Third Party & Independents: Archives

You are wasting your time. It is just too convenient for Islam to be the “Evil Religion”. Think of the Sermons the Evangelicals can make out of it. Think of all the Speeches Republicans can screech. Do they WANT to know about Islam? Ofcourse now. That would ruin their Fantasy World. Think of all the adherents they would lose if they started sounding like Liberals. You know, like the Think First Before Going to War Liberal Philosophy?

Posted by: Aldous at August 6, 2005 12:24 AM

Aldous, I never feel I am wasting my time. Even if every single person that posts a response here tells me I am wrong? I know numerous people read this and some do agree. They may not have the courage to post it, but I am not alone.

So, I write with the knowledge that there are those that read this and shake their heads in agreement or those who decide they are curious and need to search out more. If only one person out of the many that reads this decides they are going to do ask I suggest?

It was worth it.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 6, 2005 12:28 AM

Lisa Renee,

Thank you for this post. I don’t think you’re wasting your time at all. Know that you have at least two people (me and my husband) who support your statements and spread a similiar message as often as we can. We have both read the Koran, as well as other informative works that teach about the Islamic faith and its followers. Not to mention, our contact with actual Muslims (who BTW do speak out against terrorists who call themselves Muslims). We have also read the Bible in various forms, the Book of Mormon, the Gita, the Tao Te Ching and other religious works. While there are many things in the Koran that I don’t agree with, I’m also prepared to take into account what the living conditions surrounding Mohammed were BEFORE his experience. There are many similiarities between these two religions, as there are significant differences. Blaming terrorism on Islam seems quite absurd if you are familiar with the religion.

Terrorism is not an act of Islam. Terrorism is not universal within Islam. Nor is terrorism exclusive to Islam. The use of terrorizing tactics pre-dates Islam.

If you have any doubts about this, please do as Lisa Renee suggested and read the book, study the culture, talk to the people. Judging the many by the actions of the few is an ugly, ugly habit that destroys your crediblity with those who know better.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 6, 2005 01:07 AM

Stephanie, thank you. I know we do not agree on all points but I really appreciate your comments here on this thread. It demonstrates there are those of us no matter the political differences that are willing to take the time to actually learn the truth rather than what we are told.

You encourage my feeling of hope that we can get beyond the political labels we assign ourselves and support a common ground on some issues.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 6, 2005 01:51 AM

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Posted by: Perplexed at August 6, 2005 08:56 AM

Sorry:
There are topics that provoke involvement & there are others that do not. Religion is a topic that everyone loves to talk about. I believe there will be more bashing of the bible & Christianity on this post than discussion, I will be out of the loop for a week or so & I only wish I could see where this one goes.

To add my 2 cents, for what it is worth. Many religious books have been written & the writers of those books died. The difference between religious books & the bible is the fact that Christ is still alive. Men wrote the bible as God inspired them. The bible has been attacked by the greatest minds in history & has never been found to contradict itself. The writings of other religions cannot stand the test.

There is a key to understanding the bible & it is found in I Cor. 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.”

That means only a person who has the Spirit of God within him can understand the words, because they are spiritually understood. To an unbeliever, the bible is either foolishness or nothing more than a history book.

There are thousands of religious right or evangelicals who believe this. Are they all idiots, as the left would say.

It is true, millions died throughout the ages at the hand of those bearing the cross. But, there were also thousands of Christians by many names, who were not part of any organized religion, & they were peaceful people & never harmed anyone. I wish I had time to talk of them.

Anyway, these are my thoughts.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 6, 2005 08:57 AM

“The bible has been attacked by the greatest minds in history & has never been found to contradict itself.”

I’m sorry i don’t want to engage in the “christianity bashing” that you talked about however saying the bible has no contradictions is just plain incorrect.

heres a websites on contradictions

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

“There is a key to understanding the bible & it is found in I Cor. 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.”

That means only a person who has the Spirit of God within him can understand the words, because they are spiritually understood. To an unbeliever, the bible is either foolishness or nothing more than a history book”

well that explains everything. you are using bible verse to prove other bible verses are not contradictory

Posted by: Voice of Reason at August 6, 2005 09:12 AM

the fact that Christ is still alive

Interesting interpretation of the word “fact”.

To a Muslim, it’s a “fact” that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.

To a Jew, it’s a “fact” that the Messiah has yet to come.

etc.

Essentially, Perplexed just said that the difference between what he believes and what others believe is that he is right. Quite a tautology.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 6, 2005 10:11 AM

Once you stop smoking what ever it is you are smoking then maybe you can read the Koran again. I live in a country with a VERY large Muslum population. I wake up at 5:15 am to the call to prayer. For some ignorant fool in the U.S. to propose to me that Islam is a religion of peace is idiotic, and totally uninformed. Unless you are living in a closet in California you might like to know that Islam has been killing people in the name of Allah since A.D. 622. The more orthodox a Christian becomes the more he would seek to emulate the Prince of Peace. The more orthodox a Muslum becomes the more infidels he will want to kill. Oh, by the way, unless you are a Muslum you are an infidel.

The Professor
8)

Posted by: The Professor at August 6, 2005 11:17 AM

I disagree with you Professor but I’m not going to respond back with insults as to what you might be smoking.

I’ve read three different English translations of the Koran as well as knowing several who follow the religion of Islam that have never expressed a desire to kill the infidel me. This is something I have done a great deal of research and reading on not just some thought I had on a whim.

I also hope that this thread doesn’t become about bashing either religion. It is human nature to believe that whatever belief you have is the “right” one else you would not follow it. As a Catholic we are taught that our faith is the one true faith. Interestingly most religions believe that as well. Yet they all share the most basic principal A supreme maker.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 6, 2005 12:14 PM

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See His banner go!

Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 6, 2005 12:31 PM

Wasn’t Timothy McViegh a muslim?

oh… wait…

Posted by: Joe Stewart at August 6, 2005 01:22 PM

1) Christians and Muslims can and do co-exist peaceably and work together for common goals, because they are more similiar than the extremists from either religion would have us believe.

2) Islam = Terrorism is a fallacy

That’s what I got from Lisa Renee’s post. Whether Christianity is true, or whether Islam is true, is irrelevant and merely a matter of opinion (for the sake of debate). The fact that people in general can give others so little room to have a differing opinion on the matter of God is what the problem is, not which faith you follow. If the Islamic Jihadists could honestly believe that everyone had the right (given by God, not by government) to choose their own religion, then they wouldn’t feel the need to try and force their twisted brand of Islam down the throats of all the infidels (i.e. anyone who is not directly a part of their cause regardless of their religious affiliations).

Posted by: Stephanie at August 6, 2005 02:06 PM

Professor,

There is something you don’t seem to understand. Islam according to the Koran and Islam-in-practice can be two very different things. Muslims today don’t just have the Koran to determine what their religion means. There have been hundreds of years with many different religious leaders that have changed the tenets of the religion to reflect A) the differing needs of the people and/or B) their own personal ambitions.

That is why Islam is so fractured and is at war with its own as often (or nearly so) as it is at war with people of other faiths.

Christianity has had the same type of influence, as has Judaism.

For example: Neither Judaism, Christianity nor Islam was prepared at their foundations for the prevalence of pornography in the contemporary world. Religious leaders of each of these faiths have studied their different texts and come to the conclusion that, as per the teachings of their faiths, pornography is evil and should be avoided. Yet, in none of the originals texts could you possibly find the statement
“Pornography is evil and should be avoided.”

Most people of these different faiths feel that their religions really do exclude the use of pornography as a proper sexual stimulant (which doesn’t mean they don’t use pornography). This is considered by most adherents of these faiths to be a proper use of religious authority.

However, people being what they are, not all uses of religious authority are going to be good. People will involve themselves with religious organizations to gain power for themselves (not out of love for their God) and will pervert the religion to their own benefit should they gain the power to do so. Does that mean the religion itself is bad?

I don’t believe so, because that would exclude every religion. For those of you who are atheists or agnostics, it would also exclude every other belief system including political parties and science. Human nature being what it is, everything we can believe in would be invalidated because anything can be corrupted.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 6, 2005 02:34 PM

This site is very good to get a handle on who’s caused the deaths of the 20th century. I particularly like the quote:

Well, what can you say about a century that begins and ends with killing in Sarajevo? “Good riddance” springs to mind. Somewhere around 180 million people have been killed in one Twentieth Century atrocity or another — a far larger total than for any other century in human history.

I don’t think any nation or religion has their hands clean.

