They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Hmmm....well you certainly don't see mentally deranged Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Protestants, Lutherans or Atheists trying to blow up planes, themselves, or bunches of women and children in a marketplace.[/left]

I understand your point, but just to clarify, plenty of these people perform violent acts daily. It's the motivation that is different. Motivation for commiting violence is complex, so, imo the only violence that is of concern here are those that exist to further radical religious and cultural goals at the expense of others.

As an example, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka are mostly Hindu or Catholic. Yet they carried on a lengthy, violent civil war, complete with terrorism, suicide bombings etc directed at the Sri Lankan people, which killed about 80,000 people. So why do we condemn all Muslims for terrorism, but not the Tamils? Imho, it's because the Tamil terrorism was not directed at the West, so western nations mostly don't care. <cough-double standard-cough>



Now, sane Muslims are usually very decent people, like this guy:
From this site

NYC cabbie follows mother's advice to be honest, returns over $21,000 lost by tourist

Wed Jan 13, 1:27 AM

By Virginia Byrne, The Associated Press
NEW YORK - A Bangladeshi taxi driver in New York City said he returned a lost purse containing more than $21,000 in cash and expensive jewelry because his mother always advised him to be honest.

"I'm broke, but I'm honest," 28-year-old Mohammad "Mukal" Asadujjaman said Tuesday.

Felicia Lettieri, of Pompeii, Italy, and six relatives had taken two cabs from midtown Manhattan to Penn Station on Christmas Eve. The 72-year-old Lettieri left her purse behind, with more than $21,000 of the group's travelling money, jewelry worth thousands more, and some of their passports.

Police advised the tourists they had little chance of recovering the lost goods.

Felicia Lettieri returned to Pompeii and could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday. Her sister, Francesca Lettieri, 79, of Long Island, told Newsday that the honest driver had saved her family's vacation, and said "We really love what he did."

The driver, a native of Bangladesh, saw the rolls of euros when he opened the bag to look for an address, but didn't even count the money. "My mother is my inspiration," the soft-spoken cabbie said. "She always said to be honest and work hard."

The driver called a friend with a car and drove some 50 miles (80 kilometres) to a Long Island address in the purse. No one was home, so Asadujjaman left his cellphone number and a note. His phone rang a short time later and he drove back to return the bag.

"They were so, so, so happy," Asadujjaman beamed.

The immigrant is a full-time student at a city college near his apartment in Jamaica, Queens. He began driving a cab a few days a week about three months ago, after his hours were cut back at a former factory job.

Asked if he was tempted to keep the cash, Asadujjaman acknowledged the money would have allowed him more time to study, "but my heart said this is not good." He also turned down a reward, saying he could not accept it as an observant Muslim.

"I'm needy, but I'm not greedy," said Asadujjaman. "It's better to be honest.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Hmmm....well you certainly don't see mentally deranged Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Protestants, Lutherans or Atheists trying to blow up planes, themselves, or bunches of women and children in a marketplace.[/left]

I hate to say it, but Timothy McVeigh was a practicing Roman Catholic.

McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by CL8

I hate to say it, but Timothy McVeigh was a practicing Roman Catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Hmm...well your own quote of McVeigh`s comment:

Originally Posted by Mcveigh

McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.

Sorry, but some critical thinking is missing here. Your own quote of Mr. McVeigh`s statement indicates he was not, in fact, a practicing Catholic. What one does as an adult is NOT the same as what you are raised with. Sorry CL8, but I cannot agree with you. He said himself that he had lost touch with it and never picked it up. How can you say he`s a practicing Catholic...


Rat as usual you are correct. However I must say that the rebels in Sri Lanka directed their terrorism inward, for one goal. If they had directed their terrorism OUTward, say at India or any other country that was not involved in the situation, then they would have had more international coverage.

Terrorism IMO is in large part a war fought on nontraditional terms. The direction of terrorism against the west is immaterial; if you involve others outside of the conflict of which you are involved, then you are in the wrong. For example, setting off a bomb in Cairo to make a point about your plight in Iran is external terrorism. Setting off a bomb in Iran to fight the fight you are involved with in Iran is, to me a different thing entirely. The first is simply terrorism for it`s own sake and involving others that are not in your fight. The second is an act of war against the entity you are fighting against. This is a distinction that many people are unable to make.

And before anyone gets all crazy (waving my hands in circles like a crazy person) yes, I`m aware that the terrorists attacking the west view the west as the enemy in a larger scale war.

I still believe that if the Middle East had been completely left alone by the west, that they would be killing each other off - as they have been for thousands of years.

[drunken monkey]

Does ETA count as a mainly Catholic group that regulary carries out acts of terrorism?

This is an area that highlights a difference being Muslim and being Christian.
Those born into a Muslim culture/society by and large stay in that culture/society.
That is to say a person born Muslim will by and large remain muslim.
However, those born into a Christian culture/society are not neccesarily Christian.

Such a bad way of putting it....

What I mean is, there is a large difference in numbers between those that are nominally Muslim in a Muslim country and those that are nominally Christian in a Christian one.
Take a person from an Islamic country like Iraq and chances are, he's a practicing Muslim.
Take a person from a mainly Christian country and it's more than likely that they are not a practicing Christian.

Does that make any sense?

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Does ETA count as a mainly Catholic group that regulary carries out acts of terrorism?

This is an area that highlights a difference being Muslim and being Christian.
Those born into a Muslim culture/society by and large stay in that culture/society.
That is to say a person born Muslim will by and large remain muslim.
However, those born into a Christian culture/society are not neccesarily Christian.

Such a bad way of putting it....

What I mean is, there is a large difference in numbers between those that are nominally Muslim in a Muslim country and those that are nominally Christian in a Christian one.
Take a person from an Islamic country like Iraq and chances are, he's a practicing Muslim.
Take a person from a mainly Christian country and it's more than likely that they are not a practicing Christian.

Does that make any sense?

I believe the difference is in "Christian" countries there is freedom of religion.
In Muslim countries there is not freedom of religion with rarely, if ever, an exception.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Hmm...well your own quote of McVeigh`s comment:

Sorry, but some critical thinking is missing here. Your own quote of Mr. McVeigh`s statement indicates he was not, in fact, a practicing Catholic. What one does as an adult is NOT the same as what you are raised with. Sorry CL8, but I cannot agree with you. He said himself that he had lost touch with it and never picked it up. How can you say he`s a practicing Catholic...

I'm glad you picked up on that point about McVeigh Fred.
Many unbelievers would go along with McVeigh as being a practicing Catholic because of that quote.
I also agree just because he went to church as a kid doesn't mean did as an adult, or that he believed that faith as an adult.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

I believe the difference is in "Christian" countries there is freedom of religion.
In Muslim countries there is not freedom of religion with rarely, if ever, an exception.

I would expand on this a bit by saying that many Christian countries have strong secular traditions, such as separation of church and state, a secular legal system etc, which is lacking in some Muslim nations. Therefore, may people can live as atheists without difficulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that predominantly Muslim nations have no freedom of religion. This is untrue. Some of the largest Muslim populations live in nations with strong secular traditions, such as a secular government, legal system and freedom of religion.
Such nations include Indonesia, Turkey and India; and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I would expand on this a bit by saying that many Christian countries have strong secular traditions, such as separation of church and state, a secular legal system etc, which is lacking in some Muslim nations. Therefore, may people can live as atheists without difficulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that predominantly Muslim nations have no freedom of religion. This is untrue. Some of the largest Muslim populations live in nations with strong secular traditions, such as a secular government, legal system and freedom of religion.
Such nations include Indonesia, Turkey and India; and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Hmm,
according to these sites, Turkey may "officially" have freedom of religion, but the persecution against certain religions makes it not very free or tolerable.

India is more dominantly hindu than Muslim

And Indonesia has strong roots in hindu and budhism, only recently has the Muslim faith grown there, the government isn't officially Muslim.

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=670&pdf=Y

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...n_in_Indonesia

http://adaniel.tripod.com/religions.htm

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Hmm,
according to these sites, Turkey may "officially" have freedom of religion, but the persecution against certain religions makes it not very free or tolerable.

India is more dominantly hindu than Muslim

And Indonesia has strong roots in hindu and budhism, only recently has the Muslim faith grown there, the government isn't officially Muslim.

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=670&pdf=Y

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...n_in_Indonesia

http://adaniel.tripod.com/religions.htm

Hundreds of millions of Muslims live in democratic societies where freedom of religion is entrenched.

Turkey's government and legislative tradition is secular and does not want anything to do with adopting Islam as an official religion. (Even your link indicates Islamic religions as well as others face restrictions in Turkey). But there are Islamic parties who want this...... just as there are Christian groups wanting the US to be officially labelled a Christian nation.

India has 160 million Muslims! This is hardly an insignificant number. And India is well - known as the world's largest democracy.

And Indonesia is the worlds most populous Muslim nation. Their political institutions and culture means that their versions of Islam are mostly moderate and inclusive of other religions.

So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.

Finally, these regimes not only oppress Christians. They oppress members of other religions as well as women and homosexuals

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.

Finally, these regimes not only oppress Christians. They oppress members of other religions as well as women and homosexuals

MagicRat, you are trying to break down a concrete wall with you bare hands.

It's not going to happen.

You are deliberately ignoring the grave truth about Islamic belief and leadership.

Your are also trying to say certain nations have Islamic leadership when they do not.

Also it doesn't matter how many Muslims are in a nation, it's what belief system do the leaders rule by that is at issue here.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

MagicRat, you are trying to break down a concrete wall with you bare hands.

It's not going to happen.

You are deliberately ignoring the grave truth about Islamic belief and leadership.

Your are also trying to say certain nations have Islamic leadership when they do not.

Also it doesn't matter how many Muslims are in a nation, it's what belief system do the leaders rule by that is at issue here.

That's irrelevant to my point.

I am discussing national leadership, not Islamic leadership. The nations with the largest Muslim populations , as I listed, are secular. This means their politics and political leadership is not islamic.
Therefore, moderate Islam is compatible with nations which separate religion and state, as proven by the hundreds of millions of Muslims that happily live in such places.


You are letting your feelings about a few totalitarian Islamic states blind you to the fact that not all Muslims are the same. Most are moderate. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

That's irrelevant to my point.

I am discussing national leadership, not Islamic leadership. The nations with the largest Muslim populations , as I listed, are secular. This means their politics and political leadership is not islamic.
Therefore, moderate Islam is compatible with nations which separate religion and state, as proven by the hundreds of millions of Muslims that happily live in such places.


You are letting your feelings about a few totalitarian Islamic states blind you to the fact that not all Muslims are the same. Most are moderate. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Ok, so MR, you said in this statement that, these three nations, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan Have "oppresive culture" but are not Islamic.

So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.

The three links below refute that.
All three nations have their official religion as Islam, and are ruled by Islamic law.
And you admit they are three of the most totalitarian and oppressive nations.

On the other hand as you and I pointed out, those other nations (Turkey, Indonesia and India) are NOT officially Muslim nations.
And they give MORE freedom of religion to their citizens than the other three which ARE officially Muslim!


I agree, just because someone practices the Muslim faith doesn't make them a terrorist or a murderer.

But given the evidence I think you will agree the religion of Islam is a poison in the minds and hearts of those who take it seriously,
leading many of them to oppress, kill and take freedom away from others.

But just like cigarette smoke is poison,
not ALL smokers die from it, so not all Muslims become oppresive terrorists from the poison of the Islamic doctrine.



http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/religion

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...8/Saudi-Arabia

http://www.espac.org/sudan_region/religion_in_sudan.asp

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Ok, so MR, you said in this statement that, these three nations, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan Have "oppresive culture" but are not Islamic.


The three links below refute that.
All three nations have their official religion as Islam, and are ruled by Islamic law.
And you admit they are three of the most totalitarian and oppressive nations.

On the other hand as you and I pointed out, those other nations (Turkey, Indonesia and India) are NOT officially Muslim nations.
And they give MORE freedom of religion to their citizens than the other three which ARE officially Muslim!


I agree, just because someone practices the Muslim faith doesn't make them a terrorist or a murderer.

But given the evidence I think you will agree the religion of Islam is a poison in the minds and hearts of those who take it seriously,
leading many of them to oppress, kill and take freedom away from others.

CL8, you have just agreed with me Thank you!!!!!!!

The vast majority of Muslims believe they are good people and try to behave in what they believe is a reasonable fashion, just as people everywhere do.
IMO such people are good becase of who they are, not because of their religion. Good Muslims would be good Christians if they were raised with Christian people.

Islam, like Communism, has been shown to be a very poor basis for societies to administer themselves. Communism, regardless of the idyllic, egalitarian principles, has universally been adopted by despotic regimes, just as Islam has.
But these societies became despotic not because of Islam, or Communism, but because of complex historical and cultural issues.

For this reason, Islam, like ANY religion, is a terrible basis to run a society, because it is subject interpretation and manipulation. It can be used to support a whole range of barbaric and restrictive practices. But Islam does not always lead to this. Millions of Muslims live in relatively free societies quite happily.

So, what makes Indonesia, Turkey and India relatively free societies, dispite their religious populations? The rule of secular law.

I should point out that Christianity has been used to justify equally repressive and despotic behaviors in the past. The fact that Western nations are relatively free democratic and prize individual freedoms happened in spite of Chritianity, not because of it.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

CL8, you have just agreed with me Thank you!!!!!!!

The vast majority of Muslims believe they are good people and try to behave in what they believe is a reasonable fashion, just as people everywhere do.
IMO such people are good becase of who they are, not because of their religion. Good Muslims would be good Christians if they were raised with Christian people.

"There is none good but one, that is God." quote from Christ himself Mt. 19:17

Islam, like Communism, has been shown to be a very poor basis for societies to administer themselves. Communism, regardless of the idyllic, egalitarian principles, has universally been adopted by despotic regimes, just as Islam has.
But these societies became despotic not because of Islam, or Communism, but because of complex historical and cultural issues.

For this reason, Islam, like ANY religion, is a terrible basis to run a society,

Lets see, "thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness...... Yes RELIGIOUS commandments, abiding by them makes life sooo terrible for everyone!

because it is subject interpretation and manipulation. It can be used to support a whole range of barbaric and restrictive practices. But Islam does not always lead to this. Millions of Muslims live in relatively free societies quite happily.

And those FREE societies are not run by Muslim law.

So, what makes Indonesia, Turkey and India relatively free societies, dispite their religious populations? The rule of secular law.

Taken from biblical principles

I should point out that Christianity has been used to justify equally repressive and despotic behaviors in the past. The fact that Western nations are relatively free democratic and prize individual freedoms happened in spite of Chritianity, not because of it.

Not BIBLICAL Christianity. I'm sure you are referring to Catholic run nations. Catholicism
is not pure biblical Christianity. They corrupt it with man made rules and doctrine not found in the bible.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

And those FREE societies are not run by Muslim law.

And technically speaking, they aren't run by Christian Law (or more correctly, a Christian government) either. Of course, you'd repeat something about laws coming from the Bible but this leads to the next point...

Originally Posted by CL8

Taken from biblical principles

Secular law (based on humanistic morals) existed before Moses even walked the earth.

Seeing as you like quoting the Bible so much, how does this one strike you?

Originally Posted by Numbers 31:13-18 (King James Version)

And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Originally Posted by CL8

Not BIBLICAL Christianity. I'm sure you are referring to Catholic run nations. Catholicism is not pure biblical Christianity. They corrupt it with man made rules and doctrine not found in the bible.

So are you saying that Cathlocism isn't Christianity then?
Incidentally, congratulations, you have just virtually repeated what we have trying to tell you about the relationship between fundementalism and Islam.