Go ahead and Talk about Religion

[bwframe]

It has been four days short of eight months since I stopped posting on INGO,..

Welcome back Dave!

 

[churchmouse]

Will the civil discussion rule apply to the discussion of other religions, say like Islam? I've noticed that ridicule of Islam tends to slip past the religion filters in most threads where the comments are made (to be fair, generally these pop up in the General Politics threads, though I've seen it sneak into the General Discussion section on occasion).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of that religion myself, but neither am I a fan of the tenets of quiet a few religions. However, if we are going to be required to treat one religion with respect (even if we are respectfully disagreeing with it), then that should apply to all.

That all being said, I'm personally a fan of no filters at all. If you are tough enough to dish it out, you should be tough enough to take it. That applies to whether you are talking about how Glocks are plastic pieces of crap and 1911s are God's gift to mankind through his prophet, John Moses Browning or whether you are choosing to criticize someone else's religious beliefs (or lack there of).

Yes, you can discuss Islam. There are a few threads in play right now on this topic.
Forum rules will be maintained.
Civility will be maintained.

 

[bradmedic04]

Anybody banned yet?

 

[Bennettjh]

I'm glad to see Dave stopped in.

FWIW, I'm a gun and Bible carrying Southern Baptist.

 

[churchmouse]

Anybody banned yet?

No blood in the water yet.

 

[warthog]

I can be civil and restrict myself to Scripture. I am often in Google Plus Hang Outs with everything from Atheists to Pagans to Satanists without loosing my temper. I should be fine with this and Thank you Fenway. I hope this can be done without strife myself.

 

[PistolBob]

Discussions about ISIS or ISIL (whatever) have nothing to do with islam and all to do about the pending war. They can't be wiped off the planent fast enough.

 

[Expat]

No blood in the water yet.

Plenty of bait in the water though...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Religion is about money and power.


WooHoo!!!! I successfully posted in the religious thread and am still here.


(Am I still here?)

I would completely agree with you had you said, "organized religion". I am a religious man, in that I'm a big fan of God. Not into following man-made rituals designed to show other people how much I love the Lord, however. What needs to be known, He knows, including when I fall short of the mark. Religion in and of itself is not bad. For those who want to follow rituals, organized religion is OK, too. It's just not my personal preference.

"Talk about religion"

There are two ways to view this. There's the non-confrontational way - Wherein we, as a whole, discuss religious influences on events, history, and the geo-political climate. Then there's the confrontational (and frankly, pointless) way - Wherein people argue if there is/isn't a God. INGO seems to have jumped right onto the latter of these two ways. Last thing I want to see is /r/atheism leaking into here. Let's avoid attacking each other on this, can we?

Most of us can abide by the "keep your beliefs to yourself" rule... and that doesn't rule out discussion on the topic. I don't care what "Atheist #1" and "Deist #2" personally believe... I care more about what they both think of "Event Influenced By Religion #3"

But, maybe that's just me, and you guys would rather tear each other down about your beliefs.

I can be civil and restrict myself to Scripture. I am often in Google Plus Hang Outs with everything from Atheists to Pagans to Satanists without loosing my temper. I should be fine with this and Thank you Fenway. I hope this can be done without strife myself.

I said yesterday AM that I'd expand a little on the discussions: Among those actively involved in the discussion (not all mods were, but all had opportunity to weigh in) we had represented many different views and positions. One is a pastor. Another (me) was raised Jewish. Still others had equally polar beliefs (though to my knowledge, no satanists were privy to the discussions.) We had not one single word of argument about each other's religious beliefs, however, despite contention on the wisdom of this decision. The solution Fenway came to was to tell people what you saw in the OP. I am most pleased and proud to report the contention we had in that it was limited as I described. It is my hope as stated in the mod thread on this that the members' practice will mirror our own and remain on the subject being discussed without what George Carlin referred to when speaking of religion: an argument to see whose God had the bigger male organ. (or for that matter, a contest in "urinating for distance".)

I have confidence that most of our members will rise to the occasion and remain mature. In this as in all things, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[indyk]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

...an argument to see whose God had the bigger male organ.

Sexist! Patriarchy! Rabble rabble rabble!

 

[churchmouse]

There have been some really "BIG" words used and I am impressed.

 

[mbills2223]

There have been some really "BIG" words used and I am impressed.

I'll bring a dictionary and thesaurus on Wednesday so you can keep up

 

[churchmouse]

I'll bring a dictionary and thesaurus on Wednesday so you can keep up

Thanks.

