Religion Within the Community

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

what if I was a Moslem officer in charge of a Moslem brigade deploying to South Carolina to build stability and fight the "insurgency" there. I thought I would learn English with a southern accent, learn to eat fried chicken and greens, and learn the Baptist religion- at least enough to fake it while attending revivals and prayer meetings. I don't see how I would make any progress with the people if I maintained a long beard, dressed in a ME outfit, spoke Arabic, and faced Mecca when I prayed.

Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places. Global altruism is uniquely a Western phenomena. They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position. Would they travel far to intimidate via violence? Yep, absolutely. To kill? You're darn toot'n they would. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over - Which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - Our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first.

In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population) - With a mere Arab, it might work....A Moslem, maybe...An Arab Moslem, however - Never (okay, call me a bigot). My apologies, but my imagination just isn't so fanciful.

Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I have come to know - I can't even wrap my mind around it.

I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by 3SoldierDad

Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places - They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position - to initimidate via violence - Yes. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over (which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first). Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I can't even wrap my mind around it.

I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

No offense taken- and the abstraction isn't worth considering IMO- I was just trying to think through what would be effective in an environment I understand- i.e.- South Carolina. In terms of a Moslem going in there, maybe that is comparative to us going into Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, then to affect change, maybe we should dress like them, grow beards (everyone, not just SF), stress language more, and "become" Moslem during our tours...

Maybe not, but was a thought I had.

[Astraeus]

Originally Posted by 3SoldierDad

Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places. Global altruism is uniquely a Western phenomena. They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position. Would they travel far to intimidate via violence? Yep, absolutely. To kill? You're darn toot'n they would. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over - Which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - Our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first.

In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population) - With a mere Arab, it might work....A Moslem, maybe...An Arab Moslem, however - Never (okay, call me a bigot). My apologies, but my imagination just isn't so fanciful.

Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I have come to know - I can't even wrap my mind around it.

I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Are you aware of the origins of the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort it out."?


I wonder how that fits into your so called Christian tradition of "2,000 years of considering the other guy first."?

It was Eight hundred years ago during the Albigensian Crusade. During the seige of Beziers, Arnaud Armaury, Abbot of Citeaux, when asked by his soldiers how to tell the difference between men women and children of the splinter sect of Cathars, and "true" Christians he said ""Kill them all. The Lord will recognize those which are His."

I see your point that concepts like tolerance, diversity, and cultural empathy are in general very foreign to the Middle East. Hell, I've never seen so much bigotry towards both outsiders like myself, and minorities who live within those countries, whether they are Iraqi refugees, Jews, or gypsies.

Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society? They were killed because they were dark skinned and were wearing turbans, and of course this meant that they were Arab Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm

"In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population)"

Do you know anything about the administrative systems of the Ummayad and Abassid Muslim empires? By any measure they were they had the most tolerant stance in regards to the ruled peoples' religious beliefs of any other empire during the time period. Non-Muslims, including the Jewish Arabs thrived in trade under their rule, were allowed to implement their religious legal systems within their communities, keep their own places of worship, retain their own markets and banking systems. Zakah (taxation of non-believers) was charged non-Muslims because they were not required to serve in the military. Compare that to the Crusades of the same time period, and what their SOP was in regards to other forms of belief.

Take a look at one of the main dissenters within the Church in regards to the Crusades, English philosopher, scientist, and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon. His predecessors: he was also inspired by the work of early Muslim scientists. His successors: His brand of philosophy which made early steps towards later enlightenment philosophers got him in trouble. The Condemnations of 1277, which banned the airing of certain philosophical ideas resulted in him being placed under arrest by Jerome of Ascoli, the Minister-General of the Franciscan Order.

