Civil discussion of ISIS from a religious point-of-view.

[Kutnupe14]

To All,

One of the issues that was brought up in a class I was taking is the tremendous overlap of "Arabic" culture over Islam. There are teachings of Islam that are ignored or watered down due to conflict with how a subset of Middle Eastern male culture with the entirety of Islamic teachings.

I believe that any religion can be used as an excuse to perform the most horrific atrocities. We need only look at Christian depravities during the crusades, or the witch hunts, or the catholic wars with protestant and Lutheran reformers.

It is easy for us today to say, "Well... They weren't real Christians." But that is a copout in my opinion. We are applying modern 21st century morality on a culture that is radically different in its viewpoint, but that doesn't make that culture "wrong."

Even in the 20th century the KKK would use the bible to justify demeaning treatment of blacks and any nonwhites, and within a certain segment of American culture their rhetoric seemed reasonable.

I believe the biggest hurdle with Islam is in their viewpoint the State derives all power from God, thus necessitating in one form or another a theocracy. Christianity acknowledges that the State does not need God to be credible. The only democratic country that seems to have successfully navigated this issue is Turkey, so it gives me hope that others can do so as well.

With ISIS you can see a group of disenfranchised people taking advantage of an extremely chaotic situation. It doesn't matter why Syria or Iraq are unstable, the simple fact that they are is enough to allow an opening for an organized and motivated group to shove its way in.

Regards,

Doug

NOW, it does... but for most of it's existence, it did not.

 

[Libertarian01]

NOW, it does... but for most of it's existence, it did not.

I acknowledge this and stand corrected.

This is part of how Christianity has evolved. In many ways Islam has remained isolated from world culture and progressive ideas. In the west we (well, most of us) just presume that women are equal to men and aren't meant to be kept barefoot and pregnant.

I believe this is part of the problem that Islam is facing today. Many Muslims in remote areas are having their faith challenged by an increasingly intruding western view. They are responding to such intrusion in the same manner and mentality of the Catholics by Martin Luthers proposed reforms. They are striking out violently.

That said, I still believe there is a large kernel of truth in the notion of Middle Eastern culture trying to use Islam to justify keeping the status quo.

Doug

 

[Trigger Time]

Our defining tenets were summarized in our Declaration of Independence. At what point did we choose to abandon them?

I think we should let ISIS do ISIS. I think we should let the Middle East kill themselves off. Why do we have to have skin in the game?

I don't know when we got so out of balance but I do know that now we are in it till we can assure future generations of Americans we have done everything for ours and their security. If this means reducing every country in the Middle East to rubble to assure they do not have nuclear weapons to use against us the so be it.

 

[24Carat]

I find it extremely difficult to give the so called Peaceful Islam a pass when there is effectively no outcry, much less admonishment, of the actions of ISIS by the Arab nations and the extended world wide Islamic community. As a tactic of war, it is not beyond imagination that Islam as a whole can sit back unmolested until their so called radical elements have effectively weakened the infidels. The air strikes conducted by so called moderate states can very well be nothing more than theater.

 

[ModernGunner]

Read the books for yourself (starting with the Qur'an and Hadith), the answers are contained within.

LOL, there's no 'interpretation'.

We'll leave it at that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I find it extremely difficult to give the so called Peaceful Islam a pass when there is effectively no outcry, much less admonishment, of the actions of ISIS by the Arab nations and the extended world wide Islamic community. As a tactic of war, it is not beyond imagination that Islam as a whole can sit back unmolested until their so called radical elements have effectively weakened the infidels. The air strikes conducted by so called moderate states can very well be nothing more than theater.

Huh? You obviously haven't looked at Muslim media. And it debatable that members of "Peaceful Islam," should even address ISIS as they see no kinship with them. Do you go around admonishing every person that commits a crime with a gun (solely because they used a gun), because you also have a gun?

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...uslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

 

[churchmouse]

 

[D-Ric902]

Why is it that whenever a discussion of Radical Islam is broached, half of it is Christian bashing

 

[PaulF]

Why is it that whenever a discussion of Radical Islam is broached, half of it is Christian bashing

Christians and Muslims both worship the god of Abraham. Over the course of history both groups have committed countless atrocities in the name of the god of Abraham. When telling the story some Christians like to gloss over this fact, and pretend it is only Islam that can find a violent message in the holy books of the god of Abraham.

That simply isnt true. Many of us who point this out are advocating for secular remedies.

 

[LP1]

Why is it that whenever a discussion of Radical Islam is broached, half of it is Christian bashing

Simple. Before so-called christians (and there's a lot of warped "christianity" being expressed here) try to claim moral superiority and condemn others for following their superstitions, they need to remember that countless atrocities have been (and continue to be) committed in the name of christianity.

It would be more productive to focus on our security here at home. We are never going to be able to use sufficient force to control the Middle East. A good start would be to wean ourselves from oil so that we don't bankroll them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Revisionist history? The Crusaders were a bunch of thugs, thieves, rapists, and murderers who justified their actions through religion.

Why is it that whenever a discussion of Radical Islam is broached, half of it is Christian bashing

Let's see...

First I would point out that the Crusades were started as a response to Islamic aggression involving doing these very same things to the inhabitants of Christendom. I am not going to argue that all the actions of the Crusaders were acceptable, but I get sick and tired of the revisionist history suggesting that the Crusaders just preemptively launched an orgy of death, destruction, and pillage because they got bored one morning when they had already walked the dog and didn't need to wash the windows. So far as I am concerned, this is no different than arguing that I have violated an armed home invader who just killed a family member by shooting him.

