I’ve been dealing with this phrase since the Intelligence Squared with Majid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Recently made this comment on an OnBeing blog post. I think I’ve finally boiled the issues down to an elevator speech.
Any religion is a religion of peace today because it agreed to live in a pluralistic world. That pluralism was not inspired by the religious leaders. It was forced on them by the people refusing to fight their holy wars and choosing democracy and the right to NOT worship if they so choose.
I don’t need Muslims to defend their religion, I need them to stand up for human rights and speak up for oppressed women and abused children.
I've been dealing with this phrase since the Intelligence Squared with Majid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Recently made this comment on an OnBeing blog post. I think I've finally boiled the issues down to an elevator speech.
Any religion is a religion of peace today because it agreed to live in a pluralistic world. That pluralism was not inspired by the religious leaders. It was forced on them by the people refusing to fight their holy wars and choosing democracy and the right to NOT worship if they so choose.
I don’t need Muslims to defend their religion, I need them to stand up for human rights and speak up for oppressed women and abused children.
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *exclusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *excusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
That last statement is a non-argument. Any definable culture has war and slavery in its past. You can't judge all Muslims based on actions from the 7th century. The narrative of the elimination of religion is bankrupt. It has no place in a world where there is religious terrorism and culturally religious people all using exactly the same books. If you don't recognize those differences, you have lost your audience before you even speak.
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *excusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
That last statement is a non-argument. Any definable culture has war and slavery in its past. You can't judge all Muslims based on actions from the 7th century. The narrative of the elimination of religion is bankrupt. It has no place in a world where there is religious terrorism and culturally religious people all using exactly the same books. If you don't recognize those differences, you have lost your audience before you even speak.
But if they are all using the same books, where do the differences come from? Moreover, I do not advocate the elimination of religion per se. But I do not tolerate the religious narrative of eliminating atheism.
The problem is that no one can agree on the name or the properties and intentions of God
The English word "God" is used by multiple religions as a noun or name to refer to different deities
In the Book of Exodus, God commands Moses to tell the people that 'I AM' sent him, and this is revered as one of the most important names of God according to Mosaic tradition.
Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation". — Exodus 3:13-15
Actually that is incorrect. The original text reads, "I am THAT I am".
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Names of God in Judaism
Further information: Yahweh, Tetragrammaton, Elohim, El Shaddai and Elyon
The tetragrammaton יהוה (English: YHWH) is the proper name of God in Judaism. Neither vowels nor vowel points were used in ancient Hebrew writings and, according to Jewish tradition, the original vocalisation of YHWH had been lost.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Names of God in Christianity
Further information: Jehovah
See also: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament
Some biblical scholars say YHWH was most likely pronounced Yahweh.[12] References, such as The New Encyclopædia Britannica, validate the above by offering additional specifics to its (Christian) reconstruction out of Greek sources:
Islam[edit]
Main article: Names of God in Islam
Further information: Allah and God in Islam
Allah meaning God, is the most frequently used name of God in Islam.[33] God has many names in Islam, the Qur'an says (translation) to Him Belong the Best Names (Lahu Al-Asmao Al-Husna), examples like Ar-Rahman (The Entirely Merciful), Ar-Rahim (The Especially Merciful). Besides these Arabic names, Muslims of non-Arab origins may also sometimes use other names in their own languages to refer to God, such as Khoda in both Persian language and Urdu.
"He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God#In_the_Torah
Each one of them advocate exclusive Divinity. No agreement is likely to ever be reached. At least Atheist are in agreement and therefore do not offer cause for violent conflict on the matter of God.
As a Humanist, if belief in a God gives someone PEACE, COMFORT, I am happy for them on a much more personal basis than sharing a specific religious belief.