Bacon was not only a predecessor to the earliest European advocates of empirical method, (he was the first to recognize the visible spectrum of light), he was getting in trouble with the Church for laying some of the groundwork for philosophy's later assault on organized religion's strangle-hold on science and thought up to that point. It was Modern era enlightenment philosophy that led to the increasing liberalism during the 1700-1800's, which eventually lay the groundwork for widely held concepts in Western society like "tolerance," "diversity," and "xenophobia" etc. not our "Judeo-Christian" tradition. These concepts became possible when the Church finally got out of the way after locking up or burning people for three hundred years who dared speak or publish something the church did not approve of.

Anyway, that's my 0.02, now I'll shove my foot down my throat.

[Astraeus]

Hey, I forgot to throw in an important bit, which is the significant role the reformation played in the development of the current shape of Western thought, philosophy, etc., but still my view is still this: the concept of the Christian religion having a glorious 2000 year history of tolerance towards the "other" is patently false. Sadly, the history remains, with no regard for what Jesus taught.

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by Astraeus

Are you aware of the origins of the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort it out."?


I wonder how that fits into your so called Christian tradition of "2,000 years of considering the other guy first."?

It was Eight hundred years ago during the Albigensian Crusade. During the seige of Beziers, Arnaud Armaury, Abbot of Citeaux, when asked by his soldiers how to tell the difference between men women and children of the splinter sect of Cathars, and "true" Christians he said ""Kill them all. The Lord will recognize those which are His."

I see your point that concepts like tolerance, diversity, and cultural empathy are in general very foreign to the Middle East. Hell, I've never seen so much bigotry towards both outsiders like myself, and minorities who live within those countries, whether they are Iraqi refugees, Jews, or gypsies.

Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society? They were killed because they were dark skinned and were wearing turbans, and of course this meant that they were Arab Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm

"In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population)"

Do you know anything about the administrative systems of the Ummayad and Abassid Muslim empires? By any measure they were they had the most tolerant stance in regards to the ruled peoples' religious beliefs of any other empire during the time period. Non-Muslims, including the Jewish Arabs thrived in trade under their rule, were allowed to implement their religious legal systems within their communities, keep their own places of worship, retain their own markets and banking systems. Zakah (taxation of non-believers) was charged non-Muslims because they were not required to serve in the military. Compare that to the Crusades of the same time period, and what their SOP was in regards to other forms of belief.

Take a look at one of the main dissenters within the Church in regards to the Crusades, English philosopher, scientist, and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon. His predecessors: he was also inspired by the work of early Muslim scientists. His successors: His brand of philosophy which made early steps towards later enlightenment philosophers got him in trouble. The Condemnations of 1277, which banned the airing of certain philosophical ideas resulted in him being placed under arrest by Jerome of Ascoli, the Minister-General of the Franciscan Order.

Bacon was not only a predecessor to the earliest European advocates of empirical method, (he was the first to recognize the visible spectrum of light), he was getting in trouble with the Church for laying some of the groundwork for philosophy's later assault on organized religion's strangle-hold on science and thought up to that point. It was Modern era enlightenment philosophy that led to the increasing liberalism during the 1700-1800's, which eventually lay the groundwork for widely held concepts in Western society like "tolerance," "diversity," and "xenophobia" etc. not our "Judeo-Christian" tradition. These concepts became possible when the Church finally got out of the way after locking up or burning people for three hundred years who dared speak or publish something the church did not approve of.

Anyway, that's my 0.02, now I'll shove my foot down my throat.

Good points...

I made many sweeping generalizations; such as Americans love freedom - Obviously, all Americans don't love frredom - Of course, not all Christians and Jews and their communities are tolerant. Many, many particulars can be shown to contradict what I say - especially when one looks at the christian religion from the 5th to 17th centuries, especially the organized church as against Judeo-Christian teachings of tolerance.

It was the culture that let reason prevail - The reformation was all about getting the church to evaluate its actions in light of scripture.

I'll stand by my overview; as wobbley as it may seem.

We disagree. Ain't America great! (not always, but generally...)

Thanks.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Astraeus

Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society?

