The dangers of Islam!

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Ok, Fundamentalist - One who interprets their holy text in a literal way.

Do you see women being forbidden to go to school in the UK?

From a Guardian article:

And Afghanistan was worse than this!

So don’t even attempt to try and say a Muslim in Afghanistan interprets the Qur’an in the same way as a Muslim in England. It is plain to see that’s not true. The English ones quietly forget all those particular passages, while still calling themselves Muslims, meaning they are taking a NON-literal interpretation, the usual thing that a believer says is that it was nothing more than a allegory. It’s like saying that a Mormon in the colonist days of America was like an Anglican Christian today.

Journalists are completely right for using Fundamentalist for those who wish to see the Qur’an taken literally in it’s entirity, it is the right word. (Oh, which reminds me, theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm )

A massive minority of Muslims? Who are you kidding!!! Jubilation was seen on the streets of many muslim countries when they heard the news. All their flag burning and cheering as the rest of the world watched the tragedy unfold with shock and horror. It was disgusting.

They’re not referring to the same god. For each of them there is only one god and that is their God. If not they’d all be the same religion. The Muslims may say that Christ, Abraham, etc. were all prophets setting the stage for Mohammad, but a (true) Christian doesn’t believe in a God as the Muslims see it, a Jew doesn’t believe in a God as the Christians do, etc. So the essential character of the God is completely different as they say different things. Anyone who says that they’re all worshipping the same god is plain mad. What the hell do you think the Crusades were for. To get the heathen bastards. What do you think Jihad is for. To get the heathen bastards. Anyone who practices a religion who then says that he’s worshipping the same god as the others has lost the plot, lost his faith, or he’s just not really practicing his religion as his holy text proscribes it.

What I am getting pissed off with is that people for some reason think because a culture is different it is automatically above question. That’s simply not true. Would it have been correct to stand by and let the Nazis get on with it, anti-semitism is all part of their culture after all! Gordy you’re damn right, I am intolerant, I’m intolerant because the way the Islamic text is used in some areas is to create pain and suffering, to supress freedom and to keep power in the hands of people who should be wiped from history’s guilty conscience. And then people have the gall to say it’s none of our business as it’s all part of their culture. So was ritual sacrifice by the aztecs, are you saying that’s right? Come on, please, explain why I SHOULDN’T be intolerant. Culture is not an excuse for torture, supression and all the other wonderful things religions tend to accidently spawn because it’s words are twisted.

I am a firm believer that Religion is in it’s entirity a pretty much evil thing, not that the idea behind it was, I’m sure there were good intentions behind every fable story religion, but it’s the way it gets used by people. And let’s face it, they were all written in the past when people didn’t know better.

To me a society which bases itself on a particular religion is a quite revolting concept. Again, if I were a politician, I’d keep stum, smile, nod, say polite things. But I don’t have to, this board exists to discuss, and this is my real view. To be honest in my view people who hide behind the shelter that it’s just another’s culture are commiting an immoral act themselves. Evil is always evil, whether you dress it with a white sheet with a red cross in it, wrap it up with stirring words of jihad against the infidels (just look for some sources on islamic scholars justifying jihads TMR, they’re all over the place) or have a swaztika on their arm. You seem to think an attack on fundamentalist Islam is the same as an attack on Islam itself, it’s not, they’re two different things. But I will ferociously attack anyone who suggests that theocracies are a good thing too, but that’s because I’m an atheist and from my view point religion breeds hate, creates inequality and attempts to apply out moded concepts on a world that they no longer belong in. Enlightenment is the only way.

Look what the Islamic religion has so far created, the Taliban, a load of terrorists screaming Jihad and Iran.

Well done, applause all round.

Not that any of the other religions has done any better.

