of the Taliban, though they certainly refused to hand him over after repeated requests by the US and in defiance of the UN.

 

It is unclear to whom your pronoun 'they' pertains, it appears to shift continually from being Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, those specifically taking part in the attack on 9/11 and the nation of Afghanistan.. [/quote']

 

As all those groups were intimately linked that is a fair use of the pronoun 'they'. Al Qaeda operated with the support and protection of their friends, allies and supporters, the Taliban who were the rulers of Afghanistan. To call them 'they' is a bit like refering to American and British troops in WW2 as 'they'. Perfectly logical and reasonable.

 

 

 

 

Don't you feel that is a little rash to brandish an entire religion based upon the actions of some people who during the 1980s were supported by the US government?

 

Myth. Al Qaeda and Taliban were never supported, helped or funded by the US government.

 

Fact. Islamic Terrorist groups have very broad support across the Muslim world.

 

 

 

From briefly scanning this thread I seem to be under the impression that you condone the death penalty, too. There is no 'moral' way to kill someone, and an 'immoral' one with the death penalty, surely.

 

It is possible to make a clear moral distinction to executing someone in a legal system based on clear codes of law and justice accountable to democratic government and between theocratic terrorists.

 

Think about it, the differences are fairly obvious.

 

 

 

Ah' date=' Iran, which was (hopefully) going to be a model of democracy in the middle east [/quote']

 

Very novel opinion. Doesn't fit any of the facts i've heard. Care to enlighten us with your unique insights?

 

until in 1953 the US decided to support the installation of a theocratic dictatorship,

 

Wrong, the Shah was the opponent of theocratic dictatorship, he was a secular ruler.

 

which led in the late 70s to the overthrow by the Muslim clerics

 

You contradict yourself, why would Muslims clerics want to overthrow a theocratic dictatorship? anyway, to blame the 1979 Iranian revolution on a 1953 coup doesn't mesh. There is not enough of a causal link there.

 

and arguably saw the start of the modern fomenting of anti-American sentiment in the middle east.

Anti American sentiment is based on the Clerics overthrowing the Shahs government? Were are the connections. your making large statements with no supporting evidence. What you are saying just doesn't make sense.

 

It cost Carter the election,

 

The peanut farmer was firmly on the way out anyway.

 

and led to Reagan taking power and creating the underpinnings of what we now call Al-Qaeda, but was then an anti-soviet freedom fighting group supported by the CIA (Bush Snr of course was head of the CIA, though I don't know if the time scales agree). Ill thought out intervention has a way of biting back.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Al Qaeda was never supported by the CIA, it never received any support from the West.

 

 

 

The PLO agreed to support the existence of an Isreali state, currently Hamas is refusing to honour this pledge. So some Palestinians are not committed to wiping Israel off the map. Please try to bear the moderates in mind.

 

'Some Palestinians' are moderates. Sure, fine. But the majority of them just voted for Hamas, an organisation that is an openly declared terrorist movement that wants to totally destroy the entire nation of Israel.

 

Please try to bear in mind the existence of a majority vote for violent terrorist fanactics.

 

 

Attempts to meddle in the Middle East and impose certain western views by force are one of the things that has led us to this current problem.

 

The problems in the Middle East grew before any attempts to impose anything from the West by force. Force was only used AFTER these problems arose. Your understanding of the situation is upside down.

 

Plus Isreal has nuclear weapons,

 

Which they developed after being repeatedly attacked by all their neighbours who openly stated that they wished to completely destroy Israel. Which makes Israels development of nuclear weapons a rational, defensive and morally acceptable matter. As opposed to Iran which faces no external threats and is instead prone to highly aggresive behaviour and threats to its neighbours and Israel.

 

There is no comparision between Israel developing nuclear weapons and Iran wishing to do so.

 

something they tried to hide, and even now after 'releasing' him from prison after 18 years (11.5 in solitary confinement) they keep attacking the civil liberties of the man who revealed their existence, Mordechai Vanunu.

 

Attacking the civil liberties of a traitor who deliberately broke the law betrayed natioanl security. All countries attack the civil liberties of criminal traitors. In most Arab countries it would not have been solitary confinement, it would have been painful death.

 

 

 

52 were killed in the attack. As a comparison' date=' 13 people were killed in the Bloody Sunday shooting [source: freely available information, just one of those things you know']. In 1990 35,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran, 15,000 are estimated to have died in another earthquake in Iran in 2003 [source bbc news]. 3,000 people die per day in motoring accidents, 3,500 people per year in the UK [http://www.roadpeace.org/pr/hollowv.html]

 

Terrorism isn't so bad because earthquakes are worse? Comparing terrorist attacks with legitimate army firing on 'Bloody Sunday'?

 

Serial killers only kill a few dozen people. Lets not bother imprisoning them, after all compared with smoking thats almost nothing.

 

 

Perhaps you are worrying abuot the wrong thing if it is fear of attack that concerns you.

 

Or perhaps worrying about evil' date=' deliberate murder is the right thing.

 

 

'The West', if that is even a meaningful phrase has a long and checkered history of intervention and double standards in the Middle East. As an example look at the duplcity of Blair in making the case for war with Iraq. As late as Feb 2003 he asserted to the House of Commons that Hussein would be allowed to stay in power if he handed over any WMD and complied with the UN resolution 1441. Now he is making claims of moral necessity to remove him since there are no WMD.

 

Your attempts at drawing a moral equivalence between the West and Islamic dictatorships is wrong. For example, When Blair stated that there would be no invasion if Hussein handed over all WMD, all Hussein had to do was let the UN weapons inspectors come in and confirm that there were no WMD. Instead he refused.

 

A clear example of Hussein being duplicitious while Blair was clear and open.

 

It is Islamic groups who deliberately target civilians, who deliberately target places of worship, who are following a fanactical creed of hatred. It is these groups who are the problem, not the West.

[AweBurn]

I would not be surprised to discover that' date=' instead of not being worth AweBurn while, your impassioned position statement is actually what MAKES this thread worthwhile for some of the participants.

[/quote']

 

In frustration, I may have spoken too harshly with my comment about not being worth my time. As Martin mentioned, those comments that break boundries are the ones that make the thread worthwhile. However, that being said, I still think it's necessary that at SOME level the people participating in the conversation don't completely abuse the informal fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion". These emotions in themselves are not valid arguements. It's great that you have a firm grip on your emotional position but this means nothing to me especially over the internet. I need facts that I can verify for myself. Furthermore, ad hominem arguements against the person seriously upset me because to wrongly accuse someone of being a bad person based on one discussion seems a bit hasty.

 

-AweBurn