Second, I will grant you that neither the Church from the top down nor the believer on the street of the day may have been my idea of the best representatives of Christianity, but I will emphatically point out that NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER did Christ kill anyone for not believing or engage in acts of depravity against others, nor did He command or condone anyone else doing so in His name or otherwise. By contrast, Mohammad did so and commanded his followers to do likewise. Can you see a slight difference here when trying to sell the nonsensical assertion that the two are morally equal?

Third, addressing D-Ric902's excellent quesiton: I can see different explanations applying to different folks. First, the leftist/politically correct crowd cannot and will not accept the notion of American Exceptionalism. Just because we accomplished things never before done in world history, that doesn't mean we are special and more to the point makes us evil because we couldn't have succeeded without taking food out of the mouths of some third world peasant child for every electric appliance, every power tool, every automobile, every vacation, and every time we casually walk over to the refrigerator and grab a bite to eat--never mind the vast amount of charity we issue and the fact that there have been many times we sent food to the starving only to have it rot at the harbor because the local government refused to allow it to be distributed, or worse yet incidents like the locals giving it first to the rats they believed to be dead ancestors before giving it to people. Returning from that brief rant, the bottom line is that there are many among us who insist on taking the position that we, especially the traditionalists, constitutionalists, people who believe in the greatness of America, and people of faith, who the critics would put into the same basket in spite of the fact that we see proven on INGO among other places on a daily basis that not all of these people necessarily fit in that same basket, are practitioners of the same 'evil' they ascribe to the Crusaders and believe that we need to do just penance which in their minds seems to amount to deliberately tearing down the United States as the greatest nation on earth and make it merely middle of the road as one of many, and have elected a president hell-bent on doing exactly that. Personally, my heart longs for the day when people like that were tried, convicted, and executed.

I can also see where some people who do not subscribe to any faith are hostile to faith in general. ***While I am on this topic, I would like to take a moment to thank those regularly participating members who I know to be not of faith who handle our different perspectives with a great deal of respect, grace and kindness on the matter. Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness*** Back to the original point, those who are hostile are going to be hostile without any other consideration making it into the conversation. By extension, they are not going to make any distinction for the relative merits of any religion over the other regardless of the practical differences which apply to their lives (i.e., that the guy who spends all day chanting to the stack of rocks he worships is less harmful to him than the guy who kidnaps neighbors to cut their hearts out and sacrifice them to the statue he worships). In this person's reckoning, all are equal and receive equal hostility with the prioritization usually being based on the nearest target first, much in the same way that Iran would nuke Israel before us because of geography, not because of disliking them more than us.

Last but certainly not least I am satisfied that some people are psychologically incapable of dealing with the idea that a large portion of the world's population wants us dead as a matter of religious mandate. Accepting such a thing would be like reliving the horrifying monster under the bed from childhood, only it doesn't go away with a little help from dad and the flashlight, and maybe some milk and cookies. My own perspective is that if the jihad comes anywhere near me, that's what I own guns for. I may not end up winning, but they ARE going to work for it. I do not consider denial of the reality to constitute an acceptable defense although plenty of others apparently do.

 

[KG1]

Lets get real here. Preaching moral equivalency will not put an end to the current ISIS onslaught on their march toward a global caliphate.

 

[D-Ric902]

NOW, it does... but for most of it's existence, it did not.

Anything more recent than the 15th century?

and what does it have to do with a discussion of Islam and ISIS?
the Inquisition wasn't on YouTube, that doesn't mean it didn't happen but are we still mad about it?
There is no moral equivalence between now and the Middle Ages. Been a lot​ of progress since then.

getting back to the original topic. I don't think Islam has much to do with ISIS, but ISIS has a lot to do with Islam.

 

[KG1]

Anything more recent than the 15th century?

and what does it have to do with a discussion of Islam and ISIS?
the Inquisition wasn't on YouTube, that doesn't mean it didn't happen but are we still mad about it?
There is no moral equivalence between now and the Middle Ages. Been a lot​ of progress since then.

getting back to the original topic. I don't think Islam has much to do with ISIS, but ISIS has a lot to do with Islam.

Don't you know that we must first speak out against the Crusades like they just happened last month before we can discuss the current global scourge?

 

[D-Ric902]

Don't you know that we must first speak out against the Crusades like they just happened last month before we can discuss the current global scourge?

Oh, I see (V-8 forehead smack)
temporal displacement

so if we fight ISIS now, will they catch up and be outraged in.........2450, 2500. I'm Ok with that.

 

[ModernGunner]

Don't you know that we must first speak out against the Crusades like they just happened last month before we can discuss the current global scourge?

Unfathomably, some do. Presumably, because it's all they have.

 

[D-Ric902]

Unfathomably, some do. Presumably, because it's all they have.

if the best they can come up with is that we were mean a few hundred years ago, we must be doing all right

 

[BugI02]

I think we should let ISIS do ISIS. I think we should let the Middle East kill themselves off. Why do we have to have skin in the game?

OIL

 

[KG1]

if the best they can come up with is that we were mean a few hundred years ago, we must be doing all right

It just gets my goat when the moral equivalency card is played. "Well so and so did this...". Well yeah that was bad too but we're talking about this current topic. It's a ploy to avoid establishing a current position that can be debated. "Hey look over there...It's an evil Crusader from the middle ages!! Let's debate that!!

 

[BugI02]

Yep. People would like us to feel guilty for using atomic weapons to defeat an entrenched fanatical regime bent on world domination. Hmmmmm