Poll

What is your belief system?

Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Spiritual
Agnostic
Atheist
Other (specify)

Author Topic: Religion  (Read 158328 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online YABO713

  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 869
Re: Religion
« Reply #1260 on: September 11, 2017, 04:12:26 PM »
Let's lose the "subordinate women" talking point. Almost every organization on earth has been guilty of that at one point or another.

"Oppress" women would likely be the more correct term.
"They tell me of the River Cuyahoga in the Ohio territory; upon it a great city will emerge." - Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson in drafting 'Notes on the State of Virginia'

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
    • UrbanCincy
Re: Religion
« Reply #1261 on: September 11, 2017, 04:19:16 PM »
At the same time though, it's hard for me to understand why I should be sympathetic of folks who call themselves peaceful Muslims when if you do your research, you'll find that the Isis, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda folks are just following the religious texts more closely.

And if you read Christian texts closely, you'll find all sorts of crazy stuff too. It's just that most Christian denominations in modern times have chosen to ignore most of the parts that don't fit their narrative.

It's crazy how little modern Christians have to say about the widespread practice of divorce. It's inconvenient for them so they ignore it.
Check out my photography on Flickr or Instagram | Twitter: @urbancincy & @taestell | The UrbanCincy Podcast (iTunes)

Offline Hootenany

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2537
Re: Religion
« Reply #1262 on: September 11, 2017, 04:56:55 PM »
My thing is, what's right is right and by all rights, Islam should not be condoned by liberals. Yet, somehow it is. I will never understand it.

I'm really trying, but I fail to understand the point you're trying to make.  It's not up to anyone to condone or condemn someone else's religious beliefs unless those beliefs lead to actions that infringe on the rights of others.  In the case of ANY religion the texts can be interpreted in ways that lead to violent actions.  In these instances the action should be condemned and the leaders of that religion must work to educate their followers on the proper interpretation of the text, but condemning the entire religion from the outside doesn't do any good. 

If you are Christian how would you feel if you were told you had to apologize for every abortion clinic bombing or KKK rally?  It's a silly expectation.  No doubt Islam has a problem with extremism right now, but in no way does proclaiming that Islam is evil (from my basement in Ohio particularly) fix that problem.

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5126
Re: Religion
« Reply #1263 on: September 11, 2017, 05:25:20 PM »
^No one wants to hear it, but these smears and fears come down to latent (and more recently, blatant) race and racism that is certainly has been a major aspect of Trump/Trumpism, but has been a part of the Republican party for at least a half century.

No one wants to hear it largely because it's untrue.  Not the point about widespread uneasiness about Islam on the right, that part's definitely genuine.  The part about how criticism of belief systems = criticism of genetics (or of socially constructed races, if that's more your view of race).  Belief systems are considerably more likely to be behavior-determinative than genetics.  Also, to state the obvious, they are race-correlated but race-independent.  There are Arab Christians.  There are white (and black, and south and southeast Asian in addition to Middle East and North African) Muslims.  Perhaps even more importantly, it's subject to conversion.  Race (pace Rachel Dolezal) is not so malleable.

Offline Ram23

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4966
Re: Religion
« Reply #1264 on: September 11, 2017, 05:26:41 PM »
They're not missing the point at all, they're trying to cherry pick facts to justify their hatred of Muslims.

No one here has a "hatred of Muslims." Were you throwing this insult at me? Or the fine folks at the Jewish Journal who wrote that article?

It wasn't really cherry picked, by definition. If we're talking about Radical Islamic Terrorism, it seems rather appropriate to talk about how many individual attacks there have been in the past couple decades. What is cherry picked, on the other hand, are stats limited to just the US, during very specific time ranges, all while disregarding things like number of casualties. And that tends to be the go-to deflection whenever the topic of Islamic terror comes up (well, that and the erroneous insistence that whoever is discussing the severity of the topic at hand must be an evil racist).