Maybe I missed it, but I've only found one single instance of a Sikh being killed in an admitted case of "mistaken identity" shortly following 9/11/2001, that being Balbir Singh Sodhi. Since you implied widespread killings, I was wondering if you might be able to either cite your sources of many Sikhs being murdered due to misidentification, or correct the overstatement. Your BBC source only lists Mr. Sodhi.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Razor

Maybe I missed it, but I've only found one single instance of a Sikh being killed in an admitted case of "mistaken identity" shortly following 9/11/2001, that being Balbir Singh Sodhi. Since you implied widespread killings, I was wondering if you might be able to either cite your sources of many Sikhs being murdered due to misidentification, or correct the overstatement. Your BBC source only lists Mr. Sodhi.

His references to most of his post comes from historical data that may or may not have been correctly transposed from different languages from authors who had not only agendas but also wrote, and were allowed to write, only at the pleasure of whomever was in charge of their quill at the time. At the risk of restarting the seven plagues, he seems to refer to the teachings of Jesus as if they were accurately captured on the spot when those events happened rather than being recorded many years after his assention by people who were either not alive to witness them or from a source that was selectively put together and edited so many times that the original meaning was probably lost in the shuffle. Many people have died in the name of religion from those that would maintain not the faith but the power over those who chose not to be manipulated or who called their devine being by another name.

[Astraeus]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

His references to most of his post comes from historical data that may or may not have been correctly transposed from different languages from authors who had not only agendas but also wrote, and were allowed to write, only at the pleasure of whomever was in charge of their quill at the time. At the risk of restarting the seven plagues, he seems to refer to the teachings of Jesus as if they were accurately captured on the spot when those events happened rather than being recorded many years after his assention by people who were either not alive to witness them or from a source that was selectively put together and edited so many times that the original meaning was probably lost in the shuffle. Many people have died in the name of religion from those that would maintain not the faith but the power over those who chose not to be manipulated or who called their devine being by another name.

Sir,
First, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions. That said, my point was simply that the brutalities of the Crusades, and each of the Church's inquisitions are very well documented (in fact through the church's own historical records), and there is plenty of evidence that points to a very different story then the "Christianity has always been the champion of civility and tolerance" narrative.

Two Soldier Dad,
I really do basically agree with your point, which is that our Western concept of having differences being okay, or even desirable is an idea that is not widespread in the world, and the ability to empathize with "the other" is a particularly foreign concept to the Middle East. I just take exception to the equation of Christianity with civility. That idea has been utilized to do some very uncivil things in the past (remember the "White man's burden?"). And, Christiandom has some pretty nasty history of its own as do most religions. I would argue that our concepts of diversity, plurality, and tolerance, are more in spite of religion than because of it, but that's a discussion that is very debatable and should probably be done another day.

Razor, I apologize and stand corrected. It was a sloppy mistake I made while posting in a rush. A Sikh rights web site I was on yesterday claimed incorrectly that there had been "several killings" of sikhs in the wake of September 11. I shouldn't have made the statement without corroborating the claim. This morning I used lexis-nexis thoroughly to check it, and it's not true.
However, it is true that there have been several assaults and attempted killings of Sikhs subsequent to 9/11 in crimes apparently motivated by racist profiling, "mistaken identity" or not:

Here are a few cases:

In 2003 Avtar Singh Cheira, a 52-year-old truck driver who lives in Phoenix, was shot twice by men who yelled "Go back to where you belong to."

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...dcase0707.html

On September 13, 2001, a Sikh cabdriver in SeaTac Washington, Sukhvir Singh was attacked by one of his passengers.
"Saturday, police say, the Orange Cab driver withstood a violent attack from a drunken passenger who punched him, bit off a piece of his scalp, called Singh an "Iraqi terrorist" and threatened to kill him. The attack ended after a Metro bus pulled up to the cab and a passenger called 911."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...driver28m.html

On September 30, 2001, a Sikh woman in San Diego was attacked while she was stopped at a traffic light in San Diego:
"men ripped open her car door, slashed her in the head with a knife and shouted: "This is what you get for what you've done to us!"

