Islamic Fanaticism is a Worldwide Problem

Dear Friends,
I have started a petition to the US President for using the power of his office to save the nonviolent humanists of Bangladesh. This petition is important not only for Bangladesh, as Islamic fanaticism is a cause for alarm to humanity everywhere in the world. For example, the USA had to open the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 due to this menace.
I appeal to everyone to sign this petition. Thank you in advance.
Sukhamaya (Sam) Bain
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-please-save-the-humanist-writers-and-bloggers-of-bangladesh?recruiter=46583150&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

Islamic fanaticism is a worldwide problem! :snake:
:lol:

Religious Fanaticism and those damned kids of Abraham are the worldwide problem.

Yeah, Euro-fanatacism of the previous 500 years made the world better.
That Cuban Missile Crisis to the brink of nuclear war was just a minor incident.
psik

Hmm… so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha’s appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is:
1)… It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about).
2) … It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the “real” problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant).
3)… Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity.
Wow.
But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)

Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted.
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. I'd like it applied to all religions, too. But that's an impossible dream. In the meantime, I'll apply it to the ones that are known to engage in terrorism. When faced with an overwhelming disaster, we need to do "triage" the way paramedics do. If that's called bigotry, so be it. Half a loaf is better than none. Lois
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. In my view, discrimination is not the problem. Inaccurate discrimination, however, is a major problem. Am I a bigot, because in my worldview, I recognize that in today's world, Islam, in particular, is regularly being interpreted in ways by some of its followers that results in horrible atrocities against humanity (moreso, in today's world, than is the case for followers of other superstitions)?
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. In my view, discrimination is not the problem. Inaccurate discrimination, however, is a major problem. Am I a bigot, because in my worldview, I recognize that in today's world, Islam, in particular, is regularly being interpreted in ways by some of its followers that results in horrible atrocities against humanity (moreso, in today's world, than is the case for followers of other superstitions)? It's not bigotry to criticize religions that engage in terrorism. The fact that of now it's only Islam does not mean that being against the sole example of it is bigotry. Are you saying we would need at least one more terrorist religion in order to avoid being accused of bigotry if we criticize religious terrorism? Lois
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. In my view, discrimination is not the problem. Inaccurate discrimination, however, is a major problem. Am I a bigot, because in my worldview, I recognize that in today's world, Islam, in particular, is regularly being interpreted in ways by some of its followers that results in horrible atrocities against humanity (moreso, in today's world, than is the case for followers of other superstitions)? It's not bigotry to criticize religions that engage in terrorism. The fact that of now it's only Islam does not mean that being against the sole example of it is bigotry. Are you saying we would need at least one more terrorist religion in order to avoid being accused of bigotry if we criticize religious terrorism? Lois I am not saying that. But are others? I do not consider my view of Islam, as being the most amenable of religions, in today's world, of being interpreted in ways that are the most manifestly destructive to humanity, as a bigoted belief. But others may.
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. In my view, discrimination is not the problem. Inaccurate discrimination, however, is a major problem. Am I a bigot, because in my worldview, I recognize that in today's world, Islam, in particular, is regularly being interpreted in ways by some of its followers that results in horrible atrocities against humanity (moreso, in today's world, than is the case for followers of other superstitions)? It's not bigotry to criticize religions that engage in terrorism. The fact that of now it's only Islam does not mean that being against the sole example of it is bigotry. Are you saying we would need at least one more terrorist religion in order to avoid being accused of bigotry if we criticize religious terrorism? Lois I am not saying that. But are others? I do not consider my view of Islam, as being the most amenable of religions, in today's world, of being interpreted in ways that are the most manifestly destructive to humanity, as a bigoted belief. But others may. Merely dissecting a religion crosses the line into bigotry for many followers of that faith. Bigotry is not a fixed position for everyone. This all reminds me of the gun lobby thing. Guns don't kill people. People do. Religions don't persecute non believers. Individuals from that faith do. I try to take a step back from this perspective and say the more religious a cultures is, the more religious killers the culture will produce. The more guns are available, the more innocent people will die from guns shots.