22

matt - first of all i applaud you for saying what you really think knowing that the rest of us will try our damndest to tear it apart. if only everyone was like you. CHEERS!

now to argue. i dont think its fair to say that religion is mostly an evil thing. i think that people need some kind of faith, be it faith in a diety, or anything else. we as people just need something that we can believe in. it gives us hope and a sense of security, even if it is a false one. also, i think the muslim, jewish, and christian gods actually are the same diety technically, although they interpret the gods presence and importance differently.

also, you said aztecs sacrificed people to a god. i see nothing wrong with this seeing as it was not an act of hatred, but of reverence. i dont have a problem with violence if it isnt committed out of hatred, spite, and especially revenge (ill have a thread for this in the general forum). in this case, because the sacrifice was chosen only by whether or not she was a virgin (that was the custom, right?) i see no problem with it. if, on the other hand, the sacrifice was chosen for some other reason (again im not sure how exactly the choosing worked) then its a problem.

23

Matt, I would be more convinced about your argument if I thought that you new anything about islam. Earlier in the posts, either TMR or jawaad mentioned that Islam preaches “spirituality, faith and prayer” - which you cannot disagree are peaceful teachings. to say that islam is a threat to our society is a nonsence - just as to say that christianity was a threat to the muslim’s society back in the crusades is a nonsence. it is NOT the religiong itself which is the threat, it is the people who use it as an excuse for political ends. the only reason that the crusades were launched is that the emperor of byzantium (alexius) was worried about the war ambitions of the neighbouring shi’ites, and so used religious grounds to enlist the help of his fellow westerners to defeat them and gain more land to his east. it is the same today. what the media are calling “muslim fundamentalists” are no more than terrorists making a political statement against american foreign policy, using religion as an excuse. you said to TMR that (s?)he should look at all the muslim clerics proponing Jihad, but also you should note that the leading body of muslims in this country pointed out that Jihad was not a violent war (it sounds to me like it is similar to Christian missionary work - but i am happy to be corrected on that).
To a certain extent I suspect I agree with you when you say that

“Religion is in it’s entirity a pretty much evil thing, not that the idea behind it was, I’m sure there were good intentions behind every fable story religion, but it’s the way it gets used by people.”

However, it is important not to get confused between religion and the people who practice it. religion itself is not entirely evil, but it can be misused for it. Just as any text is easy to interpret, so religious texts can easily be interpreted for evil (as has been proven time and again). this, however, does not mean that religion (or the texts themselves) is evil.

another point (and we’re stepping on to very controversial ground here) is that we are not necessarily right to judge other cultures on our own, and even if we do, is it then less of an evil to go and kill all the people in that culture, because they disagree with you. what defines your sense of what is evil? and is it certain enough to cause mass death and destruction simply because you think others are wrong.

Phew! That was my first post in about a year - I’m glad to see the level of discussion is better than it used to be.

24

good post from anonymous poster

Very good point.

Matt, what concerns me is your readiness to criticise other cultures, yet you readily back Bush and his warmongers. You’ve stated that you feel we have a lot in common with America, so is this just a case of xenophobia?

25

Gordy -

What? There’s no argument there. The two statements aren’t linked at all. I can critize other cultures and be pro-war you know, they’re not logically incoherent views or anything. What do you mean?

Don’t be concerned. Because I am pro-war doesn’t mean I am stupid or am pro-war for the same reasons as Bush or his ‘warmongers’. It’s something I’ve tried to get across in other posts to you so I’m saying it explicitly here. Xenophobic, no. Intolerant of other cultures that I percieve as evil, yes. Have you read my post?

Guest (I assume you forgot to log in as you’re obviously an old member) -I’ll tell you what I do know about Islam. It was written about 1,400 years ago. The text today is supposed to be as it was written then (though there is evidence emerging now that it is not). It is supposed to be a text for how to live your life. I admit I’ve never read the Qu’ran, nor looked into it’s bigger messages much, but I’ve not really done that with Chritianity either. I don’t do theology, I do philosophy.

What I do see around the world is how states which are trying to live along the lines of Islam are set up. I see sexual inequality. I see intolerance of other religions. I see cruel punishments for people who commit crimes. From what I gather, all of these things are written to be part of the Islamic way of life, part of that “spirituality, faith and prayer”.