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/...761.html?dids=
171353761:171353761&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=curre nt&date=Sep+11%2C
+2002&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&start page=S.14&desc=9%2F11
%3A+A+Year+After+%2F+WHO+WE+ARE+NOW%3B+Swaran+Kaur +Bhullar%3B+%27Somebody
+could+have+just+taken+my+life....+It%27s+somethin g+nobody+deserves.%27


My point is that while Western empathy of the other guy is much more widespread here than in other parts of the world, there are still plenty of close-minded xenophobes here in the United States, who will act violently on their ignorant impulses.

"The Civil Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and United States Attorneys offices have investigated over 800 incidents since 9/11 involving violence, threats, vandalism and arson against Arab-Americans, Muslims, Sikhs, South-Asian Americans and other individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern origin."
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/discrimupdate.htm

I always take HRW with a grain of salt, but the cases they cite here are legit:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/usahate/usa1102-04.htm

[3SoldierDad]

My point is that while Western empathy of the other guy is much more widespread here than in other parts of the world

That's my point...Yes.

This is where we would disagree - I believe that the enlightenment could happen ONLY because of the reformation and the provision of the Judeo-Christian deference to truth and to respect another man's conscience - this was a direct contribution over the ages from Jesus and men such as Hillel; impacting the West in such a way that folks could look at the evidences and what was real then decide - the idea had already been suggested by Plato, but didn't become activated across the culture until late in the 17th century when folks began going back to their sources of faith rather than following church politicains.

So, you do understand that I'm not an apologist for organized Christianity...or Judaism for that matter. Their histories are not inspired - For me, their sources are. If you don't believe that - fine. Perhaps, however, we could agree that loving your neighbor is a good idea and even compelling for socio-political reasons...like democracy, freedom, encouragement to work hard, to buy and sell with rules (respect contracts), take care of your family, to not lie, not steal, or not harm...etc.

I would submit, from my vantage point, what we see with "reason" without a Judeo-Christian tradition is that you get the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks. What you get with the tempering of Western faith is something that looks like the American Revolution. It's called tolerance and empathy - the ability to listen to others; realizing you can learn something - "enlightened" enough, humble enough to know you don't have all the answers.

We would agree and disagree. However, in the tradition of the West - We can agree to disagree and still be friends.

There are still plenty of close-minded xenophobes here in the United States, who will act violently on their ignorant impulses.

We can agree on this. Too bad you thought I was suggesting some kind of American super-purity. That's unfortunate. I don't write as well as I can speak with folks face-to-face. As we'd get to know each other, perhaps, we can give each other the benefit of the doubt. Yes? That is also a Western tradition - yet, too seldom practiced in these extreme days of ours.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

[Astraeus]

Originally Posted by 3SoldierDad

That's my point...Yes.




I would submit, from my vantage point, what we see with "reason" without a Judeo-Christian tradition is that you get the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks. What you get with the tempering of Western faith is something that looks like the American Revolution. It's called tolerance and empathy - the ability to listen to others; realizing you can learn something - "enlightened" enough, humble enough to know you don't have all the answers.

We would agree and disagree. However, in the tradition of the West - We can agree to disagree and still be friends.



We can agree on this. Too bad you thought I was suggesting some kind of American super-purity. That's unfortunate. I don't write as well as I can speak with folks face-to-face. As we'd get to know each other, perhaps, we can give each other the benefit of the doubt. Yes? That is also a Western tradition - yet, too seldom practiced in these extreme days of ours.

Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

Nah, sir I see where you're coming from. I think perhaps a factor to consider in the differences between the American and French revolutions is that the first was a colony rebelling from an outside power, and the second was a conflict within a single country deposing the government.

