We see hundreds of different religions and beliefs all over the world. But main religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. We do not hear from Christians or Hindus or Buddhists ever that , either Christianity or Hinduism or Buddism is a religion of peace.
Why only Muslims need to propagate saying : Islam is a religion of peace ?
Why such advertisement ?
Does advertisement prove any religion really peaceful ?
If a member of your family was a crazed serial killer, who is still at large and still killing people, don’t you think you would want to make it clear to the world that you and the rest of your family are not crazed serial killers?
You’re mixing things up too much. As far as I know very few if any Hindus and Buddhists kill or terrorize people based on their religion. Christians OTOH DO regularly kill people, for example abortion Drs, etc., AND they did regularly when Christianity was at a maturity level that Islam is today, say 500 years ago. The difference is, Christianity is so baked into Western culture that it’s never reported that way.
You're mixing things up too much. As far as I know very few if any Hindus and Buddhists kill or terrorize people based on their religion. Christians OTOH DO regularly kill people, for example abortion Drs, etc., AND they did regularly when Christianity was at a maturity level that Islam is today, say 500 years ago. The difference is, Christianity is so baked into Western culture that it's never reported that way.You make considerate points. But I am not confident, at all, that the basic structure of Islamic doctrine will be as amenable to as substantial moderation as is Christianity, today, even over the next 500 years, unless the radical murderous and human rights defiling interpretations, that come out of Islam, can be effectively quashed, primarily by persons who profess non-murderous, non-human-rights-defiling interpretations of Islam. Right now, in our modern world, they are not being effectively quashed. They seem to be thriving and spreading.
We see hundreds of different religions and beliefs all over the world. But main religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. We do not hear from Christians or Hindus or Buddhists ever that , either Christianity or Hinduism or Buddism is a religion of peace. Why only Muslims need to propagate saying : Islam is a religion of peace ? Why such advertisement ? Does advertisement prove any religion really peaceful ?They know they're under scrutiny in countries they want to be in. And rightly so.
Christians have to defend their religion all the time. Where have you been?
Christians have to defend their religion all the time. Where have you been?Right! They're oppressed, especially in countries where they represent a large majority. Lois
Christians have to defend their religion all the time. Where have you been?Right! They're oppressed, especially in countries where they represent a large majority. Lois I think, that Christians only imagine themselves to be oppressed in countries where they are a large majority. There are countries (or failed states) where they are a minority, and they actually are oppressed by elements of a Muslim majority.
What little I know of the origin of Islam.
- It arose in the Arabian Peninsula which had tribes that had been warring for generations.
- Muhammed banned fighting between Muslims and Abu Bakr united all the Arabian tribes under Islam after Muhammed’s death.
- There was a glut of Muslim warriors and no one to fight but non-Muslim neighbours which Abu Bakr did using the cause of a “holy” war - Jihad. It goes back to the earliest days of Islam.
Which is one reason that Islam spread as quickly as it did in the few generations after Muhammed.
Maybe it’s more accurate to say that Islam is a religion of peace between Muslims…and even that is relative. From its start it has been used as a rally point for very aggressive expansion and annexation of other peoples, just as Christianity has been at times. Islam seems to be more efficient at it in some ways I think…
Is it really honest to claim that a belief system is based on peace when if carried to its logical conclusion it will basically overwhelm all other belief systems?
And was designed that way from the start it seems to me. I think all aggressive religions qualify on this point, if the agenda is to convert as many - possibly all - people then can they really be called religions of peace?
DougC, I like seeing new contributors to this forum, who can communicate clearly, jumping right in with their perspectives.
DougC, I like seeing new contributors to this forum, who can communicate clearly, jumping right in with their perspectives.I tend to look upon organized religion in the same way the federation sees the Borg in Star Trek, so I'm bound to put my foot in my mouth at some point. I'd like to learn greater tolerance for religious people, but I'm just not sure that such a thing exists within some of the most prominent world religions that seem to routinely condemn and dehumanize non-believers despite what they claim to stand for. I certainly have a hard time in thinking about Christianity, Islam and even Judaism which they're rooted in as being peaceful when you look at their current roles in today's world and history.