That for me is a direct challenge to my way of life. That of free speech, free thought and equality. Thus I percieve islamic fundamentalists, or if you don’t like the word fundamentalist, Islamic militants trying to force their way of life on to me. They wish to undermine the fabric of our society because they are ignorant.

As far as I understood the concept of Jihad it is the only time a Muslim is supposed to be able to go to war, it is for defence of their state only. I don’t think it is similar to preaching. Turns out I was wrong about it only being defensive.

Look around for stuff on Jihad, it is quite clearly supposed to be taken in a military and not spiritual aspect. Now it is often believed (by western Islamic scholars I might point out) that terrorists are twisting the meaning of Jihad, but it depends how you look at the whole thing.

Now I don’t know about you, but being forced to live a way of life that is 1 and a half millenia out of date is pretty loopy. 1.5 mellenia ago there were lots of things wrong with the world and also lots of things we diidn’t know about the world that we do today. Islam is a threat to us not because it is fundamentally evil, it can be forgiven for some of it’s grim aspects because it was written 1,400 years ago, it is because it’s messages can be so easily twisted into an evil.

For me all religion is made up from contemporary myth and morality twisted in to a hand book for living at that time. Quite often it was written by quite insane people who happened to come up with a few truths. Whether they died or flourished tended to depend on luck (for example Christianity really took off when a christian town was attacked but half the army outside died of flu or something and it was praised as a miracle, hence loads of conversions. It also had another advantage of being monothetic). Now what Islam has that is even worse than Christianity is that it also tries to dictate the state as well as the personal life. It is not compatible with modern ideals.

Finally:

I’ve already argued that it’s morally wrong NOT to judge other cultures, that the defense of “We have to be tolerant” is no defence at all. My examples were Nazis and Aztecs, try and defend not judging those two cultures. Should they still be flourishing today? I also believe the Taliban sat firmly in the column of “Inherently Evil Cultures”. Most of the time we don’t have to do anything to stop these nutters, the natural course of history tends to have them weaken and collapse, cultural imperialism is a strong force. I like to think it’s because the ideals of freedom are better. But sometimes it is necessary to use force.

So far only one person has argued against this and that was bighairyguy and his argument was the sacrifice is ok (!!!) as long as it’s not done out of hate. Personally I don’t get his argument at all. But start offering decent reasons why we should not judge other cultures. I can actually think of some reasons off the top of my head, not particularly compelling ones, but it’s not my job to provide your side of the argument!

What do I use to judge evil? Well, seeing as I live in a lovely country where I’m free to choose, i tend to err on the side of Utilitarianism. But you want basics, those cultures which inflict pain and suffering and treat persons within their groups as lesser people for no reason apart from idiocy or fable story religion (I’m letting my atheism run free today ).

And where did I say the best way to change a culture is to kill all it’s citizens? That’s not what anybody is suggesting, as I said the best way to undermine most crap cultures is just to expose it to the idea of freedom. Even in the war with Iraq they’re not going to run in and kill all the Iraqis are they. Just the ones who start firing at them. There will be civilian casualties, but that is just the way it is with war. Not that I’m being flippant about the whole thing, it’ll be a tragedy, but now there is no other option (please no discussions here about weapons inspectors, etc., etc… For the sake of this post lets pretend Saddam is refusing to let the inspectors in and has been seen laughing manically over a button which says “In 6 months time when you press this the world will blow up”).

Finally (really this time):

Guest, it seems you and I are looking at ‘religion’ in different ways. You talked about the crusades as if it had nothing to do with Christianity. I admit it has nothing to do with the ideal of Christianity as it was originally concieved, but as for the religion of christianity of the time it had everything to do with it. Maybe religion is the wrong word for it because people tend to get it confused with the original ideal. What, perhaps, I mean is that the manifestation of Christianity at the time of the crusades was evil because the way it taught the ideal of Christianity at the time meant that it justified the crusades. Whether the crusades were also used as a way to curb the power of the arabs is by the by. There were plenty of crusades stretching over centuries, it wasn’t all about that.

