The Third Jihad . .

[Parodite]

Many religious extremist groups, be it Christian, Islamic or other.. do not promote intolerance nor resort to physical violence of the sort we are talking about here. "Religious extremism" I find a way to general container. "Brainwashed, intolerant, violent fanatics" suits better.

Well this is an inherent problem with the Islamophobic perception of religious extremism. There are some very extreme, very conservative Islamic schools of thought that are not violent at all. There are Muslims who aren't particularly interested in theology or religious observance who are violent and part of militant organizations. This confusion between violence and religious conservatism is both produced by, and causes more, very inaccurate claims about the subject.

That's right. Therefore it may be more useful to fogget about the all too convenient labels and stereotypes, and start referring to them as "brainwashed, intolerant, violent fanatics" instead (I'm also OK just calling them Assholes for brevity), as the sort of people we all hope to remain what they are: luny fringe groups whose crimes belong in the court room and the criminals taken out of society.

And I am with you on another type of Asshole, i.e. the one that throws drone bombs on some other Asshole while being totally insensitive to the civilians that die in the process. You may be right that it is pure and simple racism that lurks behind those drone strikes and the indifference towards civilian casualties of Muslim brownies, but it may also be a faceless sort of indifference because the killers in this case don't need to be afraid to face a court while the public that could vote them out of office is uninformed and more concerned with keeping their jobs and feed their children. And then there are career politicians, business interests in military gear etc.. too. A mix of all that.

[Parodite]

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death: I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

23rd Psalm. I'm not sure how it classified in the Islamic Zabur.

This seems to me an excllent standard response when somebody mentions any excess, a particular crime or growing threat, perceived or real. Would love that.

News item posted by forum member x or y: "750 Catholic priests charged with sexual abuse of children"

Nonc: "This is not what the bible tells us to do, to abuse children! To post such things and suggest that the entire Catholic church is a brothel that exploits children is silly..."

Typhoon: "Indeed. One should see things in perspective. The chance is bigger that you die in a car accident than be raped by a priest. Most kids survived these rapes anyways, so what are we talking about."

Nonc: "Right. And most people don't read nor know how to interprete their religious sources and are ignoramusses for the most part. So let me quote some soft spirited Catholic mystic and drive it all home."

Ibrahim: "This is all just about Catholiphobia.

This list sometimes makes good comedy.

[Mr. Perfect]

Brilliant P.

Throw in one abouot Bankers, Elliot Wave and Democrats and we've covered the bases.

[Parodite]

Brilliant P.

Throw in one abouot Bankers, Elliot Wave and Democrats and we've covered the bases.

Right on. There are also good bankers who are funny as well as a bonus.

[Marcus]

This seems to me an excllent standard response when somebody mentions any excess, a particular crime or growing threat, perceived or real. Would love that.

News item posted by forum member x or y: "750 Catholic priests charged with sexual abuse of children"

Nonc: "This is not what the bible tells us to do, to abuse children! To post such things and suggest that the entire Catholic church is a brothel that exploits children is silly..."

Typhoon: "Indeed. One should see things in perspective. The chance is bigger that you die in a car accident than be raped by a priest. Most kids survived these rapes anyways, so what are we talking about."

Nonc: "Right. And most people don't read nor know how to interprete their religious sources and are ignoramusses for the most part. So let me quote some soft spirited Catholic mystic and drive it all home."

Ibrahim: "This is all just about Catholiphobia.

This list sometimes makes good comedy.

Brilliant, Rhap, brilliant . . my hat's off to you . . .

[Ibrahim]

Many religious extremist groups, be it Christian, Islamic or other.. do not promote intolerance nor resort to physical violence of the sort we are talking about here. "Religious extremism" I find a way to general container. "Brainwashed, intolerant, violent fanatics" suits better.

Well this is an inherent problem with the Islamophobic perception of religious extremism. There are some very extreme, very conservative Islamic schools of thought that are not violent at all. There are Muslims who aren't particularly interested in theology or religious observance who are violent and part of militant organizations. This confusion between violence and religious conservatism is both produced by, and causes more, very inaccurate claims about the subject.

That's right. Therefore it may be more useful to fogget about the all too convenient labels and stereotypes, and start referring to them as "brainwashed, intolerant, violent fanatics" instead (I'm also OK just calling them Assholes for brevity), as the sort of people we all hope to remain what they are: luny fringe groups whose crimes belong in the court room and the criminals taken out of society.

Well that's not what Marcus or his video are on about, is it? His point has consistently been to make false, derogatory claims about Islam as a whole, based on the most isolated examples. What I am saying is that his claims aren't even correct with regards to actual "Islamists," let alone Islam as a whole. He's generalizing based on a fringe of a fringe.

And I am with you on another type of Asshole, i.e. the one that throws drone bombs on some other Asshole while being totally insensitive to the civilians that die in the process. You may be right that it is pure and simple racism that lurks behind those drone strikes and the indifference towards civilian casualties of Muslim brownies, but it may also be a faceless sort of indifference because the killers in this case don't need to be afraid to face a court while the public that could vote them out of office is uninformed and more concerned with keeping their jobs and feed their children. And then there are career politicians, business interests in military gear etc.. too. A mix of all that.