DougC, I like seeing new contributors to this forum, who can communicate clearly, jumping right in with their perspectives.I tend to look upon organized religion in the same way the federation sees the Borg in Star Trek, so I'm bound to put my foot in my mouth at some point. I'd like to learn greater tolerance for religious people, but I'm just not sure that such a thing exists within some of the most prominent world religions that seem to routinely condemn and dehumanize non-believers despite what they claim to stand for. I certainly have a hard time in thinking about Christianity, Islam and even Judaism which they're rooted in as being peaceful when you look at their current roles in today's world and history. Actually, Christianity is "rooted in" Judaism, and Islam is "rooted in" both.
DougC, I like seeing new contributors to this forum, who can communicate clearly, jumping right in with their perspectives.I tend to look upon organized religion in the same way the federation sees the Borg in Star Trek, so I'm bound to put my foot in my mouth at some point. I'd like to learn greater tolerance for religious people, but I'm just not sure that such a thing exists within some of the most prominent world religions that seem to routinely condemn and dehumanize non-believers despite what they claim to stand for. I certainly have a hard time in thinking about Christianity, Islam and even Judaism which they're rooted in as being peaceful when you look at their current roles in today's world and history. Actually, Christianity is "rooted in" Judaism, and Islam is "rooted in" both. Okay. Here's a thought, maybe these should more accurately be considered combat religions. The Jews in Israel always seemed to be fighting somebody, David v. Goliath and all that and escaping from oppressors like the Egyptians and Babylonians. Seems to be a strong martial component to Judaism going way back. Christianity is supposedly based on the life of a Jewish messiah from around 2,000 years ago and was eventually adopted by a Roman Emperor to unite a civil war torn Roman Empire in the 4th century. It was basically grafted onto Roman culture and seems to have more to do with that than any real spirituality from what I see. Which is very martial. Then Muhammad shows up and creates his own version of an Abrahamic religion which after his death bursts out of the Arabian peninsula in the form of fanatical Muslim warriors fighting a holy war against the Byzantines and other powers in the region and quickly spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific and at its height was at the gates of Vienna. I have a hard time connecting the words religion and peace for some reason.
I have a hard time connecting the words religion and peace for some reason.It's a component fallacy either way. To look at all the wars fought "in the name of" or just by a military that carried religious symbols with it, is to paint with too broad a brush. It's guilt by association, it's ignoring all other data. To look at a few peaceful passages in a holy book or to show how things were worse, then this book was written then they were slightly better, that is the same broad brush/association/ignore data error. Obviously if you are in the group you do one, and if you are out of the group you do the other. Instead of simply pointing and accusing, try finding your own in-group prejudice. If you are an American for example, you probably think your Constitution is pretty cool and that your country is therefore cool. Now look at how few of the principles behind that document are actually fully implemented. Start with the 3/5ths compromise if you are having trouble.
I have a hard time connecting the words religion and peace for some reason.It's a component fallacy either way. To look at all the wars fought "in the name of" or just by a military that carried religious symbols with it, is to paint with too broad a brush. It's guilt by association, it's ignoring all other data. To look at a few peaceful passages in a holy book or to show how things were worse, then this book was written then they were slightly better, that is the same broad brush/association/ignore data error. Obviously if you are in the group you do one, and if you are out of the group you do the other. Instead of simply pointing and accusing, try finding your own in-group prejudice. If you are an American for example, you probably think your Constitution is pretty cool and that your country is therefore cool. Now look at how few of the principles behind that document are actually fully implemented. Start with the 3/5ths compromise if you are having trouble. I'm not proposing that religions are behind all wars, just that the surface advertisement for some of the major religions doesn't seem to reflect the reality. Love and compassion are a central message of Christianity for instance, but the the large scale practice of Christianity doesn't seem to reflect that. In practice Christianity has been used for the application of power and often as a rallying point for violent action against other peoples and belief systems. I think Islam can also be seen in that light. The original intent may have been to allow a greater expression of individual spirituality and values these religions are supposed to stand for, but that has morphed over the years into something much different. I don't tend to connect spirituality with religion any more but I do think that there are components of real spirituality that may surface at times, such as the elevation of what seems to be a real person of compassion in the Catholic church right now. Who has to contend with a religious system that at times has been very hostile to the interests of many it is supposed to be elevating to a higher state of spiritual life. In the case of Islam, if intolerance and violence are so readily available in the advancement of this specific belief system, can it honestly present itself as "peaceful"? To me it represents the kind of peace the fictional Borg would, when they've assimilated everyone there will no longer be conflict because it won't be allowed. But neither will any sort of true individuality separate from a strict Muslim code of behavior and belief. The imprisonment of the mind and spirit doesn't seem very peaceful to me at all.