Take care

[bailaviborita]

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that because of the Catholic Church's persecution of others during the Middle Ages that you cannot critisize today's fundamentalists nor point out the advantages of the Christian faith that seem obvious today. While I am by no means a bible-beater, I am able to see that the church that Peter founded on Jesus' teachings did not advocate what the Crusades or Inquisition represented. Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons. To label the entire faith and its teachings as "the same as Islam's" is missing some fundamental points- especially if you believe that History advances (and thus things that have survived and are prosperous today are by definition more valuable to us in general than things in the past- and therefore likewise incomparable outside of the same time period).

The bottom line is that Christianity differs from Islam in that Christianity advocated a separation of church and state (render unto Caesar...) and was founded as a religion of those not in power focused on the Afterlife. Islam- by contrast- has no such provision for a separation of church and state- they are one and the same- and Mohammed was a spiritual leader, a revolutionary, and a military and political leader- and Islam reflects that multi-natured flavor of its beginning. Islam tells everyone how to live every aspect of their life- Christianity does not. Regardless of how leaders in the past or present translate Jesus' teachings- the doctrinal basis of Christianity does not advocate what Islam advocates.

Thus, the hope for an Islamic "reformation" is a false one because the reformation idea has no doctrinal basis- and therefore should not be relied upon by the West. Christianity reformed based on the principles of Jesus' teachings- not on some new ideas about life mixed in with the doctrine. Martin Luther used Jesus' teachings to try to get the Catholic Church to revert back to the "true" faith. To have the same in Islam would require a different doctrine- one very different than Mohammed's. In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs.

Our discounting of religion in our own culture causes us to miss the nuances and importance of religion in other cultures, and invites the apologists in our secular culture to stymie debate. From my own reading, Osama's own words, and from what I've gathered talking to Moslems in the Middle East-- I would conclude it IS about religion, their religion IS different than Christianity, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem- in terms of what we define as "moderate", and the doctrine of the Moslem faith does lead to the violence we see today- just as the doctrine of the Christian faith does lead to the moderation we see today.

[Astraeus]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that because of the Catholic Church's persecution of others during the Middle Ages that you cannot critisize today's fundamentalists nor point out the advantages of the Christian faith that seem obvious today. While I am by no means a bible-beater, I am able to see that the church that Peter founded on Jesus' teachings did not advocate what the Crusades or Inquisition represented. Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons. To label the entire faith and its teachings as "the same as Islam's" is missing some fundamental points- especially if you believe that History advances (and thus things that have survived and are prosperous today are by definition more valuable to us in general than things in the past- and therefore likewise incomparable outside of the same time period).

The bottom line is that Christianity differs from Islam in that Christianity advocated a separation of church and state (render unto Caesar...) and was founded as a religion of those not in power focused on the Afterlife. Islam- by contrast- has no such provision for a separation of church and state- they are one and the same- and Mohammed was a spiritual leader, a revolutionary, and a military and political leader- and Islam reflects that multi-natured flavor of its beginning. Islam tells everyone how to live every aspect of their life- Christianity does not. Regardless of how leaders in the past or present translate Jesus' teachings- the doctrinal basis of Christianity does not advocate what Islam advocates.

Thus, the hope for an Islamic "reformation" is a false one because the reformation idea has no doctrinal basis- and therefore should not be relied upon by the West. Christianity reformed based on the principles of Jesus' teachings- not on some new ideas about life mixed in with the doctrine. Martin Luther used Jesus' teachings to try to get the Catholic Church to revert back to the "true" faith. To have the same in Islam would require a different doctrine- one very different than Mohammed's. In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs.

Our discounting of religion in our own culture causes us to miss the nuances and importance of religion in other cultures, and invites the apologists in our secular culture to stymie debate. From my own reading, Osama's own words, and from what I've gathered talking to Moslems in the Middle East-- I would conclude it IS about religion, their religion IS different than Christianity, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem- in terms of what we define as "moderate", and the doctrine of the Moslem faith does lead to the violence we see today- just as the doctrine of the Christian faith does lead to the moderation we see today.