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *exclusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
But Islam has it in the present! THAT's the problem. It also has the subjugation of women, the death penalty for a whole litany of "crimes" no other cultures have, other barbaric punishments no modern cultures have,,farcical "trials", "guilty till proven innocent" (which hardly ever is proven), terrorism to advance their religion, no freedom of religion. These are a few examples of Islam's primitive barbaric practices that have become unacceptable to nearly all non-Islamic governments the world over, no matter what their distant history. The point isn't that other cultures and religions had similar barbarity in their distant past, it's that Islam has it NOW in the 21st century! Don't you see the difference? That other religions did similar things millennia ago hardly excuses Islam for its excesses NOW, when the rest of the world is in the process of becoming civilized.
Lois
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *exclusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
But Islam has it in the present! THAT's the problem. It also has the subjugation of women, the death penalty for a whole litany of "crimes" no other cultures have, other barbaric punishments no modern cultures have,,farcical "trials", "guilty till proven innocent" (which hardly ever is proven), terrorism to advance their religion, no freedom of religion. These are a few examples of Islam's primitive barbaric practices that have become unacceptable to nearly all non-Islamic governments the world over, no matter what their distant history. The point isn't that other cultures and religions had similar barbarity in their distant past, it's that Islam has it NOW in the 21st century! Don't you see the difference? That other religions did similar things millennia ago hardly excuses Islam for its excesses NOW, when the rest of the world is in the process of becoming civilized. Lois
I agree. I believe I mentioned that in the post (see red highlight)
p.s. I have spoken with several Muslim women, who claimed they were comfortable with their role in Islamic society. I would not presume to tell them different. In nature the female is usually subservient to the male. Just look at a pride of Lions, or other hominids, except a few matriarchiies such as the Bonobos. Interestingly, they are most peaceful intelligent land animal societies on earth
btw, They all condemned the tactics used by Al Qaeda and Isis. As I have said before many times, it's not the people, but the religious leadership which is to blame for what we now see in the West as barbaric practices.
I saw the title “Religions of Peace” and though it would be interesting reading especially saying religion in the plural but I was wrong. Basically it was a minor jab at Muslims but that being said they deserve a few jabs as do all religions. In any event, they only way religions can help bring peace is if they all cease to exist.
I saw the title "Religions of Peace" and though it would be interesting reading especially saying religion in the plural but I was wrong. Basically it was a minor jab at Muslims but that being said they deserve a few jabs as do all religions. In any event, they only way religions can help bring peace is if they all cease to exist.
I already responded to that in post #3. I'd be interested in what you thought you might find under this title. I mentioned the Muslims because I was responding to an article by a Muslim about his religion's place in the Western world. Any religion could be interested in my OP statement.
LoisL,
If they did that they wouldn’t be Muslims. It’s a contradictory statement.
I agree, Al monotheistic religions are by definition *excusive* and contrary to inclusiveness of other viewpoints, on punishment of Death or eternity in Hell.
Any dominant monotheistic religion is a danger to Pluralism. Fortunately there are enough religions and cult offsprings to keep each other busy with religious wars, enough to stay their focus away from Secular populations, except for the occasional act of terrorism againt Infidels or Apostates.
All monotheistic religions have at one time waged war on others (non-believers), *in the name of their God*. Israelites against all other Tribes, Christianity with Crusades, and most recently Islam with Al Qaeda and Isis with Jihad.
That last statement is a non-argument. Any definable culture has war and slavery in its past. You can't judge all Muslims based on actions from the 7th century. The narrative of the elimination of religion is bankrupt. It has no place in a world where there is religious terrorism and culturally religious people all using exactly the same books. If you don't recognize those differences, you have lost your audience before you even speak.
But if they are all using the same books, where do the differences come from? Moreover, I do not advocate the elimination of religion per se. But I do not tolerate the religious narrative of eliminating atheism.
I could spend years giving specifics to that question. Starting with the theories of the scrolls and stories that we know formed the Torah (or Tanakh if your name is Dimitrios). They were different tribes with different agendas, telling their politics via narratives. Each generation breeds a new set of theologians who claim they have tapped into a new insight. Not much has changed really, except we have a very strong non-believing narrative now, one that isn't under threat of death, at least in most of the world.
