Peaceful or not

[ACPlayer]

I dont misunderstand anything on this subject.

But, I do understand your mindset on this subject.

The Khampa rebels is a good example here. We have a religion that is being misused by a bunch of people to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation.

This is exactly what extremists in Islam do. They misuse their religion to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation and, I believe, economic considerations.

In both cases highly respected voices of either religion condemn the action as not being in keeping with their faith.

The analogy is clear and accurate.

The discussion of whether a religion is more or less, inherently, violent is entirely outside the main point. Even granting your conjecture about Islam being inherently violent (which I dont), applying that to the current situation is wrong.

I will spell it out again, but only for those who who are open to discussion, the primary or even secondary cause of the terrorist behaviour is NOT Islam per se.

I dont expect you to get it.

[lehighguy]

1) High ranking members of Islam, on the whole, do not condemn terrorists in any meaningful fashion. If you did a went to an average Mosque in Saudi Arabia do you think the sermon would favor or disfavor violence and radicalism?

2) All religion, at least ones with an all-knowing God that is infallible and has set down iron clad rules are inherntly intolerant, which leads to violence. I consider Christianity, Judaism, and Islam inherintly violent. The only reason we don't see more acts of violence is that people, even the devoutly religous, don't entirely buy into thier religion. They have doubts, and those doubts allow them to be more tolerant, because after all they could be wrong.

[ACPlayer]

The moderates in Islam do condemn the actions as being incompatible with Islam. I posted a link with many documented condemnations earlier in a thread.

You are correct that all religions are inherently violent (with the exception of Buddhism, etc as pointed out by others and extremists even there find a religious justification!). The reason you dont see the Christian community violent today -- is because they have no reason to be led down that path by the extremists. Thorugh history when they had reason (usually economic or political) the extremists had no trouble recruiting average christians to the task by misusing the bible.

If tomorrow this should change and the christian societies get a reason then they too would be willing to join up in a biblical crusade again, IMO.

One reason, I deplore making Islam the culprit in terrorism is because I fear that this would make it easier for the extremists to leverage the fear of terrorism to advance a christian theological agenda (both politically, and possibly militarily).

[lehighguy]

1) That link was bogus. I don't care if Muslims in the west condemn it. When the majority of Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia and Iran get on TV and declare a fatwa against violence I'll be impressed.

Of course there are equivilants in the west. The Pope thinks he can tell me wether or not I can use condoms or get a blowjob. But at least he isn't calling for a crusade to kill condomn wearers. The ratio of sane people to religous nuts is much better in the west.

2) It's important we start getting religion out of the Middle East. Liberal Democracy is impossible without seperation of church and state. And seperation of church and state is impossible without the support of the population. They have to believe in it, and its impossible for a truly religous person, who believes his God infallible, to support seperation of church and state. Only when people become less religous is it possible.

I fear that the "Islam isn't the problem" PC attitude is going to sabotage our efforts in Iraq. Instead of setting up important liberal democratic institutions, which necessarily requires forcing idealogical change as we did in Japan (deposing the emporer), Germany, SK, and elsewhere, we are simply going to turn the country over to a bunch of religous extremist. Iraq will become the new Afghanistan if we don't start realizing the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/op...1vincent.html?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Khampa rebels is a good example here. We have a religion that is being misused by a bunch of people to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what is occurring here. They are not using (or misusing) their religion to fight oppression, because there is absolutely nothing in their religion that could be so used or misused for that purpose. They are acting entirely OUTSIDE their religion, for the peculiar purpose of defending it from feared destruction. THAT is their justification--not some scriptural verses instructing them to fight, because there aren't any such verses.

Their religious leader, the Dalai Lama, has also spoken against this.

Sakyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, was a peaceful man although many people were unfavorably disposed towards him during his lifetime, even sometimes doing cruel things such as throwing glass before his feet when he went out with his begging bowl.

Contrast that with Islam, wherein:

1) there are myriad Koranic verses instructing Muslims to fight non-believers

2) there are many Islamic religious leaders today espousing violence--and some against violence, too

3) Mohammed himself espoused violence in the name of Allah, and espoused fighting non-believers, and personally led many military campaigns of violent conquest

How can you say "In both cases highly respected voices of either religion condemn the action as not being in keeping with their faith" with a straight face, when THE most respected religious leader in all of Islamic history, Mohammed himself, led many war parties into battle (and promised his soldier-followers booty in this world and sensual delights in the next)?

Clearly THAT highly respected Islamic leader did not condemn violence: he participated in many dozens of military campaigns, and personally led over a dozen, all in the name of Islam.

Your claims are just not supported by the facts.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider Christianity, Judaism, and Islam inherintly violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but if one considers Christianity *to be the teachings of Jesus* then Christianity is utterly opposed to violence. Most Christians today however do not view Christianity in such a limited manner (as to why they don't, I'm not sure). It should be noted that nearly all the Early Christians were pacifists.

[tolbiny]

Jehova's witnesses, and the Amish.

[MMMMMM]

Quakers.

[tolbiny]

10 frames - That's for Quakers.

[MuckJagger]

No, 15 frames for Quakers.