Many of the historical figures of Judaism were warriors. Muhammad was a warrior. Jesus was not, but Christians include the warriors of the Old Testament as a part of their holy story.
So the Abrahamic religions are not inherently pacifistic. They could all, conceivably, be interpreted in such a way that they support pacifism. But they could just as well be interpreted in ways that support war and violence.
Many of the historical figures of Judaism were warriors. Muhammad was a warrior. Jesus was not, but Christians include the warriors of the Old Testament as a part of their holy story. So the Abrahamic religions are not inherently pacifistic. They could all, conceivably, be interpreted in such a way that they support pacifism. But they could just as well be interpreted in ways that support war and violence.So they can be anything they need or want to be given the circumstances? As I grow older, religion and politics kind of morph into one for me, I don't see anything that elevates any western belief system to the exalted heights some to to seem to want to place religions in. If it's just as conditional as other ways of organizing and controlling the actions of people on a large scale then it's really all about what's going on here on Earth and not some hypothetical higher state. And the Abrahamic religions really seem to qualify on this level. If some of the supposedly core values can be ignored at will like love, peace and tolerance, then can these religions really claim to stand for these things. I see the current Pope displaying these values, but not his church. I don't really see how Islam can claim to be peaceful when so many extremists are trained by a massively funded religious system that comes from the nation at the center of the religion. A nation that more and more is coming to resemble the more extreme elements of Islam that many claim don't really represent the religion as a whole. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12120230/Minors-among-47-executed-by-Saudi-Arabia-activists-say.html If these religions are really about controlling people here, which I think is the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that violence and intolerance are an integral part of them I think.
This also raises the question of whether or not in the case of some of these religions there is such thing as moderates. If millions of people are helping lay the foundation that allows the psychopathic minority to do incredible damage then are they truly moderates.
In the case of Islam it seems every day now we read in the news about another mass murder in the name of God by Muslims.
In the case of Christianity there are millions of people who believe in the End Times and would like nothing more than see the destruction of the rest of us to achieve their idea of paradise.
Are massively shared delusions really that safe, maybe Dawkins was too kind in his description of religion.
...maybe Dawkins was too kind in his description of religion.Ya think? Most of the religious people I've met are good individually, but the mindset it takes to believe in something without evidence harms society and leads to the extremists taking over, causing all manner of mayhem.
I don't really see how Islam can claim to be peaceful when so many extremists are trained by a massively funded religious system that comes from the nation at the center of the religion. A nation that more and more is coming to resemble the more extreme elements of Islam that many claim don't really represent the religion as a whole. If these religions are really about controlling people here, which I think is the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that violence and intolerance are an integral part of them I think.What nation are you talking about here? There is no center of Islam. Within a generation of the Koran being written there was no center. You need to start defining terms. What does "religion of peace" mean? I say a religion is defined by the people who are currently practicing it and claiming it. There is too much diversity within that to apply any general statement to the 3 major monotheisms. So, you have people arguing about world views. Religion is different than secular government in that it uses ancient scripture and holy edicts as if they are evidence. It's a lot harder to do that in any kind of pluralistic democracy. You didn't really do my thought experiment. Take your last response to me and replace USA with any religion you name. We have good leaders who pop up now and then and plenty of bad ones. We use military action to enforce peace and spread democracy. I'm not saying military is wrong, I'm saying you can't look at a history of military action from a culture and then make broad statements about their ideology or the thoughts of the people currently alive. You have to examine the details of how those actions were determined, funded, carried out and then reviewed. i.e., what do most Americans alive today think about the Japanese interment camps.