yeah, that whole Crusades thing was all about peace, love, and understanding.
my apologies to Elvis.
yeah, that whole Crusades thing was all about peace, love, and understanding.
my apologies to Elvis.[/quote]
Okay, modern day examples, then.
The Crusades were 500+ years ago, and the Western world has matured since then to the point where such a religiously-motivated action is unthinkable now.
Ha, yep, all actions like these are now motivated by oil.
Guys, the crusades weren’t religiously-motivated. At most they were religiously fueled. But the main motivation was political. And, Europe was not exactly the aggressor. They were a defensive action by Europe to keep the Muslim empires from continuing to grow as they had been. And Islam won.
So… why are Arabs so upset about the Crusades? Why does George Bush get smacked down for using the word “crusade” to describe the war on terrorism? I guess because the West’s perpetual guilt complex has transformed our great defeat into the first of our terrible sins. And then even the Arabs began to buy our revision.
Ok, I’m no expert but this doesn’t seem completely true. It’s an accurate description of the begining when Islam was threatening modern day France. But there were centuries of hostilities, and various Popes were usually pulling the strings to get armies into the Middle East. At the time papal authority had more political weight, but to describe the motivation of the entire Crusades period as a defensive political position seems like wholesale misrepresentation.
There is a wide gap between what a religion teaches and what people do in the name of religion. As long as people are human beings, we’ll corrupt everything corruptable in the pursuit of self interests and use any banner that works.
I suppose one could make the argument that the same was true of the West prior to the Enlightenment and the secularization that followed. Remember, political and religious leadership were strongly intertwined (the Divine Right of Kings, Anglican Church being led by British King, “Holy Roman Empire,” etc.)
I share your concern. It’s not until moderates come into power and a) promote the standard of living for the common man and b) diminish the power of religious leaders that democracy can work. Fortunately, I think (a) goes a long way towards (b), in that decent government and secular education would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of radical Islam.
ASJunk
The only criticism Christians can make of Muslims is that Muslims do what their scripture tells them.
Leviticus, Chapter 20
20:7
Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
20:8
And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11
And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
etc.
Methinks Guest Matt has been reading that Dr. Laura email that’s been floating around forever.
FWIW, all religious traditions have to deal with obscure scriptural precepts. The problem is hardly unique to Christianity/Judaism.
-TomAh, but Christianity taught that there was an “out” to the Old Testament Law. Basically Christ (and the apostles) taught that the point of the Law was that no man could keep it perfectly, and thus no man was perfect. Jesus was repeatedly abused by the Pharisees for doing something that went against the literal Law. Jesus’ Christianity turned it around: yes, adultery is wrong, but he spent time with the adulteress - and the other “dregs” that the strict Pharisees would have nothing to do with. Thus the true roots of Christianity was love one another; “they will know you are Christians by your love.” Thus, the infinite forgiveness, etc.
Of course, many people have twisted Christianity into something far from “they will know you by your love.” :(
The problem with Islam is that it is founded on the sword, and many “moderate” teachers do not disavow the core teachings of taking the sword to all unbelievers. There’s a reason that so there wasn’t a huge uprising of Muslim leaders after 9/11, that there wasn’t a huge noise of outcry by the Muslim leadership in the world (including America) clearly denouncing the act as unacceptable terrorism. Even after studying Islam for a long time, I was taken aback by the interviews with American Muslim leaders after 9/11 who refused to plainly say that the act was wrong and against Islam - and I was looking for it. Instead there was a lot of “we certainly do not condone terrorism” or “of course we mourn the loss of innocent lives” - which would be followed with “Will you publicly condemn the acts of these people and state that they were wrong?” and they would all go back to the previous answers. It was surprising and sad.
Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but go spend a while studying Islam and reading the Quran, the history of Islam, the modern Muslim commentaries. It’s very interesting and enlightening. And what I found is that it is quite different from what I expected.
I guess the rest of the world doesn’t conform to the values of a bunch of privileged white folk. Islam doesn’t have to be like Christianity. Those people don’t have to like Miss World pageants. They don’t even have to like the US (gasp!). Maybe their religion meets their needs in a way that you can’t comprehend. If you need to think that makes you better instead of just different, go right ahead. It makes absolutely no difference.
It didn’t seem to meet the needs of the 175 people beaten to death because a newspaper said something about Mohammad.
Those people don’t have to like Miss World pageants.
Nobody’s saying they do. I think what priveleged white folk object to is the combination of not liking Miss World pageants and massacring infidels.
It didn’t seem to meet the needs of the 175 people beaten to death because a newspaper said something about Mohammad.[/quote]
Now now now. I’m sure some of them were slashed or stabbed.
It didn’t seem to meet the needs of the 175 people beaten to death because a newspaper said something about Mohammad.[/quote]
Now now now. I’m sure some of them were slashed or stabbed.[/quote]
Or burned alive.
I suppose maybe Islam meets their needs for a religion that condones the slaughter of “infidels” for any perceived slight against their religion. If so, yes, that is a religious belief that I have trouble comprehending in this day and age.
Uhhhh Matt, if I were you, I’d back out of this room quietly and close the door quickly. Don’t even try to make the normal West=decadent/Islam=good-but-misunderstood grab for the moral high ground here.
Anyone here read a book called ‘The Lucifer Principle’? It was issued a few years ago and was an interesting read on memes and how it is the battle between them that is the source of conflict. It eventually turned into an anti-islamic polemic which I thought was a bit partisan (ahem, Jewish authors) but now, I might reread it.
The United Arab Emirates has held its first national beauty contest for camels…
“The aim is to mark the respect and love the UAE have for the camel,” member of the UAE’s National Federal Council Faraj bin Hamouda told the Khaleej Times newspaper.
It’s too bad they don’t have those same feelings for women.
In other Muslim beauty pageant news:
Muammar Gaddafi and Miss @ Net World 2002. The second picture is especially awesome.
There’s nothing quite like a person who criticizes something they don’t understand even the basics about. Hey, let’s all cite horrendously anglicized examples of native tribal culture and then start berating it for how backwards it is.
Oh wait, we’ve been doing that since 1492.
What the hell is going on in here?