 

[ModernGunner]

Discussions about ISIS or ISIL (whatever) have nothing to do with islam and all to do about the pending war. They can't be wiped off the planent fast enough.

Respectfully, wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree.

This is 'situational awareness failure' at its grandest scale.

In fact, one cannot truly discuss ISIL / ISIS, et. al. without discussing the religion that fervently motivates them.

One would think the overt and despicable actions of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or that of a scumbag in Norman, OK would have convinced folks by now. Unfathomably, many people still refuse to accept who they're dealing with.

ISIS / ISIL, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, al-Baghdadi, Nolen, the Ayotollahs, the Imams, the Sayyid, the Sheiks, et. al. make no bones about it. It's a "jihad", a holy war.

And you're in it.

Know thine enemy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Discussions about ISIS or ISIL (whatever) have nothing to do with islam and all to do about the pending war. They can't be wiped off the planent fast enough.

As has already been shown in this thread, this will prove to be incorrect. There are many here who cannot or will not view the millions and millions of Muslims who are not violent as different than ISIS. Even before the "ok" to discuss religion, the idea of reinventing and reeducating the entire religion was floated and passed muster with no issues.

If person "A" is violent and person "B" is not, but they share a religion, the religion obviously isn't what is making "A" violent. The same is true of race, education levels, poverty, and a host of other things advanced as the reason for violence from everything from street gangs to terrorist organizations. Simple answers to complex questions are seldom correct.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As has already been shown in this thread, this will prove to be incorrect. There are many here who cannot or will not view the millions and millions of Muslims who are not violent as different than ISIS. Even before the "ok" to discuss religion, the idea of reinventing and reeducating the entire religion was floated and passed muster with no issues.

If person "A" is violent and person "B" is not, but they share a religion, the religion obviously isn't what is making "A" violent. The same is true of race, education levels, poverty, and a host of other things advanced as the reason for violence from everything from street gangs to terrorist organizations. Simple answers to complex questions are seldom correct.

I will have to disagree at least in part. I have no trouble believing that every religion has slackers who don't live up to the program. Given that the Quran openly authorizes Moslems to engage in deceit for the purpose of furthering the cause of Islam, I feel the need to consider the slackers (i.e., peaceful Moslems) with a certain amount of skepticism.

I do not believe it can truly be said that religion is not the cause. You cannot define a religion by those who are marginally observant. The bottom line is that the violent examples are living out the contents of their book and the teaching and example of Mohammad which can reasonably be held to define a religion. Likewise, I would argue that Christianity is defined by the teaching and example of Christ, not by Jim Jones, Westboro, or the KKK. Likewise, I would argue that it is not defined by those who refuse to take any stand regarding the nature of sin effectively declaring it a quaint and irrelevant notion effectively declaring that they do not take the standards of God seriously. The bottom line here is that ISIS is made up of the most faithful practitioners of the Islam of Mohammad on the planet, and trying to argue otherwise always devolves into an argument that the religion is defined by the people who at best make a token effort to practice it, not those who take it seriously.

Simple answers to complex questions are indeed suspect, but motives are often very plain things as I am sure you have seen on numerous occasions. The most elaborate crimes can be driven by extremely simple manifestations of revenge. Similarly, a complex world-threatening organization can be driven by the precepts of a religion as its reason for going to the trouble of doing what it does. It does not necessarily prove that every participant in ISIS is devout. Some may have joined in order to extend their life expectancy. Others may have joined to get in on the ground floor realizing that they can improve their station in life by riding on a wave of zealots, but the zealots are the critical mass and they are indeed following Mohammad, who, once again, defines Islam.

 

[cosermann]

I thought it was goofy to ban religion in the first place and KEEP the political discussion. Glad it's back.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you are the arbitrator of who is a "real muslim" it's easy to paint it however you want.

Like I said in my PM before you left, literal translation and western sensibilities of meaning what you say ve clear analogy are not the same as traditional Islam.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you are the arbitrator of who is a "real muslim" it's easy to paint it however you want.

Like I said in my PM before you left, literal translation and western sensibilities of meaning what you say ve clear analogy are not the same as traditional Islam.

I understand your point, but will maintain that Mohammad is the arbiter of who a 'real Moslem' is, just as Christ is the arbiter of who a 'real Christian' is. By extension, I consider it reasonable to suppose that those who most closely follow the teachings and example (which is far less subject to interpretation than words on a page) are the actual followers.