A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well. It may be but if biology were the fundamental cause of religious violence everyone everywhere would be at war all the time. No one would be able to escape it. Lois
I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant.You will find this lecture by an American scholar relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzXMAtAhftk I listened to the lecture and I must say that it didn't do anything to change my mind. Mr. Yusuf actually kind of proved my point. He started by quoting many of the passages that explain why violence is wrong within Islam. About halfway through, though, he started naming exceptions to the non-violence clause (if someone takes your property and others that I don't remember exactly). The problem with most holy books is that there are tons of ancient rituals included that people don't take seriously so they have to pick and choose the verses that make sense and leave out the ones that don't. You don't see reasonable Jews selecting the correct lamb to bring to the tabernacle to be made into a burnt offering to YHWH because they laid with there wife during her period. You don't see reasonable Christians stoning adulterers in the town square. Their holy books say to do these things (at least things like them, I'm sure I didn't get the details right) but they choose to ignore those parts because they are more reasonable people. Someone with a twisted view on life can do the same but pick and choose the bizarre parts and ignore the parts that contradict the passages that they like. Now they have God on their side and the holy passages to back up their terrible behavior. Add in some charisma and who have the makings of disaster. For hundreds of years, the Spanish Inquisition terrorized Europe by torturing and killing in the name of Jesus. Never mind Love Thy Neighbor or The Golden Rule, these guys liked the parts like in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The same could be said today of ISIS or al-Qaeda or the Taliban, they are picking the grizzly parts of the Quran and ignoring the peaceful parts. Can that be done in Buddhism? I find it highly unlikely that a Buddhist group would be able to twist the teachings of Buddha in such a way. I against go back to the OP and say that all religious extremists are NOT alike, it depends on the dogmas within their holy books.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well. It may be but if biology were the fundamental cause of religious violence everyone everywhere would be at war all the time. No one would be able to escape it. LoisDifferent populations have different capacities for violence.
... all religious extremists are NOT alike, it depends on the dogmas within their holy books.I agree with this point, and in my relatively informed opinion, I agree with Sam Harris and Bill Maher that Islam, in its fundamental teachings is most likely (among today's popular religions) to be interpreted in such a way as to generate and spread violent extremism. I think that the evidence is beyond overwhelming that this is the case. Note that I am NOT making a blanket statement about Muslims, but, rather, a statement about the fundamental teachings of Islam.
... all religious extremists are NOT alike, it depends on the dogmas within their holy books.I agree with this point, and in my relatively informed opinion, I agree with Sam Harris and Bill Maher that Islam, in its fundamental teachings is most likely (among today's popular religions) to be interpreted in such a way as to generate and spread violent extremism. I think that the evidence is beyond overwhelming that this is the case. Note that I am NOT making a blanket statement about Muslims, but, rather, a statement about the fundamental teachings of Islam. Yes, I watch Maher faithfully and in every discussion about Islam, someone says that there are moderate Muslims who do not act violently. I liked Mahers answer that even moderate muslims approve of a Holy War in the name of Islam and some even support ISIL which is trying to establish a worldwide fundamental theocracy or Caliphate. You would not be a "good" muslim if you do not support the Holy War..
A caliphate (in Arabic: خلاة khilfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, or the Ummah.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate IMO, it is not the people, but the scripture which advocates the imposition of Islam, by force if necessary. Thus every devout Muslims is compelled to follow the scriptures, much as fundamentalist Christians follow the teachings of the OT, whereas more moderate christians have discarded the OT and follow the teachings of the NT, but do not actively condemn or oppose fundamentalist world views and lifestyles. But our founding fathers recognized this inherent danger and wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution to prevent the establishment of a theocracy in the first place..
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
I think an important point that Bill Maher and Sam Harris made is that this isn’t a fringe element of Islam. The number of people that would support Sharia law for their country is very high, in many cases they are the majority.
Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia). In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%). Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it. Support for making sharia the official legal code of the country is relatively weak across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Fewer than half of Muslims in all the countries surveyed in these regions favor making sharia their country’s official law. Support for sharia as the law of the land is greatest in Russia (42%); respondents in Russia were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the country’s ethnic-Muslim republics. Elsewhere in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, about one-in-three or fewer say sharia should be made the law of the land, including just 10% in Kazakhstan and 8% in Azerbaijan. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
The amenability of Islamic doctrine to be used to recruit persons (who may be socially isolated, who may have a history of personal abuse or trauma, imprisonment, etc.) (despite the fact that most devout Muslims may abhor and act against violent extremism), to engage in violent jihad, is only one problem with Islamic doctrine, if more and more Muslims continue to become proponents of governance by Sharia law.
For example it is antithetical to Western thought for someone to be put to death for leaving a religion, but in some Muslim nations, belief in Islamic doctrine promotes the belief among the majority that an individual should be considered subject to death (for leaving Islam).
Members of other religions (or who would openly claim atheism or agnosticism) in such countries often face various forms of discrimination, sometimes severe forms of discrimination.
Some Islamic scholars still consider, and promote the belief, that cutting the clitoris off of a girl child is consistent with Islam, and that the practice is acceptable and even noble.
Adulterers can be subject to stoning under Sharia Law. (Just recently, a father lead his daughter into a hole despite her pleas, where she was stoned to death.) This is completely consistent with some interpretations of Islam in today’s world.
Some Islamic scholars still consider, and promote the belief, that cutting the clitoris off of a girl child is consistent with Islam, and that the practice is acceptable and even noble.I don't often come to the defense of Islam but female genital mutilation is more of an African custom rather than a Muslim one. Ethiopia, for example, is a majority Christian nation but has a large percentage of girls who go through this terrible practice.
Some Islamic scholars still consider, and promote the belief, that cutting the clitoris off of a girl child is consistent with Islam, and that the practice is acceptable and even noble.I don't often come to the defense of Islam but female genital mutilation is more of an African custom rather than a Muslim one. Ethiopia, for example, is a majority Christian nation but has a large percentage of girls who go through this terrible practice. I do not deny that the practice pre-existed Islam. I do not deny that it is primarily a tribal and culturally promoted practice. But my assertion stands as stated. Many Islamic scholars have historically supported the practice as consistent with Islam, and although, there are more and more Islamic scholars, as the years have passed, who declare the practice to be un-Islamic, there remain some Islamic "scholars" in some countries who fiercely defend the practice. So this gives religious cover to any Muslim who wants to secretly engage in the practice, despite it being against the law almost everywhere (even though most of those who practice it may be primarily motivated by cultural factors). A devout Muslim sees themselves as seeking to submit totally to the will of Allah, so if Allah's prophet Mohamed purportedly said that female circumcision is "noble", (and if the particular Muslim believes that particular hadith to be valid), then they could believe that the practice is not only allowed, but also, honorable within Islam. In the post that you responded to, I could have listed various other human rights defying practices, other than female genital mutilation, that are supported by some interpretations of Islamic doctrine, but I included FGM, because it is so heinous and horrific. I have never watched a video of a hostage being beheaded by a violent jihadist, but I would rather watch that, than to see a young girl (or any female, for that matter) have her clit cut off.