... This all reminds me of the gun lobby thing. Guns don't kill people. People do. Religions don't persecute non believers. Individuals from that faith do. I try to take a step back from this perspective and say the more religious a cultures is, the more religious killers the culture will produce. The more guns are available, the more innocent people will die from guns shots.
From Wikipedia: "...In terms of demographics, India ranks as the country with the largest number of highly religious people in the world, with an estimated 960 million to 1 billion believers. China, although its number is less than a fifth of its total population (~18-19%), ranks second, with an estimated 240-260 million believers, followed by Indonesia (~235 million), the United States (~205 million)..." Do India's, China's, Indonesia's, and the United State's religious persons account for the highest percentage (relative to other cultures) of, as you say, "religious killers"? (I'm asking. I don't know the answer, although I suspect they do not.) I think that we need to get over the idea that all religions are equally problematic, especially when the evidence slaps us in the face, over and over again, that this is not the case. Despite my assertion about Islam, I am an honest to Darwin, liberal, progressive, humanist. I wish peace and prosperity for all Muslims as I do for all humans. But it is clear to me, that of religions, in today's world, Islam is the most F'd up, in terms of its doctrines being easily interpretable in ways that actually (not just in theory) but actually lead to the most despicable violent acts and the most onerous oppression of human rights, around the world.
... This all reminds me of the gun lobby thing. Guns don't kill people. People do. Religions don't persecute non believers. Individuals from that faith do. I try to take a step back from this perspective and say the more religious a cultures is, the more religious killers the culture will produce. The more guns are available, the more innocent people will die from guns shots.
From Wikipedia: "...In terms of demographics, India ranks as the country with the largest number of highly religious people in the world, with an estimated 960 million to 1 billion believers. China, although its number is less than a fifth of its total population (~18-19%), ranks second, with an estimated 240-260 million believers, followed by Indonesia (~235 million), the United States (~205 million)..." Do India's, China's, Indonesia's, and the United State's religious persons account for the highest percentage (relative to other cultures) of, as you say, "religious killers"? (I'm asking. I don't know the answer, although I suspect they do not.) I think that we need to get over the idea that all religions are equally problematic, especially when the evidence slaps us in the face, over and over again, that this is not the case. Despite my assertion about Islam, I am an honest to Darwin, liberal, progressive, humanist. I wish peace and prosperity for all Muslims as I do for all humans. But it is clear to me, that of religions, in today's world, Islam is the most F'd up, in terms of its doctrines being easily interpretable in ways that actually (not just in theory) but actually lead to the most despicable violent acts and the most onerous oppression of human rights, around the world. I agree 100%! Lois
Hmm.. so it seems to me that the respondents in this thread, to Sukhamyaha's appeal for help for humanist writers in Bangaladesh being murdered by Islamic extremists is: 1)... It is ridiculous (since he couches his appeal in terms of it being a problem for all humanists to be concerned about). 2) ... It is not really a matter to be concerned about because ALL religious fanaticism is the "real" problem. (That it is Islamic extremists that are doing the actual murdering rather than other religious fanatics, is irrelevant). 3)... Other past problems have been more intensive threats to global humanity. Wow. But I get it. Islamic extremists are probably not coming for any of us, anytime soon, (except maybe for a few of us that are wearing uniforms.)
Or who are going about their business in tall buildings or in schools or in movie theaters or on planes. Otherwise we're safe from Islamic terrorism. Got it! Sukhamaya Bain's petition seems to me to be sensible and worthwhile. Lois When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted. In my view, discrimination is not the problem. Inaccurate discrimination, however, is a major problem. Am I a bigot, because in my worldview, I recognize that in today's world, Islam, in particular, is regularly being interpreted in ways by some of its followers that results in horrible atrocities against humanity (moreso, in today's world, than is the case for followers of other superstitions)? It's not bigotry to criticize religions that engage in terrorism. The fact that of now it's only Islam does not mean that being against the sole example of it is bigotry. Are you saying we would need at least one more terrorist religion in order to avoid being accused of bigotry if we criticize religious terrorism? Lois I am not saying that. But are others? I do not consider my view of Islam, as being the most amenable of religions, in today's world, of being interpreted in ways that are the most manifestly destructive to humanity, as a bigoted belief. But others may. Merely dissecting a religion crosses the line into bigotry for many followers of that faith. Bigotry is not a fixed position for everyone. True. That's why it's not worthwhile to hold up "anti-bigotry" as a value. In situations like this, it basically amounts to giving up.