Now it seems to me that you are associating religion with the ideal, and I am associating religion with the manifestation. The definition of religion is a bit fuzzy on the whole thing, “A system of beliefs in, worship of a supernatural power or God”. I believe religion is the manifestation rather than the ideal, because the manifestation of a religion gives rise to a set of beliefs within a person, not rise to the ideal. Anyway, everyone has their own view on what the ideal is, more evidence of the manifestation!

I see the manifestation of Islam today to be a threat to my world. I believe that the way it is practiced and held as a belief set today in many parts of the world may be removed from it’s original ideal, but it is still defined as Islam. It is being used to justify death, torture, inequality, terrorism, etc. and people accept this because they believe it is the word of God. Hence Islam is a threat.

26

My post keeps disappearing! Is anyone else having problems seeing it?

27

Precisely. You seem unable to see the evil of Bush’s ideology. That’s the point. Sorry, thought it was bloody obvious. :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

28

Matt, after going out of his way to understand the concerns of Muslims here in Britain and in the rest of the world, wrote:

“I see the manifestation of Islam today to be a threat to my world. I believe that the way it is practiced and held as a belief set today in many parts of the world may be removed from it’s original ideal, but it is still defined as Islam. It is being used to justify death, torture, inequality, terrorism, etc. and people accept this because they believe it is the word of God. Hence Islam is a threat.”

I myself, am very conscious of the eagerness in this country of most people in Muslim communities to distance themselves from the terrorist rhetoric, I think with deep sincerity.

I would characterise Islam as a religion whose primary focus and interest is about unity, the unity of God and the unity of the faithful community under God. That is one of the great arabic words, Tawhid, which comes up again and again in Islamic thinking. And that integrating vision is a universal vision of a community under God. It is one community under one God. That is what has given Islam its moral power and passion through the centuries.

There is a difficult question coming up in many Muslim communities which is how to think through a Muslim theology and morality and politics which is faithful to the Koran but which can work outside a theocratic model of Muslim society. This difficulty can be overcome if those outsiders observing the Muslim communities in question, do not dismiss the ‘achievements’ or ‘manifestations’ of Islam, as something to be seen as inferior or as something to fear.

There is a clear choice that a non-Muslim can make regarding his or her characterisation of Islam. They can characterise it by its complete and original ideals, and by the actions of the vast majority of its followers, or they can characterise it by the harmful actions of those who have abused and misinterpreted the word of Islam to further their own political needs, at the expense of others.

To see dignity in what is different takes a little effort, and Matt has failed miserably on this score. By characterising Islam as evil, by focussing on a small but well-publicised ‘manifestation’ of Islam, Matt is attempting to reinforce a prejudice against what is alien to him, excusing him from finding the time to understand what he has initially percieved as a ‘threat’.

(Some of the above analysis is borrowed from the Archbishop of Canterbury)

29

The way you write pangloss, it sounds as if you believe every version of Islam that is in the world today is good and holy.

And that’s a plain lie and you damn well know it.

I’m, not attacking all versions of Islam, I’m attacking the ones that are a threat to my freedom, like those that are being taught in terrorist training group, in the Finsbury Park Mosque, in Palestine, etc. All the places where you get the flag burning and the unjustified hatred of America and it’s allies.

You take me for a fool if you think I don’t understand the benefit of the different, that I don’t understand how to interpret other cultures. I think you are the fool for taking everything at face value, for thinking the world is a wonderful place where daisies grow and people sing. It’s not, it’s cold, it’s dark, it’s harsh and it will kill you if you don’t watch your back. I’m just (extremely) lucky to have been born in England.

There is no dignity in terrorism, in stoning women to death, in forcing people to live like slaves, in banning free thought and free speech. So don’t throw words like dignity around because many versions of Islam that are preached today have no dignity to them.