You're right, philosophically, no one agrees on what God is. But get two opposing religions in one room with an atheist who knows how to argue against God, and they agree real fast that they have the same personal experience of “god". This is part of the Islamism* extremism problem. Enough moderate peaceful Muslims defend anyone who knows the basic rituals and a few lines of the Qu'ran. We're back to the same tribalism and in-group loyalty that started the whole mess.
No one has solved that problem as far as I can tell. Democracy started to really mature with the revolutions in France and the US, but mostly, we've exported McDonald's and military bases. Science has contributed to longer life AND created nuclear weapons. We almost eliminated the 1%, but they're doing pretty well right now. The people who hear the cries for the elimination of their traditions don't sort out the kind liberals from the conservative war mongers any better than you sort out the ISIS terrorist from the woman in Cleveland wearing a hijab.
*I'm adopting Majid Nawaz's use of the word “Islamism" to denote a version of Islam that puts the goal of world domination at the forefront. The number of Muslims that support that version is highly disputed, but no one has it as a majority.
I saw the title "Religions of Peace" and though it would be interesting reading especially saying religion in the plural but I was wrong. Basically it was a minor jab at Muslims but that being said they deserve a few jabs as do all religions. In any event, they only way religions can help bring peace is if they all cease to exist.
Objectively (as an atheist myself), I complely disagree with that sweeping statement, which is logically incorrect to begin with. There are religions which are pluralistic and peaceful and have a right to exist in a secular world.
It is those religions which advocate violence to force compliance and conversion which need to be taught the moral imperative that peace can only be achieved by advocating peace and practising peaceful activities.
Violence always begets violence and that is not the path to Peaceful co-existence.
I saw the title "Religions of Peace" and though it would be interesting reading especially saying religion in the plural but I was wrong. Basically it was a minor jab at Muslims but that being said they deserve a few jabs as do all religions. In any event, they only way religions can help bring peace is if they all cease to exist.
Objectively (as an atheist myself), I complely disagree with that sweeping statement, which is logically incorrect to begin with. There are religions which are pluralistic and peaceful and have a right to exist in a secular world.
It is those religions which advocate violence to force compliance and conversion which need to be taught the moral imperative that peace can only be achieved by advocating peace and practising peaceful activities.
Violence always begets violence and that is not the path to Peaceful co-existence.
I agree that "There are religions which are pluralistic and peaceful and have a right to exist in a secular world". That is an intrinsic American value. The problem, IMO, arises when there are religious persuasions that don't think that secularism has a right to exist in their world, and especially when their religious interpretations can advocate and marshal violence to achieve the ends of controlling and/or destroying secularism and other religions.
The goal of peaceful co-existence does not work, in that scenario, except, perhaps ultimately through submission to and severe restrictions by such a religion. That is unacceptable. Hence, there will be blood.
I agree that "There are religions which are pluralistic and peaceful and have a right to exist in a secular world". That is an intrinsic American value. The problem, IMO, arises when there are religious persuasions that don't think that secularism has a right to exist in their world, and especially when their religious interpretations can advocate and marshal violence to achieve the ends of controlling and/or destroying secularism and other religions.
The goal of peaceful co-existence does not work, in that scenario, except, perhaps ultimately through submission to and severe restrictions by such a religion. That is unacceptable. Hence, there will be blood.
That's why I prefer the word "pluralistic" to secular. I went to a talk by an academic, President of some religion group or another in the US, who tried to define the word "secular" out of existence. He used the 2nd definition (as found on google), which is from the olden days of monks who did not belong to a particular order. He also tried to say the term "religion" was invented as a way to wall off traditions that used to be central to all life, put them in a place they could be regulated. This is a white guy in a tie who sells books, not an Imam in a cave somewhere. I have a little old lady cousin who feels the same way. She actually said "pluralism is the problem".
The word clearly states that all religions must allow other religions to exist. You can use any legal means of attracting people to your religion, but get violent, and you are just like any other criminal or rogue government.