Posted by: Paul at August 6, 2005 02:40 PM

Thank you Paul, I hadn’t seen that site before. It has alot more information than some of the similar topic ones I have seen.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 6, 2005 03:00 PM

lisa renee,

Congrats on an interesting post.

I think that Blaise Pascal summed it up best in 1670 when he said,

“Men never do evil so completely and so cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

The problem isn’t Islam or Chrisianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhaism, it’s theocracy.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 6, 2005 03:10 PM

The issue at hand is what cultural issues cause violence, correct? Does one religion, compared to the other, incite more violence? Or does violence have more to do with the society than the religion?

All I know is to make the constant America. In America, we have a variety of individuals, some more violent than others. Of individuals wee consider truly “americanized”, the religion most used to justify violence has been christianity (abortion center bombings, killing of gay people, the KKK and its bible thumping, etc.) I know of quite a few Christian militant churches here, but not any organized Jewish or Muslim militant synagogues or mosques. And when I was on campus, it was always the raving Christian preachers who were chasing down girls in short skirts and demanding they submit to the will of God or burn in the eternal fires of damnation.

I think, however, that this is due to the fact that the majority of the American population is Christian, and so, when someone becomes a moral militant, they are more likely to use the Christian religion to justify their actions. (Not because I think Christianity is more or less prone to violence than Juadiasm or Islam.)

I think it is more likely that you will find a disenfranchised group of Christians here who feel that their personal values are under persecution, and that they will fight their disenfranchisement through the manipulation of the word of God. Before 9/11, I would say that the individuals who felt that their beliefs and morality were most persecuted in the United States were Christians. I think that Muslim and Jewish americans certainly felt persecuted culturally, but I’m not so certain that they felt that their morality was being attacked (as strongly as some Christians do).

For instance, I think there are individuals who feel strongly that they are being persecuted because the ten commandments are being banned from the courthouse, and because abortion doctors commit abortions. The institution of American “has it out for them.” Whereas the average Muslim or Jewish person doesn’t feel like their religious beliefs are being targeted on the political or institutional stage. I would think their persecution worries would focus on whether or not their indvidual neighbors are bigots.

In Pakistan, I believe the opposite is true. The moral militants are Muslim, and they feel their government is “out to get them.” Why can’t they impose Sharia law? Shari’a law is being denied them! The Christians and the Jews (and Hindus), who are in the minority, are more worried about their nieghbors killing them, than religious persecution by the state.

At least, if I was in Pakistan, that’s how I would feel.

Of course, there are plenty of examples of the minority becoming morally militant. But I think you often see that when it IS the state that is actively persecuting their religious morality.

Anyway, it’s just to say that, when I look at the example of America, it makes me think it has more to do with the structure of society, than which religious book a person ascribes to.

Posted by: Julia at August 6, 2005 04:26 PM

This is a very important subject. Cross-cultural communication between the east and west, and the planet’s two largest religions, are critical. Both sensitivity to the importance of (and Ignorance of the teaching of) both Christianity and Islam are evident in this thread.

I might offer the following Iraqi bulletin board, Baghdadee as a place where you might be able to overhear and involve yourself in discussions that will help this along. Two discussions I have been involved in may help: Why Muslims are not free to interpret Koran? and التقليد لدى الشيعة.

Also, I started a discussion thread, Christian confusion about Islam / Similiarities between Christianity and Islam based on this post and some of the comments.

There is plenty of all Arabic discussion; and plenty of English discussion if you are interested.

Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 6, 2005 05:14 PM

Lisa Renee:

I was very happy to read your post. Even though you are Catholic, you see both the violence and the love in your religion as well as in Islam and other religions.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Allow me to quote from my book, WE DON’T AGREE, BUT… How to Live in an Age of Terrorism:

“The major message in all 3 religions is the need for love, compassion, kindness and tolerance.

The story is told about a man who came to Rabbi Hillel and asked him to teach him Judaism while he stood on 1 foot. Rabbi Hillel replied:

‘Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t have them do unto you.’

A scribe asked Jesus which is the first commandment. Jesus replied the first commandement was to love God, and the second commandment was:

‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’

The Prophet Muhammad of Islam said:

‘None of you can be a believer unless he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.’

Muslims believe in Jihad. Jihad means struggle. The most important struggle is not to fight over religion, but to attempt to become a better person, one filled with love and campassion for other people.

One of the 5 pillars of Islam - the main tenets of the faith - is Zakat, or charity. Every member of the faith must give alms to the poor. This is a required tithe, or tax.”

Sure there are nasty, violent statements in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions. Let’s focus on the good. Let’s focus on the parts that call for love.

Again, Lisa, terrific post.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 6, 2005 05:26 PM

as an agnostic, ive always gone by the belief that GOD is way too big of a concept for my brain to comprehend, and feel that religion is basically just politics for people who use god to push their own particular agenda.

some people speak of a great moment of realization, when the lord speaks to them or what not. i have never experienced this, so until i do, i am going to continue believing what i should do is try to be a good person, teach my children to treat others with respect, live life honorably and with good manners, and work hard to achieve their dreams. if i go to hell because i don’t believe in a particular dogma over how i lived my life, well, then i guess that is my fate.

but i know several catholics who are absolute douchebags six days a week, and on the seventh day they eat a cracker and are redeemed to go on being a douchebag again…

it doesn’t make much sense.

it’s in the living folks.

as for all the tension and hatred between christians, and , well, everyone else…it is a far easier thing to hate your neighbor than love thy neighbor. and, this is just my opinion of course, if you believe one way and your neighbor believe’s another way, if you tell them that they are wrong and going to go to hell unless they find jesus…that’s condemnation…that’s hatred of another person. let them live their life…and you live yours.

i was reading a post the other night, and a person who called themselves a “christian” was yelling at this liberal blogger and said to this liberal, “When I am in heaven and you are burning in Hell, I pray that the Lord will allow me to come down to hell and tell you that I prayed that you be forgiven, and that you can now come up to heaven, and then just as you are about to leave the eternal hell fires, I will laugh and say i was only kidding!”

it’s people like that who are giving christians a bad name.

alright…thats enough for now…

Posted by: views at August 6, 2005 05:45 PM

Hi All:
“Unless you are living in a closet in California you might like to know that Islam has been killing people in the name of Allah since A.D. 622. The more orthodox a Christian becomes the more he would seek to emulate the Prince of Peace. The more orthodox a Muslum becomes the more infidels he will want to kill. Oh, by the way, unless you are a Muslum you are an infidel.

The Professor

Posted by: The Professor at August 6, 2005 11:17 AM”

Nice points professor:

So is this what you are saying: Christians have a 622 year head start on the Muslims? Perfecting the art of killing in The Name OF CHRIST! Just yesterday I had to shoo away the jesus freaks from my doorstep, I have NEVER ONCE been Accosted by Muslims. I Live in Los Angeles, California. But I have been ACCOSTED by the JESUS FREAKS, WHAT GIVES? Oh your statement:

“The more orthodox a Christian becomes the more he would seek to emulate the Prince of Peace. The more orthodox a Muslum becomes the more infidels he will want to kill.Oh, by the way, unless you are a Muslum you are an infidel.”

Why is it that if we accuse each other of not being “Christian” if we go to different churches. The last 20+ odd years going to church has become a business. I grew up just outside of NYC and my town of 21,000 was served by a Catholic, An Episcapol, Lutheran and Presbeterian churches and also A Jewish Synagogue. 5 Total houses of worship. 1985, I go into the Army, and decide to make it a career, fast forward 1999, I return from 10 years overseas and am stationed in the south. The town that I finally decide to reside in has 17,000 people and 77 Churches. I did not get it. Why could 5 Churches including a Temple suit the needs of 21,000 people and only a few years later, and several states in between the town I reside in needs 77 churches over half of those some offshoot of the Baptist Church. I retired to LA this year and was immediately assaulted by CHRISTIANS, doing christs work. Telling me I am not a Christian, and will go to hell if I do not join their church usually Methodists accusing me a Presbeterian of not being a Christian, Same thing that happened to me in the south only a few years before. I don’t get it What’s up with that?

If You say that the older a “Christian” gets the more Christ-Like he becomes I’d say you are dead wrong, just more Closed Minded, Bull-Headed, and defiant. Same can be said about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindis Or Whatever you worship.