I'm saying most people just don't care one way or the other, but many of those who do have an interest in it have an interest in promoting it. Marcus says that these are defensive measures, and the victims or their families are just "wailing like stuck hogs."

[Ibrahim]

Islam helped produce modern civilization, and without Islam Western civilization would be nothing. You would have no advanced mathematics, no science, and would still be medieval peasants. "Radicals" of any stripe remove themselves from the political and cultural mainstream, by definition.

While Islam's golden era produced many wonderful things it devolved into a bunch of medieval peasants. That is not to say it can't go back to a golden age. In fact that is what the Muslim on Muslim conflict is really all about. But to ignore the scientific advances since the fall of the Muslim golden age like you are doing is pretty far out there.

Endemic internal warfare was an historical fact in the Islamic world, Christian Europe, India, and China, often with periods of scientific advances or stangation taking place regardless of whether there was war or peace at that precise moment.


I don't ignore anything. I'm correcting Marcus' claims that there were no significant contributions, and those that did exist were somehow "not really" Islamic because they were Persian. Aside from ignoring scores of Arab or other figures, this is a bit like saying the Reformation is "not really Christian" because it began in Germany and Luther was German.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well that's not what Marcus or his video are on about, is it? His point has consistently been to make false, derogatory claims about Islam as a whole, based on the most isolated examples. What I am saying is that his claims aren't even correct with regards to actual "Islamists," let alone Islam as a whole. He's generalizing based on a fringe of a fringe.

If you are right and he is wrong that's sort of a Pyrrhic victory wouldn't you say. I would say that derogatory views on Islam overall stem from the fact that those countries absolutely suck.

And per the bold, if you get to do it why doesn't everyone else.

[Ibrahim]

The foundations of the modern age's, systematic science lie in the Christian presuppositions of a rational, understandable God who created a cosmos that operates in terms of immutable, materialistic law and who invites—indeed commands—mankind to think His thoughts after Him.

The rationality of the material world, of God, and of Revelation, are all Islamic concepts. The Quran states that people who do not believe in God are lacking in intelligence, not in faith. The proliferation of the sciences under Islam (and not before Islam in Arabia or Persia) demonstrate this belief in a rational understanding of the world.

So while theoretically you can argue that this was a Christian precept first*, you certainly cannot argue that it is a Christian precept only.



*it was probably a pagan Greek concept before either Christianity or Islam

[Marcus]

I don't ignore anything. I'm correcting Marcus' claims . .

No, you're . . .

DaNwjZu9a_Q

[Ibrahim]

These are the first questions Marcus ignored throughout the thread. But if you read through it you'll see that he was unable to either defend, or address criticisms of, and of his claims or declarations. Apparently if you hold Marcus to account for false or unsubstantiated claims you're a "mad dog."

Now they have to temerity to squall like a stuck hog about collateral damage when the West reacts in self-defense?

Innocent people in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere are complaining about the US military murdering their family members for no reason. If somebody blew your granddaughter to smithereens with a Hellfire missile because they didn't like "Christians" how do you think you'd respond? Would you "squall like a stuck hog?"

Why would you try to minimize and defend the murder of civilians based on their religious affiliation? Seems monstrously immoral, as well as un-Christian and un-Islamic.

Watch the film . . by a Muslim about radical Islam . . decide for yourself.

Why does the religion of the filmmaker matter? If I link to pro-Islam films or books by Muslims will you then change your mind and believe something else?

[Ibrahim]

Always amused and bemused by these never ending arguments about the past.

a) "Take that, historians!"

b) No argument here, almost every word that Marcus has written in this thread is verifiably false.

[noddy]

Everyone—Greeks, Persian, Muslims, Christians, etc., etc. etc.—thinks logically and rationally. Logic isn't the problem.

Everyone is pretty much logical in terms of their presuppositions. Poop in = poop out. Superstition in = superstition out. Truth/fact in = truth/fact out.

The foundations of the modern age's, systematic science lie in the Christian presuppositions of a rational, understandable God who created a cosmos that operates in terms of immutable, materialistic law and who invites—indeed commands—mankind to think His thoughts after Him.

Nowhere else . . though others have contributed to mankind's bank of scientific knowledge.

hah, the definitive statement on the wonders of materialism and the seeds of christianities own destruction as per the pagan and atheist plague unleashed during the enlightenment.

the reactionary knee jerk of islam post golden age that threw them backwards are to be found forming on the edges of christianity today because the balance between the spiritual and the material and which of those things is a slippery slope is a highly variable viewpoint.

the intelligent design vs evolution argument is part of this to my mind.

if we do have a really bad financial and/or environmental collapse then its not out of the question that these things could play out here... its humans and knee jerk reactions, its not particulary cultural per se.