Handydan: “When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted.”
Seriously wrong! No other religious group in the contemporary world is murdering people, enslaving women, torching homes of people of other faiths, uprooting people of other faiths from their homeland, etc. to protect, preserve and promote their religion. While I personally avoid criticizing Islam, I certainly want the followers of Islam to come to a state of rationalism, human compassion and civilization to live with the followers of other faiths and no faith in peace and dignity. In order for them to do that, they would need to discard and disregard a lot of their religion; the kind of reformation that Christians have gone through and have been improving on.
It is actually dishonest to talk about correct/incorrect interpretations of Islam; the real honest talks would be about rejecting a lot of the parts of the holy books of Islam. It is a dangerous political correctness (read dishonesty) when some of the most powerful leaders of the world proclaim ISIS to be un-Islamic or abusers of Islam, for example. ISIS is not misinterpreting or abusing Islam; they are following it.

Handydan: "When applied to all religions it is principled. But when it applies only to members of a specific religion, it become bigoted." Seriously wrong! No other religious group in the contemporary world is murdering people, enslaving women, torching homes of people of other faiths, uprooting people of other faiths from their homeland, etc. to protect, preserve and promote their religion. While I personally avoid criticizing Islam, I certainly want the followers of Islam to come to a state of rationalism, human compassion and civilization to live with the followers of other faiths and no faith in peace and dignity. In order for them to do that, they would need to discard and disregard a lot of their religion; the kind of reformation that Christians have gone through and have been improving on. It is actually dishonest to talk about correct/incorrect interpretations of Islam; the real honest talks would be about rejecting a lot of the parts of the holy books of Islam. It is a dangerous political correctness (read dishonesty) when some of the most powerful leaders of the world to proclaim ISIS to be un-Islamic or abusers of Islam, for example. ISIS is not misinterpreting or abusing Islam; they are following it.
I very much agree with your points, with just this exception, I think that most people who identify as Muslims, in the world at large, (and this is especially true for most Muslims in the US) do not accept the parts of their fundamental doctrine (or they interpret it differently) that promotes the kinds of crimes against humanity that are done by what we call extremists. Granted, however, in your part of the world, what we call extremists may be the norm. BTW, I am glad to see that you have not been a victim of being hacked to death by such extremists.

Nazimuddin Samad. RIP. Another free thinker, hacked to death, yesterday, by Islamists, in Bangladesh, while walking home from evening University.
http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/bangladesh-student-murdered-as-violence-against-free-thinkers-continues/
That makes 6 individual writers or activists murdered by Islamists in the last 14 months.
Hacked to death with machetes. Doesn’t seem like a nice way to go. But that is the price we pay for speaking truth.
Oh wait, no it’s not, unless we are in a predominately Muslim state where Islam is the State Religion.

Nazimuddin Samad. RIP. Another free thinker, hacked to death, yesterday, by Islamists, in Bangladesh, while walking home from evening University. http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/bangladesh-student-murdered-as-violence-against-free-thinkers-continues/ That makes 6 individual writers or activists murdered by Islamists in the last 14 months. Hacked to death with machetes. Doesn't seem like a nice way to go. But that is the price we pay for speaking truth. Oh wait, no it's not, unless we are in a predominately Muslim state where Islam is the State Religion.
This is a tangent, but this example shows one example of why Trump is getting so much traction with ordinary people. I'm as liberal as they come, so when I hear Muslim radicals hacked someone with machetes even MY first thought is my god they're savages who won't respond to anything other than equal violence. So ya, nuke'em. Of course then reason takes control. But for the majority of Trump fans, it doesn't.
Nazimuddin Samad. RIP. Another free thinker, hacked to death, yesterday, by Islamists, in Bangladesh, while walking home from evening University. http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/bangladesh-student-murdered-as-violence-against-free-thinkers-continues/ That makes 6 individual writers or activists murdered by Islamists in the last 14 months. Hacked to death with machetes. Doesn't seem like a nice way to go. But that is the price we pay for speaking truth. Oh wait, no it's not, unless we are in a predominately Muslim state where Islam is the State Religion.
This is a tangent, but this example shows one example of why Trump is getting so much traction with ordinary people. I'm as liberal as they come, so when I hear Muslim radicals hacked someone with machetes even MY first thought is my god they're savages who won't respond to anything other than equal violence. So ya, nuke'em. Of course then reason takes control. But for the majority of Trump fans, it doesn't. Nuking Bangaladesh would sort of defeat the purpose of protecting the human rights of those under threat of murder by Islamists. So "nuke 'em" is not among my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd thoughts as a solution.