Just Answering your post

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at August 6, 2005 06:18 PM

This thread strikes me as another attempt by people to defend Islam and point out the problems with Christianity. Somehow, this logic leads to the assumption that despite that fact it was militant Islam that preached it was divine for young men to strap explosives on themselves, enter a subway, and pray to Allah as them detonate the explosives, we Jew and Christians should not castigate nor feel anger to Islam.
While I have many problems with this line of thought, the biggest problem is it allows Islam and many Muslims to deny accountability.
To many Islam may be a religion of peace, but it is not a coincidence that many young men are committing atrocities in its name every day. The Professor was dead on when stated that unless you were a Muslim, you were an infidel. Infidels are not worthy of humanity. If you doubt this, read the confession of Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. At the court, Mohammed said he felt no guilt nor any compassion to the family of the victim, since Van Gogh and his relatives were infidels. Do you doubt that Mohammed Atta would feel different if he could have survived the impact?
Do not deceive yourselves that it is a battle of Islam vs. Christianity. It is our Western values they denounce. Many of our core beliefs, democracy, separation of church and state, equality in the eyes of law of sexes, and freedom of religion are repugnant to Islam. Islam is a threat to our Western way of life. I wish it were not so, but unless many Muslim take firm stand and deny this evil, we must fight it and denounce it for the evil it preaches.

Posted by: Thucydides at August 6, 2005 10:11 PM

Muslims do speak out against the terrorists. Granted, they may not be as many as we’d like, but they are there. However, they do not get the kind of press that the terrorists do. Nor can they command the kind of press that the Pope (for example) can to disavow affiliation with a Catholic who acts against the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Some of these Muslims live under governments where such expressions are being oppressed. Some live in places where their lives would be endangered by speaking out, and not by the majority but by the powerful minority.

For an example of a Muslim speaking out against the acts of terrorism as best she can go here.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 7, 2005 12:24 AM

Thucydides, I beg to differ, my point is not to defend Islam or those who are extremists but to point out that the history of both islam and christianity have similar ties. There will always be those who try to use bloodshed and fear but that does not condemn all of us.

My religion as an example is responsible for the deaths of many however does that forever condemn me because of acts the Catholic Church did? To blame all of Islam for the acts of those who are not just killing the supposed infidels but other muslims to me is wrong. It creates more hatred, more misunderstanding and in the end does not facilitate an end to extremism. If I were a muslim with some of the pure hatred I see thrown at their religion? I would not step forward to side with those who are slamming my religion. If we truly want islam to deal with these extremists we have to first acknolwedge it is not their faith that is to blame. It is individuals. Individuals who are twisting their faith.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 7, 2005 12:43 AM

Very wise, and well said lisa renee. I agree entirely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2005 08:44 AM

Lisa,
Please cite an example of a Bishop or a Pope stating it was the duty of the faithful to kill followers of another faith in that century? Or many times has Jerry Fallwell demanded this his followers murder the editor of Hustler for their slurs on his religion?
Islam is guilty of both of these acts (and the murder of Theo Van Gogh is an example of what may happen to Salaman Rushdie). Many Muslims may shrug these acts of small party of extremists, but it is the extremists who dominate the pulpit. Recently, the Wall Street Journal has written a series of articles about Islam and Western Europe. One of the main thrusts of the article is that many of imams at the mosques are in fact extremists. Consider this, the biggest mosque in Germany has being given support to Hamas for decades and that many of the 9/11 plotters attended this mosque. Another point is that these Imams refuse to adapt to the laws of the country they reside. As an example, once a man states he wants to divorce his wife three times, Islam consider the divorce binding. The fact that it is contrary to family law in the country was irrelevant, since Islamic law is the law in their eyes.
Again, this is not a problem of individuals, this is widespread practice. Islam does not respect Western values, except when it comes to using them to ‘defend the rights as another column illustrates. To deny that Islam bears responsibility is to ignore the threat.

Posted by: Thuycdides at August 7, 2005 11:00 AM

Thucydidies said: “Islam is guilty of both of these acts”

WRONG! Individuals who lay claim to Islam as their religion are guilty of both of those acts, NOT Islamic religion. There is a sub-culture in America that praises and donate money and gifts to the shooters and bombers in prison today for killing and blowing up Abortion clinics, and they are Christians. Their acts and beliefs are not an indictment of Christianity anymore than Fundamentalist Terrorists are indictment of Islam.

Your logic simply does not hold up to anykind of consistency test.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2005 12:07 PM

Thuycdides,

How about pogroms? “…The mob was led by priests…” More here:

The new czar, Alexander III, blamed the Jews for the riots and issued a series of harsh restrictions on Jewish movements, but large numbers of pogroms continued until 1884, with at least tacit government knowledge.

In case you complain that they were state-led and not church-led, the Tsar was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, so this was the equivalent to a command by a Pope.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2005 12:15 PM

Does Islam equals terrorism? I don’t know. Many inside and outside the Islamic community seem to agree. Many don’t. But religion and faith are not the same. Faith is a belief – Do This, Get That. Religion is a set of rules and procedures – Do This and your faith will reward you.

Islam lacks controversy on the religious interpretations of the Koran: the silent majority is voiceless. Judaism had five thousand years of arguments, Christianity two thousand, but Islam seemed to get stuck in a millennium old debate (Sunnis versus Shiites) instead of trying to deal with modern values such as tolerance, openness, and democracy.

Reality shows that Islam cannot continue to ignore those values most people want in their faith. There are those who proclaim that Islam and democracy are incompatible. But there are large Muslim communities in India and Malaysia who live quite happily with democracy. Since September 11, 2001, the Arab press (see memri.org) started to show a whisper of a debate that was not there before. Not me, not you, not President Bush, or anyone else except the Arab World itself can challenge the notion that Jihad is the preferred way of life. We can add salt and water, and stir the pot, but only those who believe in a faith can challenge it, and change it

Posted by: Ronny Max at August 7, 2005 01:12 PM

Ronny Max said: “Islam lacks controversy on the religious interpretations of the Koran:”

Really? Then why the dozens of different Muslim sects? Research it, you will find there are very differing interpretations of the Quran by differing sects just as in Christianity. They too have their fundamentalists, moderates, upper class and lower class interpretations just like any major religion. The same Upanishads give rise to the Brahman sects of Hinduism as to the lower class sects which view the teachings very differently on some basic issues.

This is precisely why I believe comparative relgion should be taught in High Schools. Ignorance knows no bounds when it comes to awareness of other religions, and having taken the course, I must be the first to state, I am still very ignorant of all the facets of the major religions, but, far more aware than those who have not taken up such study.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2005 01:33 PM

Thuycdides, Pope Gregory, Constantine, Flavius Theodosius, Cyril (a Bishop), Pope Urban II, Pope Innocent III, and I could continue. All of these men ordered or supported the killing of non-believers.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 7, 2005 01:42 PM

It’s best to leave religion out of it.
Beware of those that blame religion, because it is really an attempt to blame a people.

What is religion if there are no people?
Religions are not the problem.
Religions are often the victims too, used and abused by some people, who are the true problem.
Religions, guns, the Bible, the Qu’ran, etc. don’t harm people.
Some people harm people.
And, not people of any particular religion, race, color, etc.

Why do we too often search for the root of a problem, and often only see the things (religion, race, wealth, gender, etc.) used and abused by some people ?
Because it makes it easier to target the cause?
Because it’s more difficult to find the truly guilty?
It’s a clever tactic, and it works, which is why it is continually used and abused.
Because, as pointed about above, it pits people (of different religions, race, etc.) against each other, cleverly creates a larger conflict, distracts everyone from the true problem.

However, even for anyone that still thinks it’s a problem with a religion, consider the pragmatic reasons for not bringing religion into the conflict:

(1) blame religion, and we (on all sides) will be helping the extrimists and terrorists;
(2) blame religion, and it will grow opposition, mistrust, and hatred between people of different religions;
(3) blame religion, and we will lose the much needed support and understanding of the moderates on all sides; some on all sides will fear they are being targeted due to their religion and may perceive a growing crusade against them;
(4) blame religion, and it will distract moderates on all sides from the real problem, which are the criminals that are simply using religions to escalate the conflict;

Many have probably been guilty of something similar at some time or another. Some kind of prejudice. I have recently: bashing lawyers. That’s unfair to the good lawyers. Similarly, it’s unfair to condemn all people of a particular faith.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2005 01:46 PM

faith - noun

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance; keeping faith with one’s supporters
4. Often FAITH Christianity Theological virtue defined as secure belief in GOD and a trusting acceptance of GOD’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion. the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

source www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

It continues to amaze me not that people continue to discuss various religions, beliefs, similarities in religions, etc. and fail to realized that in a faith based belief/understanding there cannot be a clear position of truth or fact except by faith in one’s chosen religion.

Posted by: steve smith at August 7, 2005 03:10 PM

Steve,

Just because something is based on faith doesn’t make it invalid. Many things in our lives are based on faith. People have faith in modern medicine. People use it, and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. It is more likely to work for those who believe it will. Does that make modern medicine invalid? I don’t think so. I have faith that our government is more inclined to benefit me than to screw me over. That’s based on faith. I could give plenty of “proofs” for or against that using different people as examples. Is my support for my country invalidated because it’s based on faith? I don’t think so. Faith is very important to a lot of people in many aspects of their lives. Religion is only one of them.

People act of faith. That makes it important. But condemning an entire belief system, because there are some who have twisted it to mean something it was never intended to mean, is irrational. Condemning every belief system because it relies on faith will leave your life pretty empty if you honestly assess what it is you have faith in, versus what you can “prove” that cannot be disproven.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 7, 2005 04:09 PM

Stephanie,

You missed my point. If I was too vague I am sorry.

My point is that people will argue vociferously that one religion is right and the other is wrong. They will say that facts and the way they interpret the books that support their beliefs (Koran, Bible, etc.) make them right and you wrong.

What I am saying simply is that if you or I believe strongly in something that we feel is supported by our religious beliefs, then that faith we each have will not allow us to change our opinion.

Personally I think that anything I believe in where faith directs me to that belief is true. MY faith and belief is the validation.

Posted by: steve smith at August 7, 2005 04:57 PM

Not just here on Watch Blog, but on a regular basis we are told how Islam is the religion of blodshed, jihad and murder while Christianity is the religion of peace, forgiveness and love.

Am I the only person on this website that hasn’t been told this? Some of you need to reconsider who you choose to associate with if this is the kind of drivel that comes out of their mouths.

Posted by: Brian at August 7, 2005 05:05 PM

People have faith in modern medicine. People use it, and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. It is more likely to work for those who believe it will.

The success rate of modern medicines is based on scientific data and body chemistry, not faith. The only time “faith” comes into play is if you are given sugar pills and your disease is actually a mental complex. Just thought I’d clear that up.

Posted by: Brian at August 7, 2005 05:14 PM

Steve said:

What I am saying simply is that if you or I believe strongly in something that we feel is supported by our religious beliefs, then that faith we each have will not allow us to change our opinion.

While I agree with that to a certain extent (faithful people are converted to other faiths on a regular basis, so I don’t agree completely), the idea that people can’t learn to say and believe “You know, I believe this and though you don’t agree with me I like you anyway” is something I don’t agree with. People can learn this, people can disagree agreeably. People can co-exist peacably who work off of different belief systems. Whether you do this or whether you persecute others is a learned behavior.

By claiming that “Islam is the problem” not “Some people who practice a certain disagreeable version of Islam is the problem” people are just perpetuating the belief and the behavior of disharmonious co-existence. And that is something I have a big problem with.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 7, 2005 05:35 PM

Brian,

The scientific community has proven that Ridalin helps children with ADHD. It has also proven that it doesn’t. It has also proven that it causes severe brain damage and possibly death. Despite the risks of taking Ridalin, parents still allow their child to be prescribed the drug because the believe 1) it will help their child and 2) it won’t hurt him/her, despite the evidence that indicates that both assumptions could be false. That’s just one of the many examples I could site.

Especially in the medical profession, scientists’ proof relies heavily on who is paying the scientists and what they want to prove. The fact that many of the drugs we have on the market are unsafe in ways consumers don’t even know about (despite some of the risks being printed in really fine print within the packaging) is why I say its use is based on belief. If everyone understood the risks they were taking, many would choose not to take the risks when less risky options are available.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 7, 2005 05:43 PM

I just posted this on another thread, but it is equally applicable here. Yet another site that proves Muslims are speaking out against terrorism.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 7, 2005 07:09 PM

Thuycdides:

“…Or many times has Jerry Fallwell demanded this his followers murder the editor of Hustler for their slurs on his religion?
Posted by: Thuycdides at August 7, 2005 11:00 AM”

Thuycdides, Jerry Fallwell Was an evangilist of the worst order…Television. Still after all these years I can’t find anything to get them off of my set. That’s another story altogether. Cut and paste the following URL into your browser it will take you to the ad parody that started it all.

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-conflicts/print/falwell.html

As you can see, the ad never mentions slurs to any religion, justs Parodies someone who happened to not like it. Oh well get on with it, just goes to prove, if you don’t like something, don’t read it, watch it, or listen to it.

Just passing gas,
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at August 7, 2005 07:55 PM

Lisa,

I think your post is a little off center here. Rather than pitting Islam against Christianity, why not compare apples to apples?

You cannot deny that there is a sizable percentage of muslims who have adopted a version of Islam that has remarkable similarities to the KKK, neo-nazi skinheads, or other rascist groups.

The evidence details how his group, the Saviour Sect, preaches a racist creed of Muslim supremacy which, in the words of Bakri, aims at one day flying the Islamic flag over Downing Street.

In his two months with the sect, our reporter witnessed a gang of Bakri’s followers brutally beating up a Muslim who challenged their views. He listened as a succession of ‘religious leaders’ ridiculed moderate Muslims and repeatedly justified war against the ‘kuffar’ non-Muslims.

He discovered that the core of the group consisted of about 40 young men guided by a handful of spiritual mentors. Many are of Bangladeshi origin, jobless and living in council flats in east London. They use aliases, taking the names of the prophet Muhammad’s companions.

At their meetings which often included school-age teenagers they were fed a constant diet of propaganda warning that the kuffar are out to destroy them.

Integration with British society is scorned, as is any form of democratic process. Followers are encouraged to exploit the benefits system. They avoid jobs which could bring them into contact with western women or might lead them to contribute to the economy of a nation they are taught to despise.

In regular lectures and sermons it is instilled into them that Islam is a religion of violence. While publicly they did not defend the London attacks, they speak differently in private.

Bakri, who faces possible deportation with the introduction of new terror laws announced by Tony Blair on Friday, was taped saying that he had been ‘very happy’ since the July 7 London bombings, which killed 52 people. After the second attacks, he described the bombers as the ‘fantastic four’.

Islam itself, as a religion, is no more a religion of peace or war than any other religion. (I’m defining religion here as primarily a man-made construct.) For instance, I wouldn’t put the Inquisition on my list of things God directed men to do.

I liken the war on terror to a war on the KKK, or Christian Identity groups. I wouldn’t defend Christianity, in the midst of the KKK killing people and calling for the killing of people, by saying Islam is just as bad.

In the 1990s, Identity criminal activity continued apace, including efforts by an Oklahoma Identity minister, Willie Ray Lampley, to commit a series of bombings in the summer of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. The following year, the Montana Freemen, whose leaders were Identity, made headlines for their “paper terrorism” tactics and their 81-day standoff with the federal government. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who had been associated with Identity ministers such as Nord Davis and Dan Gayman, became a fugitive after allegedly bombing gay bars, the Atlanta Summer Olympics, and an abortion clinic. The following year, Buford Furrow, a former Aryan Nations security guard, went on a shooting spree at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, wounding four children and an adult, and later killing a Filipino-American postal worker. adl

So, what’s the point of saying the Bible and the Koran is the same? It’s almost a tacit admission of how difficult it is to defend Islam at this point in time. Just as it would be difficult to defend christianity if the Inquisition were going on today, or if the Christian Identity Movement were in fact the mainstream of Christianity.

So why has it been so hard for Muslims to take a stand against terrorism? The few public statements we hear are almost always followed by caveats and excuses. Many will not speak out for fear. Many are in fact caught in a cultural evironment where they are surrounded by it and accept it, as in the south with the KKK.

I think the difference is that the influence of the terrorists is formidable in the middle east. How long did it take to eradicate the KKK in the US? …Unfortunately there still is a KKK. There still are people like the World Church of the Creator. Please note that both Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph had some affiliation with the Christian Identity Movement.

The Christian Identity Movement is often called a right wing christian movement. In actuality they are fairly ‘unchristian’. The same could be said about Al Qeada and those who are sympathetic to it. They claim to be the ‘true faith’, yet are fairly ‘unmuslim’.

So the real question is, does Islam -today- have a huge problem? Mein Kampf is selling very well in the middle east.

Posted by: ericsimonson at August 8, 2005 05:41 AM

I am not an expert nor do I have a great deal of specific knowledge on the religions of the world.
I am a Christian by faith and belief and do recognize inconsistencies in it’s teachings as there are in most other religions.

I have two major observations regarding Islam and Christianity.

1. Islam, even with it’s similarities to Christianity appears to be more of a “culture/lifestyle” with direct ties to political and penal regulations.

2. Several years ago (maybe more than several) it became very fashionable for people in this country to convert to Islam. I believe people took advantage of converting to Islam in pursuit of publicity, personal gain, etc.

Posted by: steve smith at August 8, 2005 09:48 AM

Lisa (All),

Christianity and Islam are the exact same thing there arn’t similarities. They are the exact same thing. They both are taught as the truth and the word of god. Both believe they are the only correct religion. Both encourage you to become small minded and recruit souls for their cause these suble differences are just that, subtle. A name here, a place there, and a couple of words switched around. Look at the world overall billions of people all trying to control everyone else and religion is usually their guilde. Thousands of people are mislead everyday and taken down the wrong path, that path being one of religion. What are you willing to die for? Money, power, status, or your faith? Faith seems to be winning? Why? Because, the promise of the afterlife is far greater than this life. A whole people willing to die for their cause and the possibility of controlling the world. Admit it the only reason there is a conflict is a difference of opinion. What does religion always suggest? Everyone that is different is wrong and will be punished in the end. IS this really the idea we want to push onto our very impressionable youth? Why do the KKK blow people up why do abortion clinic dr.s get killed and why do we go to war? Religion and the idea that one is greater than another. Why can’t we just teach our youth to accept everyone and not judge? What if the mistakes of our past were lost in our youth instead of handing them down to burden society for longer. Who is better than who? In America we realized all are created eaqually but, we never accepted that we are all distroyed eaqually as well.

We are all discussing ideas that encourage discrimination and hate so why continue to feed the hate machine. If christianity preachs love and forgiveness then, that is the problem it needs to preach love and acceptence for only then would they stop the rage thats sweeping America. Ignorance and Anger.

Posted by: chad at August 8, 2005 01:30 PM

Chad,

If there are no rights and wrongs, if everyone is should just accept everyone and not judge…then, the terrorists have every right and reason to do what they’re doing, as long as it’s not based on religious beliefs. Sorry, don’t buy it, don’t want to. Chaos and anarchy might be your preference, but there’s no way you’re teaching it to my children.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 01:42 PM

Stephanie… but didn’t Christ teach that judgement was the realm of God? Didn’t he embrance prostitutes and tax collectors? Didn’t he say “judge not lest ye be judged”, and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and the whole don’t pluck out the speck in the other person’s eye when there is a log in your own.

Personally, I believe the number one reason that individuals defect from the Christian religion in the United States (and Europe) is because they feel like it’s been hijacked by the doctrine of judgementalism and hellfire. Is Christ about taking care of your neighbor, or who is wearing the fanciest dress to church? I was always disappointed, when I was younger, that the leaders of the church never seemed to stand up to this kind of attitude. They never made it clear that the Christian religion was about peace, love, and understanding. Which it is.

The army of god ( http://www.armyofgod.com ) has hijacked the faith, but where is the concerted effort to condemn them?

But, the fact is, that I don’t throw out the American government because of the corruption of its politicians, and I don’t throw out the school system because of bad teachers, and neither is it appropriate for me to throw away the Christian religion because of the bad behaviour of its believers.

Militant moralists are the problem. They should be condemned. Whatever religion they belong to. However,, I think the root of militant Islam is more about the terrible human rights abuses throughout the middle east (not about Mohammed winning the religious war). When the unjust consistentlly win, and the just consistently lose, the citizenry reaches out to whatever tools are available to defeat their oppressors. Religion happens to be an excellent tool.

Islam is not the problem. Dictators and warlords are. Corrupt businesses and governments that tax the poor and cater to the wealthy are the problem. In the U.S., let’s face it, the problem is that individuals don’t feel they can protect their children from vice. And it makes them militants. They can’t protect their kids from MTV and violent video games, and they begin to feel persecuted, and then militant, and then suddenly it’s okay to bomb an abortion clinic in the name of God. They’re not bombing the abortion clinic themselves, but there’s more acceptance of that type of behaviour. And there’s more acceptance of that behaviour because the moralists feel like they have no control of anything.

Anyway, that’s my feeling.

The Middle East is not a mess because of it’s religion. It’s a mess because it’s a feudalistic society. And, in the exact mold of our ancestors, the weak are using monotheism to attack the powerful. The church is attempting to overthrow the state. (or the king).

Posted by: Julia at August 8, 2005 03:53 PM

Julia,

While Christians aren’t supposed to judge or condemn PEOPLE, behaviors are a different matter. There are absolute rights and wrongs in Christianity. However, there is also forgiveness that is supposed to temper our wrath. (I’m also far from one who has the fanciest dress and I too abhor that attitude. I help my neighbors whenever I can, but am often the one who receives help because of my family’s current circumstances.)

However, the attitude that nobody should judge another’s behavior is not practical. The attitude that nothing should be punishable is not practical. While there are other means of moderating peoples behavior (like our government, for example), I believe religion has the best chance of helping people do good because it is a mode that offers both rewards as well as punishment, which government rarely does.

I also agree that “militant moralists” are the problem. I would call them religious extremists myself, because militant ones are not the only ones who cause the problem, but that’s mainly just splicing hairs. I also agree 100% with you on the human rights abuses. Here’s just one example that I’m familiar with.

You addressed your comments to me, but we do not disagree here. So… I’m guessing you haven’t read the comments I’ve made before and are merely objecting to me objecting to Chad’s comment that I believe goes way too far in the direction of anarchy and chaos, which is generally agreed upon as a bad direction to go. Either that or I’m missing something.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 04:24 PM

Stephanie, Actually only my first paragraph was meant to be addressed to you. And even that was more of a point of dialogue, and not an aggressive debate point. I do think we agree on most things. (Although I don’t QUITE agree with your pharmaceutical statements.) For instance, Ritalin is an issue, but penicillin isn’t. Some drugs are effective, no matter if someone believes in them or not. I don’t think you would disagree with that, though, either.

But to focus back on the finer points that we disagree on, I still have to say that while Christianity teaches what is wrong and right, I feel it’s teachings are about encouraging that attitude, and not spending time on enforcing those values. The duty of a Christian is to live a Christ-like life, not make sure others are doing so. It’s a small distinction, but I think it’s an important one.

Posted by: Julia at August 8, 2005 05:21 PM

Everything seems to have an extreme. Most discussions that voice extreme views focus on religion and/or politics. Combine both and you have a range of extreme positions which bring out the worst in everyone.

That said, I am a bit confused. Which religion is it that promotes a lifestyle of love thy neighbor, follow the commandments, turn the other cheek and, essentially live a life that emulates as best possible the teachings of the Bible. Doing so, it is believed on faith that one will achieve everlasting life in the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is said by some that similar lifestyle examples are promoted in Islam and documented in the Koran.

Which of these two or, byproducts of these two, tell us that strapping on bombs and blowing up things, killing as many infidels as possible is a act that guarantees martydom and a place in the great Kingdom above.

Posted by: steve smith at August 8, 2005 05:24 PM

Let me begin state for the record that I am a Christian. As such I believe that Christian belief are correct, proper, and accurate.

Now that everyone knows where I’m coming from…..

You can’t judge a religion by the people who practice it,….because nobody practices it perfectly. Even a good person will deviate from what they think to be right some of the time. So a group of Muslims who don’t properly follow the tenets of Islam is not sufficent to formulate a condemnation of Islam. The same applies for Judaism and Christianity.

You have to judge a religion by its ideals. What would it be like if everyone followed it perfectly? Does it yield the best result in its highest form of practice?

I have a question that I honestly would like for someone to answer.

How do we know that the extremist Islam is not Islam in its truest form?

I don’t mean to say that it is, because I don’t know. Normally the people who study a philosophy the most get closer to the true meaning. If all I see is Islamic clergy preaching war and Jihad it makes me wonder. What passages is Islamic extremist clergy using to justify Jihad, and terroism? There is a simply reality of “the text says what it says.” What does it say that extremists use as justification? Or do they simply make something up as they go along?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are similar but not the same. They differ in some ways, the most important of which can be explained in one word…Jesus.

In my opinion, before these terrorist struggles, particularly the one between Jews and Palestinians, will stop at least one side will have to adopt one of the few Christian ideals that I have never heard echoed by Jews or Muslims. Perhaps they do suscribe to this idea as well, but I’ve never seen it. Oh yeah, that Christian ideal is…

Turn to the other cheek.

Posted by: Darrius Cole at August 8, 2005 05:38 PM

Julia,

We do agree. But I still disagree w/Chad.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 05:57 PM

I’d like to take a moment to thank all of you who have handled this discussion with such civility. I realize religion can be an emotional topic, the contributions here have been very well written and thought provoking.

((Kudos))to all

Posted by: lisa renee at August 8, 2005 05:59 PM

Darrius Cole,

See this link to learn more about Muslims who don’t support terrorism and why they don’t.

I’ve read the Koran and never read any single line that would justify terrorism. Suicide is a major sin in Islam.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 8, 2005 06:02 PM

Chad, I understand your concerns as you have stated them. I also know for those who do not believe in any higher power, and for some of us that do, religion has been used at times in a way we disagree with.

Any sort of extreme power can be used in the same manner, communism as one example. Merely eliminating religion would not solve this human problem. There will always be those who are extreme that will use whatever they can find to “unite” their followers whether it be religion, hatred of another group, a political viewpoint, and on and on.

I have no magic solution to this except for the suggestion that the more we learn the more we understand. It also demonstrates we do care to find out the truth. If we separate those who killing from those who do not support killing and place responsibility squarely on them it’s a start.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 8, 2005 06:12 PM

Since it doesn’t seem like I can comment cept here on this particular part of the site,

two very important media articles that should be pointed out.

Educating Against Extremism

Palestinian fatwa forbids attacks

Both are significant and hopefully will get some media coverage as well as support.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 8, 2005 10:12 PM

Very good sites, Lisa, though the first is much more encouraging than the second.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 9, 2005 12:48 AM

Lisa Renee,

Excellent post.

All religions can and historically have been interpreted for the purpose of loving your fellow man or hate.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 9, 2005 09:31 AM

Stephanie,

Anarchy is not the goal. The goal would be to have a society free to believe whatever they want and not be judged. And, this whole thing that the terrorists would still do this if it wasn’t for religion and then it would be ok; I don’t think that would happen. What would be the driving force if it wasn’t religion? Greed or jealousy. Then, we would have the world behind us and we wouldn’t be fighting an unpopular war. We also wouldn’t of started the war we would have retaliated to aggression. Anarchy I notice that everyone is quick to bring that notion up as soon as you step away from religion as a backbone in society. Thousands of people live without religion as there moral fabric everyday and I don’t see them breaking laws and blowing up buildings. What would you do if your children joined a chritian extremist group? Would you say “I’m so glad we forced our children to go to church and learn the word of god.” I don’t think so. Why would anarchy ensue if religion didn’t control the public? People choose to follow because of fear. Fear of hell and damnation. Go to church and listen to the word of god then, come back and post the part where they said living a good life is enough. Christlike. That is the only way to get to heaven of be remorseful for your sins. Oh so now you emotions are being controlled by a religion, your thoughts, dreams, goals, and future. Your life your living is it yours or are you living? Are your goals yours or were you programmed to make them? You see the influence of religion caused you to follow the rules and make some of the choices you made, just as they did me. But, we as a country are free from religion and free to have it. Why is religios preference so important when choosing a President? I thought we had a seperation of church and state? Yet, we always choose a bible based president. Whether we like it or not religion is force fed to us and it’s not right or fair. Anarchy would not solve this it would only encourage the right to recruit more souls for their army. Too many would take as a sign of the appocalypse coming and would just take a larger step backward. Next time you go to church ask your religious leaders if you should forgive or accept those around you. I’ll bet they say forgive.

Posted by: chad at August 9, 2005 12:44 PM

Lisa,

Then you agree. Stepping forward and not holding on to the past would help. Letting go of the religious nonscense and propaganda would help our people become more understanding and informed. If we as a country keep ahold of the things holding us back we will never move forward. Yet, thousands more grab ahold everyday and numbers keep increasing. The first setback and people are lost and don’t know what to do and there is religion waiting to grab them up and give them support, reason, and purpose. Their’s. Then society takes another giant step backward again. Why can’y religion be a 1-800 number that people call on when they need support; intead of a lifestyle and life-long commitment. Every setback in life isn’t the end of the world and not Satan. It’s just life. Ups and downs. There may be a heaven and hell and God but it’s all speculation and nobody knows for sure people just beleive what their told. If someone does know for certain they wouldn’t tell anybody anyway.

Posted by: chad at August 9, 2005 01:01 PM

Chad:
I must ask you this it is not an attack on you.

Have you not seen the infomercials or the advertisements from all the different sects on television asking you to donate$$ They even have entire networks devoted to religion, complete with “1-800” numbers. Overnight television is not what it used to be. If you have cable or sattelite, watch out.

Just Passing Gas.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at August 9, 2005 02:23 PM

Chad,

If everything and everybody is okay, free from judgement, then there is no basis for law. Law is based on judgement. We have laws because we as a society judge certain things to be wrong. You seem to assume that religion is the only thing in the fabric of human existence that places judgements on people or their actions, which is far from reality.

If my children joined a Christian extremist group? Well, first off I intend to pay enough attention to them so that I would know they are leaning that way before they went that far. Second, I wouldn’t blame belief in God for that choice, but whatever it was that twisted them towards extremism, which wouldn’t be the church that we attend. Thirdly, I would actively take them by the hand (using kidnapping if necessary, regardless of it legality) and get them the professional help needed.

I don’t believe in God or attend church out of fear. I do it out of love and faith.

I did not grow up in a Christian household, so your theory that I’ve been programmed makes absolutely no sense. I’ve had a belief in God since before I can remember (based on stories of what I said and what I did) and had never gone to church. Basically, belief in God came naturally to me and wasn’t fostered by my parents.

Now for the clincher. Where does it say we as a nation are “free from religion”? I’ve never seen that in any federal documents. Separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution, it was merely the opinion of one man that has gotten blown out of proportion.

Yes, my religious leaders would say forgive. And I agree with that statement, which is why I joined the church. I have many friends whom I love and respect, without accepting all of their choices. As they love and respect me, without accepting all of mine. Where’s the problem there?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 9, 2005 03:09 PM

Chad, I believe that religion is a personal choice. Since it is a personal and individual choice, it should not be promoted or stopped by governments or other individuals. While I realize a part of almost all religions is the attempt to “evangelize” to convince the rest of you that that particular religion is the “one” you should select, it should remain a personal, private decision that the government has no part in. No one religion should be more supported, those who chose to not have a religion should have the same rights. Nor should their choice be forced or supported from a government standpoint as well.

Most of the main problems are caused by others who believe “their” way is the “right” way. There is no right way. Unless a religious practice breaks some law there should be no regulation of religion. Your right to not believe should be exactly the same as my right to believe. I should have no more ability to coherce you into my point of view than you should me.

Religion should be treated like the choice of Coke or Pepsi, you can have either one you want, with all of the varying “flavors” inbetween, and it is your responsibility to fund your desire for either product neither with a paid endorsement from government. I can go on and on about how I prefer Pepsi, I can even advertise on the media that Pepsi is the best, however government should not support me in my quest to make you all Pepsi Drinkers.

I realize that’s a simplistic example, but think you will get where I am coming from on this. I fully support your choice, as I would hope you would mine under that scenario.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 9, 2005 03:56 PM

Are the people blowing themselves up to kill many others committing suicide under the promise of martyrdom Muslims or Christians.

Posted by: steve smith at August 10, 2005 09:40 AM

Well Steve, I would point out to you this interesting article featured in American Conservative Magazine.

The logic of Suicide Bombers

He’s done quite a bit of research on the subject and states there have been Christian as well as non-religious who have used suicide bombing.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 10, 2005 11:44 AM

lisa renee,

I am talking about present day situations.

Posted by: steve smith at August 10, 2005 05:11 PM

The history of that behavior which clearly includes those who were not acting from a religious point of view is one worth stating. I have not seen confirmation or denial that all of the recent suicide bombers in Iraq have been islamic. It has been an assumption.

If you use history as a perspective the attempted correlation between only suicide bombers being islamic is not an accurate one.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 10, 2005 05:31 PM

Lisa Renee,

It certainly is an interesting argument, but does not explain why so many of the attacks in Iraq have been directed at Iraqis.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 10, 2005 08:17 PM

The killing of fellow muslims demonstrates those who are doing this are not following the beliefs of islam. Religion may be used as an excuse, but the reality is the Koran forbids killing other muslims. That appears to be extremists who are re-writing their own “version” of why it is acceptable to kill other muslims.

To me Stephanie it seems to be more of a matter of what can these extremist use to selectively promote this as “religion”.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 10, 2005 08:30 PM

Lisa Renee,

I am fully aware that by killing other Muslims and committing suicide, they are going against their own religion for their cause. However, the article you gave us the link to doesn’t explain why it would be a good idea for the terrorists to target the Iraqis. By his logic, they should be targetting our soldiers, our allies, or ourselves here at home. IMO, taking into account his words, they’re only taking pot-shots at the peaceful Iraqis out of hate/fear for their own lack of control.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 10, 2005 09:44 PM

Stephanie, I provided that link as a source to demonstrate the point that not all suicide bombers were muslim. As to explaining why they are not making military targets their ideal goal, he addresses his opinion of that as well.

The reasons for the target selection of suicide terrorists appear to be much more based on operational rather than normative criteria. They appear to be looking for the targets where they can maximize the number of casualties.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 10, 2005 09:52 PM

Lisa Renee,

IMO, the actions of the terrorists indicate that withdrawing our troops would not eliminate or even significantly reduce the terrorists’ attacks, because we are no longer their primary target. The peaceful Iraqi people have demonstrated that they want a democracy. They have demonstrated that they want a new government, one that doesn’t favor a powerful minority at the expense of the rest of the population. The terrorists’ actions indicate that they don’t want this, are willing to fight, die and kill to prevent this from happening. So, our leaving would not stop the terrorists because what we’ve helped the peaceful Iraqi citizens accomplish would continue…until the terrorists stopped it, as they would if our soldiers were no longer present.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 11, 2005 12:02 AM

Stephanie,

Did you even read what I wrote or did you just get offended? I’m not trying to discredit your faith. I’m just voicing my opinion. Thoughts only thoughts, not beliefs. This proves my point “Yes, my religious leaders would say forgive. And I agree with that statement, which is why I joined the church”. As if those that do things differently are wrong and you should pity them because they are ignorant. Pity. You do not forgive them you pity them.

Yes, this world has many laws and restrictions and religion did not create them all. Once again anarchy is not the goal. Freedom is the goal. An informed culture free to accept differences and not judge those around them. To live one’s own life and not attempt to control those around one. I did not attempt to attack your motives for attending church. But, just like everything else in life, religion controls minds. These values that are given to you are not your own they are adopted. Fear does cause you to embrace religion. As a children we have thousands of questions, and we need those questions answered. The bible gives answers to those unanswerable questions. What happens when we die, how did we get here, ect…. Do you know the answer to these questions or do you believe in the answers to these questions. When the bible adresses these questions and the church informs people of the answers it’s always given in a matter of fact form. Why? Is it because they know for certain or because they beleive for certain? I see holes in this equation. Trust me I read a book that others put a lot of faith in. So it must be true. When one answers the hardest questions of life with one of the oldest books ever, how can we move forward? The answers will never be found. We’ll sit stagnant as a culture. I have some questions: If you had the power to convert every soul on earth to your faith “to save their soul”? Would you want all the evil of the world representing you? Some people think their religion is the only correct one, why? Why is one better than another. They all teach the same things, just subtle differences thats it.

I know there will always be a religious influence in america. But the reasoning behind the restrictions are somewhat questionable at times. I don’t get how the right and sometimes left can be so small-minded and dimwitted. When we pick leaders we stand behind them through thick and thin to show strength. Is it a showing of strength to not see ones own faults and mistakes? I dont think so. We all have the power to see others and judge, as you said yourself but, do we have that some power when it comes to ourselves. This society is a christian society. You may not have been forced to attend church or read the bible but the values asserted upon you were christain values. Your belief in god as a child did not come from thin air. We don’t learn everything from ourselves. Others tell us things and we choose to believe them or not. All i’m saying is it’s hard for us to be free to choose our own life when all the authority figures set above are all preaching the same thing. Programmed, yes your programmed, we’re all programmed. When i ask you where do you go when you die? 3 responses come to mind. Where will you go when you die? 1 response comes to mind. Does god exist? 1 response comes to mind. What’s two plus two, four right? See, programmed. Theory was taught as fact causing people to believe and not really know. We are all programmed to a certain extent. Through not one’s fault but our society’s fault. Encourage the idiots in charge but not questioning their motives. I don’t think thats the way to go.

Posted by: chad at August 11, 2005 10:16 AM

Stephanie, if the author of the link and book is correct then withdrawing troops would end the suicide bombing. As I stated, I provided the link because it demonstrated that the history of suicide bombing was not all religion/islam based.

As to his other claims? I haven’t read his book so I can’t comment on how I perceive his opinion in total. All I can do is provide it for those who were interested in reading it.

The examples he gave in the article to make his point appear to be accurate. However, no one can predict the future. He was writing his opinion based on past incidents.

Posted by: lisa renee at August 11, 2005 12:10 PM

Chad,

Yes, I read what you wrote. I am also familiar with how far that logic can go, and the results are calls for anarchy. Complete freedom by the definition of accepting the actions of others with no consideration for right and wrong is anarchy. Considerations for safety and the welfare of others is gone when anything anyone does is acceptable. When you start small, that belief system is benign, but when taken to extremes it is as malignant as a cancer that would eat away the very foundations of society like any other extreme! The difficulty with freedom as you’ve described it is that a little is never enough. If one person is okay and what they’re doing is okay, then what another person is doing is equally okay, even if they are not equivalent.

In other words, if having sex without being married is okay, then having sex with someone other than your spouse is okay. If that’s okay, then having sex when you’re a teenager is okay. If that’s okay, then having sex when you’re in middle school is okay. If that’s okay, then having sex in grade school is okay. This isn’t some kind of doomsday prophesy, this has happened in our society and it is NOT “okay!” Now from the logic that you’ve proposed, that we should just accept people we don’t agree with, it is okay for children to have sex. However, even when not considering the religious implications, it’s not okay for many ethical and legal reasons. It’s not okay because children are involving themselves in something they really don’t understand and hurting themselves and each other in the process. Children are being emotionally scarred, children are raping each other, children are getting pregnant, children are getting sexually transmitted diseases. It’s illegal. It’s unethical. And yet, it is completely justifiable by your logic.

Now, to turn the tables, if my religion, taken to extreme, were the “laws of the land” as you were suggesting your belief system should be, then it would be equally wrong. However, my religion has a preventative measure in place to insure any such thing doesn’t happen, it’s called the 11th Article of Faith.

We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In order for my belief system to take over, like you are suggesting yours should, then the people who orchestrate such a feat would have to ignore the very belief system they are claiming to inforce. While it is possible that such a thing could happen, since it has happened in the Middle East with regards to perverted forms of Islam being inforced in such a way, it is unlikely to happen here because the religion I believe in was founded in America and traditional American beliefs, as written by the founding fathers, are literally entwined in the foundations of my religion.

I’m not saying you have to believe what I believe and follow the tenets of my church, but I’m damn sure not going to let you or anyone else tell me that what I believe is “religious nonscense and propaganda” and that “we will never move forward” unless we follow your beliefs. That’s not what America has ever been about, but it is what you said. So, yeah, I’m offended.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 11, 2005 01:57 PM

Chad,

As for your statement that I don’t forgive those around me, I pity them… I think there might be need for clarification. In regards to forgiveness vs. acceptance, I made the assumption that a transgression that hurt me (or my family and friends) was involved. Now I’m getting the impression that you assume I feel the need to forgive or accept others’ actions that do not effect me. I do not. Assuming the persons you are referencing are acting within the bounds of the laws and are not doing anything to hurt myself or my family (i.e. a person who calls my child a “stupid little shit” is acting within the bounds of the laws, but I’m still going to have a major problem with their actions) are not people I feel the need to forgive, because they have done nothing to hurt me. However, if they are doing something I find immoral, I do not have to accept their actions either. It is an area that requires us to peacefully agree to disagree. If either of us cannot do that, then we get into the area of transgressions that require forgiveness, but not before.

For example, both of the neighbors I have on either side of me make life-style choices that I disagree with, however that does not prevent us from being good neighbors. My children still play with the little boy on one side of us, and we still are welcome to join the neighbor from the other side when he puts on his fireworks display. They both have given me tips on how to care for the house we just purchased, and I have given them advice in areas that I’m more knowledgable. If a need arises, we help each other out. Just because we disagree on somethings doesn’t mean we can’t get along as neighbors.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 11, 2005 02:55 PM

Chad,

You said, “I did not attempt to attack your motives for attending church.”

And then you do it again by saying, “Fear does cause you to embrace religion.”

What is it I fear? Hell and damnation? Sorry, not part of the tenets of my church. Not going to “heaven?” In my church we believe heaven is tiered, and everyone who does not directly deny God gets to go to at least one of the three tiers. In order to directly deny God, you have to know God, not merely believe in Him, thus you have to be a prophet. Those who do deny God after having known Him have the pleasure of being damned to Outer Darkness, which I understand to be an eternal version of solitary confinement. So, what is it exactly that you assume I’m afraid of? It’s not Outer Darkness. I don’t qualify.

As for your questions and your belief of what will happen to us if we continue to ask them… “The answers will never be found. We’ll sit stagnant as a culture.” Human beings have been asking these questions for millennia and we have not sat stagnant as a culture or a race. Many diverse cultures have developed. That’s not being stagnant. We’ve developed mathmatics and science. We’ve developed philosophy. Relgions have been found and have changed with the times and experiences of their participants. We have computers and mass communication. We have air travel and automotives. Unless you’re belief is that all of this is illusion, it’s obvious that asking such questions does not mean humanity and it’s variety of civilizations and cultures will stagnate. Sorry, your logic is lacking there.

As for how I know my faith is true? I don’t. I believe it is true. And I do not deny other people the right to believe as they choose; however, when someone comes along and trashes religion in general… um, yeah, I’m going to have a problem with that. If, BTW, you’d read this entire thread, you would have seen that I’ve been defending Muslims from the assault of people who assume that the most vocal (i.e. the ones blowing themselves and other people up) people claiming to be Muslims demonstrate the beliefs of all Muslims, which they do not and cannot by the original tenets of the Islamic faith as determined by the Koran. The fact that I have done this indicates (and correctly so) that I am willing to learn about other people and their faiths and do not dismiss them because they do not share my own beliefs.

So, in answer to your question, no I wouldn’t try to convert everyone in the world to my religion. I may introduce people I know to my beliefs and give them the opportunity to learn more if they choose, and I will definitely debate with people who are attacking and/or scorning my beliefs. To try and convert people against their will is not something I believe in, though I’ll grant there are some people in my church, and other churches, who do. However, the presiding authorities in our church condemn such actions, as they also condemn bashing any other religion.

And yes, Chad, I can agree that we’re all programmed to a certain extent. For example, as I was raised by a liberal family and taught in the public schools I was “programmed” to believe abortion was a legitimate choice. My stance on abortion was that, while I would never choose it for myself, I would not take that right away from any other woman. That was until I was pregnant with my first son, until I felt him growwing inside me, until I saw him on the ultrasound, until I knew from personal experience that he was a child long before he was born. Now I’m pro-life all the way, because unborn babies are still babies and no woman should kill her own child for the sake of convenience. I didn’t need a church to tell me it was wrong, I came to that conclusion on my own based on my own experience regarding my own child.

People are “programmed,” as you put it, all over the world. If we didn’t teach each other what we know and what we believe we would have stagnated as a race (in reference to the human race, not various ethnicities), because we’d all have to learn how to create fire independently. Sorry, I’d rather not regress in that manner, but thanks for the offer. If people refuse to think for themselves, refuse to educate themselves using the resources available, then they are going to end up being controlled by powerful, abusive leaders. I’m not such a person and belief in a religion doesn’t indicate that someone else is either.

And you closed with, “Encourage the idiots in charge but not questioning their motives. I don’t think thats the way to go.” I agree whole-heartedly with that statement. Currently the “idiots in charge” are telling us that Islam is the problem. Here I am on this post standing up to that mentally, asserting that the Muslim extremists are not practicing traditional Islam and that those who do are not a threat to us. And yet, because I believe in a religion (that is not Islam), you assume I am “small minded” and “recruit(ing) souls for their (my) cause.” Talk about prejudice.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 11, 2005 05:38 PM

Lisa Renee,

Thank you for that clarification. That makes sense.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 11, 2005 05:54 PM

stephanie,

That’s quite a rebuttle. you’ve pretty much answered back all of my questions, and shot down all of my assumptions. Congrats to you. But, as a race people are sheep. Easily led and controlled. The Idea about being programmed isn’t that all we are taught isn’t useful but that a lot of what we are is questionable. Such as religion. You may have walked into this way of life open-minded because of the way it was presented to you. But, you are pretty rare.

This tier idea baffles me. Life establishes your rank in heaven. The more devoted you are to living the right way the more you get when you die. I guess the mindset being, the more devoted you are and belief you put in; the more you’ll be able to open once you’ve arrived. I don’t understand why. This idea would mean we are all born equal but die differently. And, our worth wouldn’t be the same. I just can’t beleive that one is better than in another (people). Again the forgiveness thing. That has answered the question “why are we here?”, to establish yourself in heaven.

Again, the anarchy thing. The laws we have set in place will not go anywhere unless they are restricting us for no reason. Such as prostitution, and drug policies. Why do we have them? As for your motives for religion I guess they were for enlightenment. An end to a search for reason and purpose.

Still the facts still remain religions control people. Religions give power to an idea based on belief. In america we are free. Free to choose how to live as long as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone elses freedom. I’m not saying don’t chyme in and don’t assert your beliefs. I’m saying some of the things you believe are questionable.

This whole accept, forgive and pity thing. Why would anyone have feelings about something that doesn’t effect them, Directly? I’m not questioning your human emotions or saying you only have them because of your faith. Not at all. Just the values we have in America are our for many reasons. Values not emotions. These two things mix together though. The bible gives people strength and gives them power. The power to stand up and proclaim their beliefs. Some would never do this on their own and others would but, most of what they say is a regurgitation of someone or somthing else’s. Which is true of anything we know and teach. But, the thing that is different with faith is just that it’s all based on faith. The willingness to question those in authority positions involving Faith is far smaller than that of any other subject. When, of course, you are a follower of that particular faith. People go to these classes to be told what to beleive, not all are reached. Some are, some pay to keep the factory going. Sharing the wealth. Because they don’t know the answers and they need guildence. Blind faith instilled by those willing to spread the word. And, there are degrees to this equation which would go along with the tier idea.

I’m not saying the terrorist groups against America should be left to their own devices either I don’t think they are worth the sand they stand on and they are evil. Only because i’m not there and I don’t see what they do for their people or what harsh injustice they’ve lived through. Sure i’m against terror just like everyone else and the extremists should be dealt with. But if terror is the enemy in America then we should be killing ourselves and, the war would never end.

Anarchy. “I am also familiar with how far that logic can go, and the results are calls for anarchy. Complete freedom by the definition of accepting the actions of others with no consideration for right and wrong is anarchy.” Where did you see this practiced? Again, anarchy is not the goal. We have free speech for a reason. If you don’t agree with something say so. Don’t try to alter others tranquility if you pro-life cool be pro-life. But, not everybody is. I’m not saying your an extremist i’m just using an example. True freedom would involve freedom from those laws based on religion, small-minded ways or, the minority. Whats right what should go. A lot of laws are based on the commandments and not all are laws but; that doesn’t mean that because some are we should scrap them. We in America should have freedom of speech and all the other freedoms we have but, we are losing them slowly. It usually isn’t the non-beleivers making the fuss or the laws. So, in conclusion: you’ve defended yourself very beautifully, proven that your the way you are for good reasons, against persicution, against abortion, stagnant is not the world, because of technological advancements, and i’m more judgemental than those I oppose. I have just as many reasons as you that contribute to my ways and most will never change but, some will. Untill I die. Then, all the answers will be available. Thats what I beleive.

Posted by: chad at August 12, 2005 12:45 PM

Chad,

Thank you for your compliments. While I strongly disagree with you (obviously) I very much appreciate your willingness to debate these issues. And, while I appreciate your reassessment of my character, I would be much more satisfied had I convinced you that all Islamic “sheep” are not terrorist-minded “sheep”.

“i’m more judgemental than those I oppose.” I’m sorry you feel that I was trying to prove this, though I would like to admit that had you used modifiers to say “most” or “some” religious individuals, instead of passing judgement on all who follow any religion, then I would not have felt it necessary to argue with you point for point.

“I have just as many reasons as you that contribute to my ways and most will never change but, some will. Untill I die. Then, all the answers will be available. Thats what I beleive.” You are entitled to your own beliefs and the fact that they are not based on religious beliefs is no reason to ridicule them. If you feel that is what I did, I sincerely apologize, for I intended only to argue against what you said not the source of what you believe. The fact that you are willing to change your reasons, if only a little, puts you among “the rare” and for that I congratulate you.

I hope your “spiritual” pursuits, whatever they may be, satisfy your needs and fulfills your desires. I wish you the best of success in your personal endeavors for growth.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 12, 2005 03:12 PM

To all of you who debate the islam/christianity issue, please tell me if i’m wrong about the following: Muhammed was a warrior, killing thousands of people. Hen never said that you should love everyone, and his message was: “eye for an eye, a teeth for a teeath”. Jesus did not kill anyone. He said “turn to the other cheek…”.
Jesus said that you should love everyone, even nonchristian. Mohammed said not that.

Posted by: david kennedal at August 13, 2005 05:40 AM