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
    • UrbanCincy
Re: Religion
« Reply #1265 on: September 11, 2017, 05:48:41 PM »
Using numbers and statistics to justify discrimination is not okay. Even if the numbers are valid, it's the extrapolation that's invalid.

It's like how some racists will say things like, "83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population" and then will extrapolate that to say that black people are more prone to violence, less evolved, etc., and use that as "proof" to advocate for more discrimination.

You can say that "x percentage of terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims even though they only account for y percent of the population," and even if it's true, it does not prove that Islam is a religion that "perpetuates violence" or justify discrimination against Muslims.
Check out my photography on Flickr or Instagram | Twitter: @urbancincy & @taestell | The UrbanCincy Podcast (iTunes)

Online jbcmh81

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1265
    • All Columbus Data
Re: Religion
« Reply #1266 on: September 11, 2017, 05:56:48 PM »
Still missing the overall point that not all Muslims should be lumped in/assumed to be associated with radical terrorists perpetrating violence. Just as you shouldn't assume all Catholics want to bomb abortion clinics or that all Old Testament quoters want to stone women.

I agree that it's unfair to lump everyone into one category and paint them with a broad brush. At the same time though, it's hard for me to understand why I should be sympathetic of folks who call themselves peaceful Muslims when if you do your research, you'll find that the Isis, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda folks are just following the religious texts more closely. Like I said, those peaceful people aren't real Muslims. Most religious people are hypocrites and in the case of Islam, thank God for that! The peaceful ones aren't even primarily what I'm talking about, although they're far too apologetic and quick to make excuses for a group that they're willingly apart of.

In similar vein to the folks who claim they have nothing to do with the KKK, White Nationalists or Neo-Nazis (or whatever Worker's Party the Neo-Nazis call themselves...) but showed up to defend the Robert E. Lee statue. It's a bunch of B.S. You know what you're aligning yourself with when you get into these things. It saddens me because I really am a liberal at heart but when you defend a religion that subordinates women and condones Sharia law which entails what I believe are serious human rights violations, we're always going to disagree on this matter. It's really sad that more people on here can't even see where I'm coming from. I see all the 'likes' for posts countering my post; people get on here and validate each other and validate the strict ideology they were fed years or decades ago once they took a side on the left or right. I don't care about the left or right. I use my own judgement.

My thing is, what's right is right and by all rights, Islam should not be condoned by liberals. Yet, somehow it is. I will never understand it.

I view all religions as basically the same- detrimental to the future of the species and basically superstitious fairytales.  Being Christian is no more logical or "right" than being Muslim.  Frankly, most of the Christians in the US would be Muslim had they been born in Muslim-majority nations, and vice-versa.  I don't "condone" Islam, I just disagree that it's any more illogical, violent or backwards than any other.  I also disagree with the premise that I should be more scared of them than your average evangelical in America.  Actual numbers of violent people in either case is low, and the violence in the Middle East and extremism in other places originating from there have underlying causes, including American interventionism.  We helped create that, and the least we could do is not ridiculously demand that every single Muslim be held accountable for the actions of terrorists.  It's really not that hard. 

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
    • UrbanCincy
Re: Religion
« Reply #1267 on: September 11, 2017, 06:08:26 PM »
^ 100% agree with that. People conveniently ignore that almost no one "chooses" their religion. The vast majority of people keep the religion that their parents taught them as a child, or they rebel and become an agnostic or atheist, or maybe at some point they will "marry into" their partner's religion. It's gotta be an incredibly small percentage of Americans that change religions for any other reason than that. If a few things had gone differently in world history, America might be 70% Islam or 70% Hindu instead of 70% Christian.
Check out my photography on Flickr or Instagram | Twitter: @urbancincy & @taestell | The UrbanCincy Podcast (iTunes)

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5126
Re: Religion
« Reply #1268 on: September 11, 2017, 11:14:43 PM »
You can say that "x percentage of terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims even though they only account for y percent of the population," and even if it's true, it does not prove that Islam is a religion that "perpetuates violence" or justify discrimination against Muslims.