Alright, do you want to get into the "tolerant" history of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism? It wasn't as autocratic, but it's still pretty nasty. Internment of Native American children in missions for religious re-education is one example. As you say "Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons." Throughout the history of Christianity people have. Religion is not something that exists in some abstract reality, it's what people practice and do.

I would consider a moderate Muslim someone who does not advocate the murder of non-Muslims and so called Kafir Muslims throughout the world. Someone who allows for the possibility of non-Muslims to co-exist peacefully inside of the Islamic societies of Middle Eastern countries. As I stated earlier, I've come across a large number of extremely intolerant people in Middle Eastern societies. But ignorant attitudes towards outsiders abound in certain parts of America as well, as I found out while roadtripping in rural Virginia as a Californian traveling with a Jew and an Englishman from London. I've met plenty of Middle Eastern Muslims as well, much less educated than the average American that when I said that I was Christian, would simply say "Ala-Kiteb Al-hamdulele (It's all one book, it's all good dude), and who differentiated between the policies of my country and our government, and the people of the United States, saying that they like Americans, just not our policies in the Middle East. Even a Syrian cabbie with less then a high school education told me that he wanted me to know that he saw the difference between our government and American people, and that he has no problem with the American society, he just wishes the U.S. government would change it's ways in the Middle East. Some people with a similar educational background in the U.S. might not have so nuanced a view.

Still, what you say is very true, there will never be an Islamic reformation, the concept of Tauheed (basically everything is rendered unto God) makes it a nogo from the beginning. Still, I feel that a large amount of what is really Arab or Middle Eastern tribal culture is characterized as stemming from Islam. Honors killings for example (killing a female family member who is suspected of engaging in inappropriate contact with a non-blood relative) is widely perceived as a uniquely Islamic phenomena. Honor killings in Jordan are actually equally common among the Jordanian Christian population, and (according to a human rights advocate who works there who I talked with once), the quantity would be disproportionate to the size of of the Christian population (6 percent).

"In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs."
The ideas of Sayid Qutib, Wahabism, Osama Bin Laden, and other extremist forms of Islam are relatively new phenomenon since the 18th century, and don't constitute a "return" to the basis of the religion any more than Amish wearing "traditional" clothes constitutes a return to the fundamentals of Christianity. There will always be calls within certain factions of all religions to return back to "what was before," the good old days so to speak, and in this process of supposedly reverting back to the original a new doctrine is created. Bin Laden considers most modern-day Muslims to be Kafir, so how is it that this is a fundamental belief system in Islam?

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by Astraeus

Alright, do you want to get into the "tolerant" history of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism?

No, I don't want to get into that- I already stated it was a moot point. Comparing religions across time periods is inconsistent and takes things out of context. In addition, taking examples of outliers to prove generalizations isn't logical either. I tried to make the point that the doctrines are different and that what we have today in the U.S. has emerged because of, not in spite of, the Christian doctrine. Regardless of past corruptions or misinterpretations today, the overall progress of Christian-based countries has tended towards more tolerance- not less, more internal peace- not less, more secularism- not less, and more science-based progress- not less. These tenets are at the heart of Christianity- and importantly NOT at the heart of Islam. Islam is a religion that was founded by a revolutionary, military leader, and political leader- and it reflects those connections in its doctrine. Christianity, was founded targeting those out of power and focused on the Afterlife- not in setting up the perfect Christian country. That is what is important today and in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong- but your initial response on this thread was taking issue with the characterization of Christianity being tolerant and Islam being intolerant. You then stated that the actions of the believers in the past proves your point. I take issue to the comparisons and the idea that doctrine is not that important. I think the doctrine is ultimately what drives the long-term progress (or lack thereof) for the adherents. Therefore, since the doctrines of Christianity are what they are, Western countries have progressed more; and vice-versa for Moslem countries- and we can expect more of this trend in the future.