Firstly if you read my above post you KNOW what I’ve said about confusing the ideals of a religion with it’s manifestation. It’s one of the present manifestations of Islam I’m worried about, not the ideal. You can’t characterise a religion by it’s ideals anyway, only it’s manifestation. Why? Because the ideal of a religion differs for it’s worshippers.

And where hasn’t there beeen trouble with militant Mulsim groups?

People always bleat on about it being a minority of Muslims. There are less Muslims in the peaceful countries than there are in the trouble countries.

I’ve also said this before here, are you gonna sit there and tell me that all those people who run out on the street burning American flags, chanting Jihad, celebrating embassy bombings, the WTC tragedy, all those people who have been seen on the news celebrating, who are, by the way, Muslims, they’re not in support of the terrorists?

Their cheering and flag burning is a cultural misunderstanding is it? Oh right! Cheering and flag burning means disapproval, not approval!

I think not.

Just because you know some Muslims who are nice and moderate in England, doesn’t mean they all are. I’m not saying that all Muslims are a threat, only a minority, but you seem to quietly skip over the fact that THAT’S STILL A HECK OF A LOT OF PEOPLE. And they want you to die, they want me to die, they want the whole world living happily ever after as a great Islamic state. And so I am threatened by Islam, IN ONE OF ITS PARTICULAR MANIFESTATIONS (as you are).

What is so hard to understand about that?

30

Ok, I can see I’m gonna have to go through this step by step, to show you.

I can criticize other cultures and be pro-war, it’s easy.

  1. I think there is a moral justification for war. I’ve explained why there is, as you very well know, I’ve argued time and again, till I’m blue in the face, in two different threads that I believe there are moral justifications to the war on Iraq. Over and over I’ve said it. SO I DON’T THINK HE IS EVIL. You happen to believe differently.

  2. I also think that many manifestations of Islam today are evil (immoral) and should be stopped. Not all, just some.

  3. So I am holding two logically compatible moral views.

If you happen to disagree with what I say about Iraq, that still doesn’t weaken my arguments here about the threat of some forms of Islam. It is not because i am Xenophobic I am supporting an attack on Iraq and critizing fundamentalistic Islam, but because I think doing these things are the morally right thing to do. That DOESN’T make me Xenophonbic by any stretch of the imagination, if I have reasons to do both, it is what I am MORALLY OBLIGED to do.

So what was so obvious about your point? It was contradictory and it still is!

I’m sorry to labour the point but I took offence at being called xenophobic, as I’m not. And you don’t even have the decency to admit that your original accusation was a logically incoherent argument, you still hold on stubbornly, just stating your point was “obvious”. This is a philosophy forum so you can’t expect to get away with sloppy arguments like that.

31

Matt-
I just wanted to show you a little support by saying you have conducted a brilliant debate with Gordy and Pangloss. I agree with the vast majority of you sentiments. I’d like to add to your defence, but you have successfully defended your (our) perspective on Islam.

That being said…

I’m sure there are a contingent of Muslims that wish Bin Laden had never orchestrated the September 11th attacks. Just like there are some Americans that wish Bush wasn’t in office. It seems like the logical, goo-willed people are always outnumbered by the ignorant and easily manipulated.

32

My dispute with you Matt, is over semantics.

Every person maintains their view on something by selecting the available facts carefully. Yours is that ‘Islam is a threat’. The threat that you referred to is one I am more than aware of. My disagreement is that you chose to use those (who actually abuse the complete version of the Koran) to be the manifestation of the Islam you percieve: hence, ‘Islam is a threat’. It is undoubtedly dangerous to define a religion by the distasteful actions and rhetoric of its minority ‘following’, as your view then only serves to reinforce a destructive prejudice. Read jawaad’s first post again, and consider what Islam is to Muslims like him. The dispute is regarding who is defined as a Muslim.

Anyhow, you fail to get to the core of the issue in any case. Look at the reasons those ‘threatening’ Muslims give to justify their actions and beliefs.

33

Oops I forgot to login. That’s me up there /\ babbling away.

34

Pangloss said:

Maybe I can clarify.

It appears that we have two kinds of Muslims. The peaceful kind, and the hateful/murderous/oppresive/immoral kind. I think we can all agree on that. Where I think we don’t agree, is on the premise the good Muslims are in the majority. THEY’RE NOT. At least not enough for me to believe it.

And I this is the reason why I feel this way:
the radical, crazy murderous Muslims SEEM (I say seem because I’m not too sure, it’s just my impression) to have ALOT of power in their respective countries. If they did not, then why would women be so oppressed and mistreated in countries like Iran and Iraq. The only answer is because evil people are in power, and the GOOD muslims that live there (if they do) don’t do anything about it. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Seriously. A good analogy is the KKK. Yes they are christian. But does the world think all christians share the same beliefs as those in the KKK? No. Why? Because they are a huge minority. They share little, to no power in the United States government. So then tell me why, if the “Muslims” that are evil are in the minority, why in the hell doesn’t it appear that way?

I’m not sure what to do about the situation. Perhaps the good Muslims are too few to rebel against the evil ones. Much like the Jews couldn’t defend themselves against the Nazis. If that is the case, then the rest of the world needs to do something about it. Atleast that is what George Bush wants us to believe. I just wish that was the real reason he wants war. For some reason, I think it has to do with the ol’ black gold. Damn I wish he wasn’t president.

Finally, if all Christians practiced “true Christianity,” if all Muslims practiced “true Islam”, and all atheists did exactly as we do now :wink: , the world could live peacefully. But as of now, there are too many people committing atrocities in the name of religion. Right now, the biggest offenders are working under the guise of Islam.

35

tell you what- let’s go back to what I said:

There is nothing logically incoherent about the point I’m making. Let me spell it out for you, in easy language :stuck_out_tongue:

My point is that you are inconsistent in your ability to recognise the evil nature of various ideologies, and I am wondering whether this is simply a case of xenophobia (your trolling comments about Scotland in a recent thread do little to help your case, I might add).

My question to you is this: why is it so easy for you to identify the evil inherent in the ideology propagated by the terrorists whilst at the same time being oblivious to the evil of the ideology that is driving the fundamentalists in Washington? Their imperialist drive for global domination isn’t immoral? Their desire to control the world’s resources at the expense of innocent lives isn’t immoral?

Incidentally, before you launch into a defence of these neo-conservatives, you might actually want to find out a bit more about their philosophy. A good place to start is with Zbigniew Brzezinski- adviser to several presidents, an influential ‘guru’ in Washington, and author of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.

let me outline Brezinski’s philosophy for you: He writes: “Ever since the continents started interacting politically some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power”. The key to controlling this vast area is dominance of Central Asia. Take a look at a map of Central Asia- the area surrounding the Caspian Sea, and the Arabian Gulf. According to Brzezinski, control over Central Asia is key not only in order to secure source of energy and mineral wealth, but to act as a “guardpost” over American control of the Arabian Gulf. No surprise then, that Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are, have been or will be targets in the so-called “War on Terror”.

Brzezinski was in favour of using the “Islamic card” against the former USSR- indeed, he stated that America’s first priority on the road to global imperialism was the economic subjugation of the former USSR. You can thank policy makers like Brzezinski for the creation of the Taliban: “What is more important to the history of the world, the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe?”

According to Z.B., rather than local wars being a response to terrorism, they are the beginning of a final conflict leading inexorably to the disolution of national governments. Nation states will be incorporated in the new order on the basis of economic interests dictated by the ruling elites concerned with the maintenance of their power. He writes: “To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together”.

Or, in the words of Richard Perle, another influential neo-conservative (and regular on Fox News): “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq, then we take a look around and see how things stand. This is entirely the wrong way to go about it…If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now”.

Perle is a member of the Defense Policy Board (aka the “Wolfowitz Cabal”)- a semi-official panel that advises Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz- they are the “inspiration” behind this concept of “total war”. Are these fanatics who talk about total war for the next 50 or 100 years not far more dangerous than Bin Laden’s jihad? Another “Thousand Year Reich”?

So tell me Matt, is your inconsitency on this issue a matter of prejudice, or just plain ignorance?

oh, and I’ve a degree in philosophy, so I don’t need any lectures :wink:

36

Gordy-
The problem is that everyone here is right. Of course the United States has an evil and malicious intent with regards to their foreign policy. But so do those who push for the Jihaad. The question is, who’s side do you take? What social paradigm would you like to have succeed? I would like to know what you think about this Gordy. You seem like a rather well read fellow. Personally, I’m rooting for the side that I believe is the lesser of the two evils. That means the U.S. Sure that sounds like an ignorantly biased statement coming from an American, but if you can prove that if the muslim fundamentalists win, the world would be a happier more liberated place, I’ll gladly move to Iraq. Otherwise, we can sit here while all the children in these ass-backward countries are taught to hate us religiously (pun intended), only to have them terrorize us until we or they are wiped out.

Sure Matt can realize that the Western Democratic Countries have less then desirable ideologies. What you need to realize is that they are not as bad as the alternatives.

37

Still can’t back down. Still insist I’m Xenophobic. What I said about Scotland, btw, is that it was economically inferior to England, specifically the South East, which it is. Or are you gonna deny the economic truth of that statement. I said nothing about the people who live there.Hence it cannot be Xenophobic. I was trying to explain why people tend to refer to England, the econmoic base and political force behind the UK, rather than Britain or the UK, which are both ungainly terms anyway.

But on to the thrust of the post.

I DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Hello! Do I have to hold it up on a placard. To be quite honest they’re the most bizarre things I have read. I’m sure a lot of people read your posts and think the same thing. It’s amazing that someone like Bush whom one minute everyone is calling really stupid, the next minute he’s come up with a fiendish plan for world domination.

And if you think it’s so hard to see why I can’t agree with your argument, lets look at it this way. Muslim terrorists, blow up nightclub. Fly panes in to WTC. Blow up embassy.

American evil people use cunning plan to control the oil flows of the world by debasing certain governments by setting up elaborate ruse of war on terrorism because the key advisors are linked to oil companies through a string of front companies and Bush Jnr over there once talked a petrol pump man from a BP garage, who was in fact the 2nd cousin of the head of the campany and it was a secret meeting to fix the price of koalas in the pacific arena, while also deciding whether cats should become the staple diet for all Belgiams.

You see Gordy the damage and the evil of fundamentalists is very obvious. IT IS RIGHT IN YOU FACE JUST HERE SEE IT? HERE. Your arguments for the Bush ‘Empire’ being evil is convoluted, it is not obvious to most of the world and you have to ‘know’ certain things to see that it’s all really a conspiracy. Unfortunatly it’s not something I’m privvy to, so I see it as a war on terrorism/making sure a nutter doesn’t get his hands on Nuclear weapons.

And you are ‘concerned’ because I can’t see that it is an Evil empire, but I can see big planes flying in to big tower. God I must be xenophobic. It’s not that your conspiracy theory is really quite strange.

I think you should start a new post Gordy. Explain your position on why America is Evil. Because I think a lot of people would find your views highly offensive and probably xenophobic too.

You lost the argument about me being xenophobic, you lost it the minute you said it was “obvious”. BTW, I already did the “I’ll explain it simply” joke. Keep up.

38

I think you have hit the nail right on the head here Matthew. So now we have to distinguish whether Islam is the danger, or these “offenders”. From what I gather Matt was saying, Islam is defined by its “manifestation” instead of its ideal. This in itself is a point I would disagree with, as we all know that people are not perfect, and that therefore will use any tool to achieve their aims, religion being a very powerful one and, more importantly, one which may be tolerated as it is considered rascist not to do so. I would therefore argue that it is right to be intolerant of the people, but not the religion, to accuse the terrorists, not Islam.

However, if this a point that is not accepted, and you believe that Islam is its manifestation, then you have to ask what makes the manifestation? Is it the prominent (NOT NECESSARILY the majority) view, in which case Islam is evil? I would strenuously deny this, as it simply places too much power in the hands of the media. They can influence the people, but to define a culture? If this is allowed, we really do have the media not only controlling the present world, but defining our existence. No way is Rupert Murdoch defining MY existence!

I would suggest that the “manifestation” of something is based on its majority followers. Therefore one has to ask whether the majority followers of Islam are the terrorists (or those who support terrorist acts) or those who condemn terrorism. In this country, certainly the majority of Muslims condemn terrorist actions, and it is the same for all western countries. The main problem is whether it is the same in Islamic states. Matt here would refer us to the endless street parties after the bombing of the WTC (which were limited to a street in Palestine and a small area in Karachi - and don’t tell me that was Islamic fundamentalism - that was pure political joy at seeing “the enemy” hit. American foreign policy has a lot to answer for in the case of international terrorism. But that’s off the point). However, I would point to the MANY Islamic leaders who came out in support of America in their “war on Terror” and condemned the attacks. Indeed, it was only the Taliban who refused to condemn them. This makes me tend towards the side that most Muslims do not support terrorism. If this is the case, then the manifestation of Islam is NOT one of terror, and even by that argument Islam cannot be considered a threat to you or I (terrorists are a different matter entirely).

A final point that should be made is to disassociate war on Iraq with anything to do with Islam. Iraq is a completely secular country - indeed, its deputy prime minister is a Christian. (And before anyone starts defending themselves against a perceived accusation, this isn’t one - it’s just a point worth highlighting).

P.S. You’re right Matt, I did manage to make a post without logging in - and it all got a bit confusing… :astonished:

39

lol, too true. Shudder.

The way I think about the whole thing is that there’s diffeent type of people using Islam. Some people use it for their own ends, they have little belief in the religion and want certain political gains. That emperor of Byzantine I think falls perfectly into that discription. Then there are those who believe in what they are doing, believe it is their god’s will, like Osama Bin Laden. They BELIEVE that what they’re doing is right, there’s no using religion as a tool for their own ends there, it’s their religion that is driving them. And because the ideal of Islam can turn into this horror it is fatally flawed. Also shows you it can’t be perfect as no self-respecting god would design a system that is so easily exploited like that. Unless you wanna go down a Gordy route and suggest it’s all conspiracy for God to start controlling the oil of the world.

And why is their manifestation of Islam worse than the manifestation of our villager in Essex? Because we judge it to be so, we make that moral judgement. And yet there are some who argue that we shouldn’t be making that judgement.

I say to them, pah.

As for the jubilating street parties, I really don’t know how far it went, I saw pictures from at least 3 different places and they were all huge crowds. They disappeared very quickly when their governments realised what had actually happened and that the Americans were damn well gonna kill someone.

I do know that I’ve seen countless American flags being burnt on streets, all over the place over the last 20 years of my life. And strangely enuff almost all of them have been in Muslim dominated countiries. American foreign policy has been dumb, but not that dumb. Half of the Arab countries governments blame the Americans whenever something goes wrong. Lose war against Israelis? Americans interfered (well they did). Crops fail, Americans fault! Half the country’s Gold reserves gone missing? Americans nicked it! Prime minister found in bed with prostitue? Amerian spy! I’m taking the mick a bit, but that is part of the reason why the west is so hated in the Middle East, it was blamed for everything that went wrong, and their populations, bless 'em, bought it. Well not a lot you can do about it if your media is controlled by the government.

40

All I can say is “touche” to Matt and “touche” to Jesse. THANK GOD there are some rational people on this planet. Who’d of thought I’d find 'em at a philosophy website.

Oh, and that “guest” that posted, it was me forgetting to sign in.