Standing alone, it might not prove it.  But it is a provable assertion to anyone actually willing to be convinced by at least some quantum of proof, and that fact is certainly relevant evidence for the case.  Dogmatic assertions that Islam is a "religion of peace" are no more fact-based than dogmatic assertions that Islam is a religion of violence, domination, and totalitarianism.  And the fact that only 1% of the population is Muslim and yet that 1% accounts for an absurdly high portion of mass murders in this country relative to that population is absolutely an argument in favor of restricting immigration to prevent that 1% from reaching even 2% until there is some evidence that such an increase in Muslim presence would not be accompanied by a similarly dramatic rise in mass killings.  Muslims already here of course enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment available to believers in any religion or no religion.  But immigration policy is not constitutionally required to be creed-blind, and in fact, it already discriminates (remember, that word is not always a negative) on the basis of religion in several contexts.  That is the primary form of discrimination against Muslims that most of Trump's supporters support, and that he signaled he was interested in with his talk of a moratorium on Muslim immigration.  Sessions I think has gone further with respect to Muslims already here, I believe most notably on the issue of monitoring mosques known for radicalizing their members (maybe not direct remarks on point about that, but in the context of enthusiastic support for the PATRIOT Act itself and for expansive judicial and executive interpretations of it--which, note, I oppose, just trying to keep straight who's been saying what).

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7393
Re: Religion
« Reply #1269 on: September 12, 2017, 12:21:22 AM »
It saddens me because I really am a liberal at heart but when you defend a religion that subordinates women and condones Sharia law which entails what I believe are serious human rights violations, we're always going to disagree.

Subordinates women?  Like refusing to have female priests?  Or perhaps subjugating women to polygamy?  How about taking away a woman's right to control her body?   

Every religion has extremists and people who twist it for their own benefit.   Traditionally all has been used as a source of power for men.  We're still trying to undo 3,000+ years of history....


You're mostly talking about Catholics and Mormons in this post, yeah? You're essentially bringing up the odd-balls. I've heard a lot of Christians don't even consider Catholics to be Christian but I admit I'm not an expert on this even though folks on my dad's side are Catholics. Even if I was worthy, I wouldn't care to be any kind of expert on the matter. I was forced by my Catholic grandparents (one of which, is Japanese, oddly enough) to pray several times a day when I stayed with them and I had to go to church with them (extremely painful) but I don't really care about any of that. I just know what I've researched thus far. I also recently found out that my dad was raped by a priest as a child, which I believe had serious effects not only on him but ultimately on me and perhaps that attributes to me not taking any religion seriously. I'm not a Christian at all but I still stand by the notion that there are fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam that have brought us where we are today and I believe that at least Christians are on a better path, currently. Polygamy in the U.S. seems to include a very small number of people who consent to that nonsense. They aren't effecting anyone else, to my knowledge. Unless I'm wrong, Catholics aren't nearly as big of a threat on this earth as Muslims are. If you want to provide the data, feel free. I don't care. I'm not religious. I just know that I'm not a fan of religious culture at all but I'm especially not a fan of Islam at this point.

My girlfriend's family attends a non-denominational church in Shaker that has a gay Junior Pastor. The Pastor is a female.  The church overall just seems concerned with helping the community any way they can in nothing but positive ways. I think that's extremely admirable. It seriously warms my heart thinking about what all they do, to be honest. I have next to nothing to do with them but I can appreciate what they stand for and what they do for the community and beyond.

I can't imagine being part of a religion that idolizes the desert prophet Mohamad who is a known war monger and child rapist who had sex slaves. I really feel that even at an early age, I would have called shinannigans on that, living in western society. Maybe its just me. In Christianity, the physical manifestation of God was Jesus and he was much more of a peaceful and righteous example to live by than what Mohammed was. People want to talk about how all religions have been destructive and I agree but I challenge anyone on here to prove that the war-monger Mohammed is in any way comparable to the pacifist, Jesus. These are God's manifestations on earth whom followers are expected to act like, according to whatever religion we're brought up with. There are very fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam and you simply can't tell me that this has nothing to do with our current predicament.

Liberals seriously need to recognize this. I can't believe they just ignore it. It runs completely counter to what they stand for. It's insane!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 12:33:54 AM by David »
Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4408
  • Cultural Marxist
    • Flickr Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1270 on: September 12, 2017, 08:53:08 AM »
And the fact that only 1% of the population is Muslim and yet that 1% accounts for an absurdly high portion of mass murders in this country relative to that population is absolutely an argument in favor of restricting immigration to prevent that 1% from reaching even 2% until there is some evidence that such an increase in Muslim presence would not be accompanied by a similarly dramatic rise in mass killings.

Three questions.

1) where is your data supporting this claim?
2) does this data indicate more people are murdered in mass murders by Muslims, or that there are more Muslims committing mass murders? Obviously more people dying is always bad, but I fear you'll try to lump the 9/11 attacks into your argument, when trying to claim that individual Muslims should be discriminated against at the border.

3) (going off of taestell's comments) Using your logic, since black men disproportionately kill other people in this country, should we discriminate against black men at the border and refuse entry for non-citizens?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 10:46:43 AM by ryanlammi »
"We both would have looked silly if he came in, got out and came back in.

- Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman

Flickr Profile

Online mu2010

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Back in CLE
Re: Religion
« Reply #1271 on: September 12, 2017, 10:32:11 AM »
guys who think that women owe them sex and are sad when reality doesn't reflect this belief are the #1 cause of mass murders globally.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 10:33:30 AM by mu2010 »

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5126
Re: Religion
« Reply #1272 on: September 12, 2017, 01:44:21 PM »
And the fact that only 1% of the population is Muslim and yet that 1% accounts for an absurdly high portion of mass murders in this country relative to that population is absolutely an argument in favor of restricting immigration to prevent that 1% from reaching even 2% until there is some evidence that such an increase in Muslim presence would not be accompanied by a similarly dramatic rise in mass killings.

Three questions.

1) where is your data supporting this claim?
2) does this data indicate more people are murdered in mass murders by Muslims, or that there are more Muslims committing mass murders? Obviously more people dying is always bad, but I fear you'll try to lump the 9/11 attacks into your argument, when trying to claim that individual Muslims should be discriminated against at the border.

Is there some reason the 9/11 attacks should not be included?  Would bin Laden have been able to find white terrorists to carry out those attacks if his own agents had been denied entry?

Note that even without that, we still have the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Pulse, San Bernardino, etc.  A lot for 1% of the population.  Hindus are also about 1% of the population, yet have no similar catalog of mass murders on US soil.  Jews are more than 2% and unless you think 9/11 was a Mossad job, they're also conspicuously absent from the catalog of worst US mass killings, too.  Sure, white homegrown terrorists are considerably greater in number than Muslim ones, but Christians and "nones" (where most of our white terrorists fall) account for around 93% of the country (70% Christian, 23% none/unaffiliated).

Quote
3) (going off of taestell's comments) Using your logic, since black men disproportionately kill other people in this country, should we discriminate against black men at the border and refuse entry for non-citizens?

I don't think you read my post.  I explicitly distinguished race and belief systems.  That's not to say that I think that anyone who identifies as Christian (or atheist, or Hindu, or Jewish) should get an automatic ticket in, of course, but don't make put words in my mouth about equating race and belief systems that I already expressly rejected in anticipation of someone trying to make that spurious link and ascribe it to me.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4408
  • Cultural Marxist
    • Flickr Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1273 on: September 12, 2017, 02:42:02 PM »
And the fact that only 1% of the population is Muslim and yet that 1% accounts for an absurdly high portion of mass murders in this country relative to that population is absolutely an argument in favor of restricting immigration to prevent that 1% from reaching even 2% until there is some evidence that such an increase in Muslim presence would not be accompanied by a similarly dramatic rise in mass killings.

Three questions.

1) where is your data supporting this claim?
2) does this data indicate more people are murdered in mass murders by Muslims, or that there are more Muslims committing mass murders? Obviously more people dying is always bad, but I fear you'll try to lump the 9/11 attacks into your argument, when trying to claim that individual Muslims should be discriminated against at the border.

Is there some reason the 9/11 attacks should not be included?  Would bin Laden have been able to find white terrorists to carry out those attacks if his own agents had been denied entry?

Note that even without that, we still have the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Pulse, San Bernardino, etc.  A lot for 1% of the population.  Hindus are also about 1% of the population, yet have no similar catalog of mass murders on US soil.  Jews are more than 2% and unless you think 9/11 was a Mossad job, they're also conspicuously absent from the catalog of worst US mass killings, too.  Sure, white homegrown terrorists are considerably greater in number than Muslim ones, but Christians and "nones" (where most of our white terrorists fall) account for around 93% of the country (70% Christian, 23% none/unaffiliated).

Quote
3) (going off of taestell's comments) Using your logic, since black men disproportionately kill other people in this country, should we discriminate against black men at the border and refuse entry for non-citizens?

I don't think you read my post.  I explicitly distinguished race and belief systems.  That's not to say that I think that anyone who identifies as Christian (or atheist, or Hindu, or Jewish) should get an automatic ticket in, of course, but don't make put words in my mouth about equating race and belief systems that I already expressly rejected in anticipation of someone trying to make that spurious link and ascribe it to me.

Still no data behind your claim. We both understand the importance of defining criteria when analyzing data, which is why we disagree on whether to use numbers killed, or number of killers. Since we are debating the banning of an entire religion based on the actions of a few, I would suggest we look at the number of individuals who commit these types of acts, and not the number of people killed by these types of acts.

After 9/11 we made changes to airline procedures to prevent an attempted attack from being as devastating or likely (for example, we banned items from planes, changed procedures for pilots in cockpits, placed more fighter pilots on standby, etc). We didn't ban Muslims from airplanes. If you just look at the death toll of people being killed by hijacked airplanes based on religion, you could be led to the conclusion that we should ban Muslims from flying, but that's a bad conclusion based on bad data. You are knowingly using bad data to support your narrative.

The 9/11 attacks distort all figures, which is why it isn't included in most death toll information when trying to draw patterns. According to wiki (I'm sure you have some other super accurate source you use for this info that you'll direct me to), the US has only had 7 terrorist attacks that killed over 100 people, and only 25 that killed at least 10 people. The 3000+ death toll of 9/11 is useless in drawing patterns and analyzing what we should do. The second highest death toll is just 168 civilians. The methods the attack used are valuable in analyzing to find weaknesses in airport security, but it shouldn't determine our policy toward an entire religion.
"We both would have looked silly if he came in, got out and came back in.

- Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman

Flickr Profile

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7393
Re: Religion
« Reply #1274 on: September 12, 2017, 11:33:29 PM »
And the fact that only 1% of the population is Muslim and yet that 1% accounts for an absurdly high portion of mass murders in this country relative to that population is absolutely an argument in favor of restricting immigration to prevent that 1% from reaching even 2% until there is some evidence that such an increase in Muslim presence would not be accompanied by a similarly dramatic rise in mass killings.

Three questions.

1) where is your data supporting this claim?
2) does this data indicate more people are murdered in mass murders by Muslims, or that there are more Muslims committing mass murders? Obviously more people dying is always bad, but I fear you'll try to lump the 9/11 attacks into your argument, when trying to claim that individual Muslims should be discriminated against at the border.

Is there some reason the 9/11 attacks should not be included?  Would bin Laden have been able to find white terrorists to carry out those attacks if his own agents had been denied entry?

Note that even without that, we still have the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Pulse, San Bernardino, etc.  A lot for 1% of the population.  Hindus are also about 1% of the population, yet have no similar catalog of mass murders on US soil.  Jews are more than 2% and unless you think 9/11 was a Mossad job, they're also conspicuously absent from the catalog of worst US mass killings, too.  Sure, white homegrown terrorists are considerably greater in number than Muslim ones, but Christians and "nones" (where most of our white terrorists fall) account for around 93% of the country (70% Christian, 23% none/unaffiliated).

Quote
3) (going off of taestell's comments) Using your logic, since black men disproportionately kill other people in this country, should we discriminate against black men at the border and refuse entry for non-citizens?

I don't think you read my post.  I explicitly distinguished race and belief systems.  That's not to say that I think that anyone who identifies as Christian (or atheist, or Hindu, or Jewish) should get an automatic ticket in, of course, but don't make put words in my mouth about equating race and belief systems that I already expressly rejected in anticipation of someone trying to make that spurious link and ascribe it to me.

Good points; surprisingly, more folks on here are vocal in my defense than what I thought I'd see. That was weird.

 I'm not a hateful person at all and I've known Muslims that are really cool but it just doesn't make sense to compare Christianity or Judaism to Islam. Islam's holy texts are much more deep rooted in violence and malice and are much more likely to be interpreted as promoting violence like no other holy texts of other religions could. I've preached about it until I was blue in the face and made valid point after valid point on UrbanOhio but most liberals, who I wish I could identify with on here, just don't seem to care. They took the blue pill.

Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7393
Re: Religion
« Reply #1275 on: September 13, 2017, 12:09:02 AM »
The fact is (and I know I've come under criticism for starting sentences with ' the fact is' but its a reality; Islam isn't a religion in terms of the way that the modern world acknowledges religions. Religion is a tiny thing that we tuck away into the closet of the mind and take out when we feel like it. We recognize that others have a right to their own little private religions in their little closet of the mind. ISLAM IS NOT LIKE THAT. Islam is a religion in the style of Henry the 4th and the pope. It's completely totalitarian. All of the b.s. religions used to be utilitarian but Islam is the only one that remains so. It tells you what you should be doing every second of the day. It is the state. It is the system. It has its own judicial system, Sharia Law. Scholars and judges enforce it. It's a military system that Muhammed himself created 622 to 628 AD to CONQUER THE WORLD. That was his goal in 628 AD! He was very explicit about it.
Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Offline Gordon Bombay

  • Coach Bombay
  • 665'-Queen City Square
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
  • www.queencitydisco.com
    • Queen City Discovery - Cincinnati and Urban Exploration Photography
Re: Religion
« Reply #1276 on: September 13, 2017, 12:49:14 AM »
Hmm, interesting. I used to ride a bus to Cincy from West Chester with a guy who attended the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati, he never mentioned his plans for world domination. We mainly talked about coffee and baseball. If only I had known...
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 12:51:15 AM by Gordon Bombay »
www.queencitydisco.com
^Cincinnati Urban Adventure

Offline Ram23

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4966
Re: Religion
« Reply #1277 on: September 13, 2017, 09:11:37 AM »
^ If someone actually were plotting world domination, coffee and baseball are exactly the types of topics I'd expect them to talk about in public in order to blend in with the common folk. That's what old Soviet spies did during the cold war - though they'd occasionally cause suspicion by slipping up and blurting something out about a "wicket."
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:11:45 AM by Ram23 »

Online down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4151
Re: Religion
« Reply #1278 on: September 13, 2017, 09:13:49 AM »
I ride the bus and often sit next to a friendly old guy and we talk about sports and the weather all the time.  He must be plotting world domination. 

Offline Hootenany

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2537
Re: Religion
« Reply #1279 on: September 13, 2017, 09:16:09 AM »
Islam's holy texts are much more deep rooted in violence and malice and are much more likely to be interpreted as promoting violence like no other holy texts of other religions could. I've preached about it until I was blue in the face and made valid point after valid point on UrbanOhio but most liberals, who I wish I could identify with on here, just don't seem to care. They took the blue pill.

What point are you trying to make?  You appear to be trying to "win" some debate about whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion.  You argue it isn't.  Others argue that it is.  OK... what have we learned?  Absolutely nothing. 

Let's just assume everything you've said about Islam is true and, at it's core, it is an evil, violent, medieval ideology that has no place in the 21st century.  What do you propose to do about that?  You can't seriously believe that an entire religion can be willed out of existence based on the writings of an atheist catholic convert from Ohio... can you?  Islam needs to deal with it's extremism problem from within and if anything the attitudes expressed in your writings hinder that effort by further dividing people on religious and cultural lines.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:17:22 AM by Hootenany »

Offline 327

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5365
  • Fascinating
Re: Religion
« Reply #1280 on: September 13, 2017, 10:59:28 AM »
I agree with David on this to an extent.  For example, Islam is so hostile toward women that I'm not sure a free and equal society can treat it as a legitimate belief system.  Is this also true of other Abrahamic religions and other cultures around the world?  Yes, but more in theory than in practice.  I've dealt with some domestic violence cases involving Muslims and I can't talk about that here, other than to say it is on a completely different level. 

Notably this aspect varies among branches and flavors of the faith, but it's a consistent through-line and it can't be ignored.  How do we deal with it?  We treat all individuals as individuals and judge their behaviors as behaviors.  That means we can't indiscriminately ban Muslims or their faith, because we can't afford to alienate individual Muslims who reject the worst aspects of it and seek reform.  Those people represent the solution.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 11:00:11 AM by 327 »
Vibrate your greenspace today with Frank Jackson

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7393
Re: Religion
« Reply #1281 on: September 13, 2017, 11:41:25 AM »
I do have issues with discriminating against Muslims but at the same time it's hard to take reformers seriously when they're still praying to a pedophilic warmonger. Reformation only does so much. You never get 100% of the population following a reformation. You still have original texts promoting violence and inequality on a level that no other religion promotes it. Islam needs to be abandoned (along with all other religions,) not reformed.
Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Offline 327

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5365
  • Fascinating
Re: Religion
« Reply #1282 on: September 13, 2017, 12:16:04 PM »
My utopia wouldn't have organized religion but we don't live there, and it's not reachable by bus.  Our chances of wiping out any given worldwide faith are minimal, and trying to do so may not have the results we're looking for.  I think our best possible outcome is to sand off the roughest edges.  That's not easy in a scenario where two versions of all-or-nothing are fighting to the death.
Vibrate your greenspace today with Frank Jackson

Online David

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7393
Re: Religion
« Reply #1283 on: September 13, 2017, 12:26:54 PM »
I think our best possible outcome is to sand off the roughest edges.

What do you do when the roughest edge is actually the core, though?
Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million buildings that have ruined the world. - Andres Duany

Offline AmrapinVA

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Religion
« Reply #1284 on: September 13, 2017, 12:36:14 PM »
Islam needs a reformation. Will it come? Who knows?

Even most moderate Muslims believe that Mohammed was illiterate and that the Quran is a literal reciting of what the Angel Gabriel spoke to him and eventually was written down. It is heresy to question the validity of this origin even if it clearly wasn't the case.

I know there a Christians who believe in the divinity of the Bible but most moderates don't think it's an actual literal translation from God as evidenced by the all changes accounted throughout history. This is not the case with Islam.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 12:37:06 PM by AmrapinVA »

Remove Ads