Originally Posted by Astraeus

I would consider a moderate Muslim someone who does not advocate the murder of non-Muslims and so called Kafir Muslims throughout the world. Someone who allows for the possibility of non-Muslims to co-exist peacefully inside of the Islamic societies of Middle Eastern countries.

I don't agree- we are so used to a majority of our people being in the middle on most issues that I don't think it is an apt comparison when using the Middle East. Islam is structured very differently, therefore not allowing a moderation. We confuse the issue by calling those who advocate killing as extremists- but there is no separation of views in Islam- and it would make no sense to an Islamic religious scholar.

Originally Posted by Astraeus

still, I feel that a large amount of what is really Arab or Middle Eastern tribal culture is characterized as stemming from Islam.

I would think it is exactly the opposite- that Bedouin culture was infused into Islamic beginnings. Either way, the effect is the same- the doctrine was great in keeping them alive in the desert- it is not so great in an urban, scientific-based, egalitarian, contemporary culture.

Originally Posted by Astraeus

The ideas of Sayid Qutib, Wahabism, Osama Bin Laden, and other extremist forms of Islam are relatively new phenomenon since the 18th century, and don't constitute a "return" to the basis of the religion any more than Amish wearing "traditional" clothes constitutes a return to the fundamentals of Christianity. There will always be calls within certain factions of all religions to return back to "what was before," the good old days so to speak, and in this process of supposedly reverting back to the original a new doctrine is created. Bin Laden considers most modern-day Muslims to be Kafir, so how is it that this is a fundamental belief system in Islam?

There are plenty of books spelling out what religious scholars call for- to include Osama- I can give you some titles if you need them; but I'm not going to list the points they make here. Their main statements, however, reflect concepts from Islamic doctrine. Martin Luther could never have doctrinally pushed for kiling the pope and taking over and ruling Rome- it simply is not in Jesus' teachings. Osama, however- can push for those concepts by using the Islamic texts- because they are in there.

[Richard]

Guys,

I grew up in the country and most of the people around our area were 'mildly' religious at best. My Dad never trusted anybody that was too zealous about anything, including patriotism, politics, and religious beliefs. There was one woman down the road who my Dad said had enough religion in her to form her own country...but he pitied anybody who would choose to live there if they didn't agree with her personal religious points-of-view. I didn't quite understand his point back then but learned to appreciate his wisdom over time and with the worldly experience I gained in SF. My Mom was pretty religious and we used to have to spend time at a Missionary Baptist Church to ease her conscience, and those ffolkes were some dunking fools who would just as soon hold a baptism as pass a collection basket. But when my youngest brother died at 21, Mom gave up on religion as she couldn't understand how God could have done that to her and the family. My Dad always told us that we didn't need an interpreter to speak with God; He'd understand what we were trying to say and He wouldn't charge you for the experience. Dad considered organized religion to be more business than religious beliefs, and thought it to be mostly 'monkey business' at that...which is why I came to appreciate the likes of the veteran chaplains we had in SF like Bert Pitchford and Marion Mills. I attend--sporadically--a UMC here in Dallas because the minister is very down to earth in his approach and does not pressure anyone into joining the church, just welcomes you when you're there. I appreciate that approach and the way they run their confirmation program for young people, taking them to worship at a synogogue, other protestant congregations, and a mosque. His opinion is that knowledge is power and it is the individual who must choose to accept God or not. I know this kind of rambles, but that's pretty much the way I feel about it, too. I may be seeing y'all in hell...or not. TBD. If not, I hope to see y'all at that BIG A CAMP IN THE SKY I dream about.

Richard's $.02

[3SoldierDad]

Religion sucks...

If it wasn't for Jesus, I wouldn't really want to be a Christian.

My $.02


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck