Do you think Islam is the enemy?

[waccamatt]

Personally, I think all of man's religions are an enemy to man.

Islam is intolerant, agressive and mean. So is x-tianity. The world would be a much happier place without religion IMHO:)

Man, I so totally agree with you. More people get killed and hurt and harassed in the name of religion than any other reason.

IMO, religion was created as a way to control the uneducated masses of many centuries ago. Religion has outlived it's usefullness except for radical conservatives in this country and suicidal fanatics in others. IMO.

I've always said that, too. Most educated people of the cloth know that, too and will admit it if they are not part of the radical right.

[somad]

What's the difference between a Muslim who thinks all non-Muslims are hte infidel and those they capture deserve to be beheaded... and "Christians" who think all non-Christians are going to burn in hell for eternity.. let me be more specific... non-saved people according to their narrow Biblical view will burn for eternity and that wrong-doers deserve the death penalty? I don't get it. It's like an apple condemning an orange for being a fruit.

"I wish we forced their government"...

WE can't force THEM to do anything that THEY don't want to do. We will not lead Iraq to democracy with guns and ammo or shock and awe. The people of Iraq will lead themselves to democracy with guidance from the democratic world by their own will, for their own reasons, and for their own ambitions.

Why am I constantly being put on the spot for the actions of a few Christians in this thread?

And well... yes we can force them. We could have not turned over sovereignty until they agreed to create a secular government.... We are the occupying force. Haven't we forced Democracy on other nations in the past? How is this all that different?

[Gusterfell]

Why am I constantly being put on the spot for the actions of a few Christians in this thread?

And well... yes we can force them. We could have not turned over sovereignty until they agreed to create a secular government.... We are the occupying force. Haven't we forced Democracy on other nations in the past? How is this all that different?

Then I'll ask again, how is our forcing our system on other countries any different than the Soviet Union doing exactly the same thing? The Soviets believed communist socialism was just as noble and right as we believe democratic capitalsm is.

[Charlotteman]

The Middle East and the West seem centuries apart. Maybe that's the central difficulty of peaceful coexistence between the two sides.

[somad]

Then I'll ask again, how is our forcing our system on other countries any different than the Soviet Union doing exactly the same thing? The Soviets believed communist socialism was just as noble and right as we believe democratic capitalsm is.

The answer is that we are right and the Soviets were wrong. Since we've already invaded Iraq, we might as well give them the gift of Democracy. Again, most people didn't think that Germany (yes I know it was a "democracy" and elected Hitler I don't know why I should have to put this in here..) and Japan could become Democracies... and look at them today.

Tell me this: How is a Government by the people for the people not something that everyone deserves? If one must think that because Soviet style communism is noble and right then maybe one could also argue that fuedalism is a noble cause and should be forced upon a people.

FYI: I hated Sociology class in college and think Moral Relativism is a crock... Like it or not, there will sometimes (if not most times) be a clear right and wrong. Even if there is a shade of gray, I think one can in most cases still point to the lesser of the evils...

[Snowguy716]

The answer is that we are right and the Soviets were wrong. Since we've already invaded Iraq, we might as well give them the gift of Democracy. Again, most people didn't think that Germany (yes I know it was a "democracy" and elected Hitler I don't know why I should have to put this in here..) and Japan could become Democracies... and look at them today.

Tell me this: How is a Government by the people for the people not something that everyone deserves? If one must think that because Soviet style communism is noble and right then maybe one could also argue that fuedalism is a noble cause and should be forced upon a people.

FYI: I hated Sociology class in college and think Moral Relativism is a crock... Like it or not, there will sometimes (if not most times) be a clear right and wrong. Even if there is a shade of gray, I think one can in most cases still point to the lesser of the evils...

Because what we're building in Iraq is government for the people by the Americans. Germany is a great example of a society that wanted democracy after WWII... they came together and worked towards a common goal to be a democracy. IN Iraq, there are religious sects that want very different things and by forcing them together in the name of democracy does nothing more than to create animosity between the groups and, ultimately, civil war which often lead to totalitarian regimes.

My idea for Iraq would be regions divided by religious sect that elect their own parliaments... and then have a senate type body that comes together to discuss non-controversial issues that tie the nations together. (infrastructure), etc. Like we have in the U.S... states tied together in a union. But I think in Iraq, that union would have to be a bit weaker to begin with.

[Mith242]

Because what we're building in Iraq is government for the people by the Americans. Germany is a great example of a society that wanted democracy after WWII... they came together and worked towards a common goal to be a democracy. IN Iraq, there are religious sects that want very different things and by forcing them together in the name of democracy does nothing more than to create animosity between the groups and, ultimately, civil war which often lead to totalitarian regimes.

My idea for Iraq would be regions divided by religious sect that elect their own parliaments... and then have a senate type body that comes together to discuss non-controversial issues that tie the nations together. (infrastructure), etc. Like we have in the U.S... states tied together in a union. But I think in Iraq, that union would have to be a bit weaker to begin with.

I hate to get this off topic but I have considered starting a topic asking if people think we should divide Iraq. That does seem like a possible solution to some of the current problems. Although there can be long term with problems with that as well. First of all what's to keep the Shia part from simply deciding to become a part of Iran? Giving Iran even more land, oil, and control in that area. Second of all giving the Kurds won't make a lot of friends for the US in the area either. A number of countries in the area have Kurdish populations in the area. Giving the Kurds in Iraq their own country puts more pressure on the other countries in the area to let the Kurdish areas of their country to seperate and join the rest of the possible Kurdish country. This would affect Turkey as well, which has rather close ties to Europe and the US. While the US could gain an ally out a new Kurdish country it could also stand to lose other allies like Turkey. I'm not saying that we shouldn't divide Iraq. It still might be best in many ways but it does potentially lead to other problems as well.

[monsoon]

Islam and Christianity have been used countless times over the last 2000 years to justify violence. And those who commit or support one side or the other are self righteous but there is nothing righteous about killing innocent people. Neither religion has the moral high ground over the other.

Likewise, there really is no such as thing as a monolitic "Islam" just as there isn't anything as as monolithic "Christian" religion. Those are descriptive terms that catagorize religions based on those that follow Jesus vs Mohammad and the Bible vs the Koran. Beyond that, there are sects, sub divisions, cults, extremists, etc etc of each. Catholicism and Southen Baptists both call themselves Christian, but there is a huge difference between them and many in both that would argue the other bunch are going to burn in hell. The same differences exist in Islam.

The failure to understand this is why there is so much trouble in Iraq today. Iraq is an unnatural collection of several very different people, were thrown together by an arrogant British lord after WWII. These groups, are all Islamic, but are also traditional enemies of each other. The only reason Iraq stayed together was because Saddam Hussein held the country together by a brutal rule. A brutal rule, which BTW was supported by the West for decades. There is a 1982 photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking Hussein's hand in a deal to sell Iraq weapons technology to use against Iran.

I can go on and on about failed US policy in the middle east such as going to war with Iraq for having weapons that we sold to them in the first place. The bottom line is that the various dictatorships in the Middle East are horribly repressive to their general populations and for the most part these governments are supported by the USA. (at least the ones that have oil) Desperate people do desparate things and usually in the name of whatever religion they were born into. Terrorism is the tool of choice to be used against a superpower and just because there terrorists are Muslims doesn't mean the Islam is an enemy of either the USA or the West. It is easy for a leader to cry "Islamic Facists" because it plays well to ignorant people and hides the fact that leader directly contributed to the problem in the first place.

[egrguy]

The Middle East and the West seem centuries apart. Maybe that's the central difficulty of peaceful coexistence between the two sides.

with china's rapid growth and modernization do you think relations have improved since Nixon's first visit or Tiannemen Square?

I hate to get this off topic but I have considered starting a topic asking if people think we should divide Iraq. That does seem like a possible solution to some of the current problems.

The failure to understand this is why there is so much trouble in Iraq today. Iraq is an unnatural collection of several very different people, were thrown together by an arrogant British lord after WWII. These groups, are all Islamic, but are also traditional enemies of each other. The only reason Iraq stayed together was because Saddam Hussein held the country together by a brutal rule. A brutal rule, which BTW was supported by the West for decades. There is a 1982 photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking Hussein's hand in a deal to sell Iraq weapons technology to use against Iran.

This to me seems like the most longterm logical and peaceful move. The same mistake was made with Yugoslavia and the country was only held together by Tito's iron rule, much like Saddam. Now, the country has been split up more to demographics, which I think with Iraq would aid in giving the country(ies) greater stability and growth over the long term.

[monsoon]

Indeed, only an uneducated idiot would go in there and expect these people to all shake hands and kiss each other on the cheeks after Saddam was ousted. Oh wait, we elected one. NVM.

[krazeeboi]

What's the difference between a Muslim who thinks all non-Muslims are hte infidel and those they capture deserve to be beheaded... and "Christians" who think all non-Christians are going to burn in hell for eternity.. let me be more specific... non-saved people according to their narrow Biblical view will burn for eternity and that wrong-doers deserve the death penalty? I don't get it. It's like an apple condemning an orange for being a fruit.

I'm not sure what your overall point is here, but there are drastic differences between your examples. An extremist Muslim would say that the infidel deserves death for being a non-Muslim and would probably have no problems executing the punishment himself. A Christian may believe that all non-Christians will go to hell (as most do), but rarely have I heard of a Christian (right-wing or not) setting a non-Christian on fire in attempt to somehow execute that judgment himself (not saying that it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen such). Secondly, many Christians don't believe that "wrong-doers" deserve the death penalty, but only those who actually take someone else's life intentionally and deliberately (in most cases). Believing that one is deserving of a particular punishment is one thing; actually attempting to execute that punishment personally is something else entirely. There is a BIG difference. And understand here, we're talking about regular individuals here, not governmental or religious institutions or those who head them.

[Mith242]

I'm not sure what your overall point is here, but there are drastic differences between your examples. An extremist Muslim would say that the infidel deserves death for being a non-Muslim and would probably have no problems executing the punishment himself. A Christian may believe that all non-Christians will go to hell (as most do), but rarely have I heard of a Christian (right-wing or not) setting a non-Christian on fire in attempt to somehow execute that judgment himself (not saying that it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen such). Secondly, many Christians don't believe that "wrong-doers" deserve the death penalty, but only those who actually take someone else's life intentionally and deliberately (in most cases). Believing that one is deserving of a particular punishment is one thing; actually attempting to execute that punishment personally is something else entirely. There is a BIG difference. And understand here, we're talking about regular individuals here, not governmental or religious institutions or those who head them.

I think part of it has to do with the way things have developed. Not only as each area of the 'Christian' and 'Muslim' world but even the religions itself. Christians didn't have a hard time killing lots of people in the past. Just look at the inquisitions and such. In you were innocent God would 'save' you and if you were guilty, well then you'd just die. I think the big turning point in both's part of the world happened after the Crusades. Medieval Europe eventually had the Renaissance, the period of 'enlightenment'. But it's seem the Muslim world seemed to slowly decline around that same period. They still had an important civilization for quite a while after that but it it didn't seem to ever regain the heights they had. I had to say it but if the 'Christian' world started falling into decline I wouldn't have a hard time seeing Christian fundamentalists doing many of the same things going on over in the Middle East today.

[monsoon]

...... But it's seem the Muslim world seemed to slowly decline around that same period. They still had an important civilization for quite a while after that but it it didn't seem to ever regain the heights they had. I had to say it but if the 'Christian' world started falling into decline I wouldn't have a hard time seeing Christian fundamentalists doing many of the same things going on over in the Middle East today.

The difference between Muslems and Christian's at the time were the Christians set their sights on the New World, India & China. For several hundred years they fueled their economies by exploiting the Americas and killing anyone that did not convert to their religion. And they created slavery of the African continent to provide the labor needed onces all of the native Americans had been either killed by wars fought against them, or by the wretched diseases these Europeans brought with them from Europe. If you equate "decline" by meaning in the material sense, then yes the Islamic countries were in decline as compaired to Christianity. If you mean in terms of morality, then no, Christianity had dropped to the bottom of the heap in terms of the misery it brought upon the multiudes of those days.

If you look at the last 500 years and count up the dead at Christian hands, vs any other religion including Islam, I think you will find there simply isn't any comparison. Christian's like to look at their history with rose colored glasses, and somehow forget all of the death and destuction they have brought to the world.

BTW, less than 10% of western Europeans identify themselves with the Christian church and Europe these days is a fairly passive place compared to the United States.

[somad]

If you look at the last 500 years and count up the dead at Christian hands, vs any other religion including Islam, I think you will find there simply isn't any comparison. Christian's like to look at their history with rose colored glasses, and somehow forget all of the death and destuction they have brought to the world.

BTW, less than 10% of western Europeans identify themselves with the Christian church and Europe these days is a fairly passive place compared to the United States.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Christian wrongs of the past do not in any way justify the brutality of the radical muslims.

[Charlotteman]

I have a feeling more people have died throughout history because of x-ianity than because of Islam. We'll never know the exact numbers, but it's obvious these two religions have practically crushed humanity with oppression, torture and misery for centuries.

They are both continuing to spread their miseries.....

Oh by the way, just a sidenote: Caucasian Europeans did not create African slavery. Blacks in Africa created it centuries before a white man ever came on the scene. When one African tribe conquered another tribe, typically all the survivors from the losing side became slaves. When the Dutch came around wanting slaves, they didn't have to capture slaves. The black tribal chieftans were more than happy to sell the Dutch traders lots of their slaves, who were also black of course.

[krazeeboi]

African slavery in and of itself was not a creation of Europeans, no. But the form it took in the New World was indeed novel. What you describe as having taken place in Africa took place on just about all continents in the world among the different cultures that populated that continent. We tend to think of Africa as a monolithic place instead of a vast continent populated with hundreds, even thousands, of different and diverse cultures, whereas we often think of Europeans categorically (British, Irish, German, French, Italian, Russian, etc.). I think this may be in part due to the solidarity that the Diaspora has essentially mandated take place among descendents of displaced Africans for the sake of self-preservation and identity (although that point is debatable), but at any rate, identity in antiquity to a much greater degree revolved around tribes and local culture, not skin color. A Hutu is just as much "other" for a Tutsi than a Spaniard, even though Hutus and Tutsis are both Black.

At any rate, I think it's important that cultural distinctions have come up here, which has a strong correlation with the history of world religions.

[Mith242]

The difference between Muslems and Christian's at the time were the Christians set their sights on the New World, India & China. For several hundred years they fueled their economies by exploiting the Americas and killing anyone that did not convert to their religion. And they created slavery of the African continent to provide the labor needed onces all of the native Americans had been either killed by wars fought against them, or by the wretched diseases these Europeans brought with them from Europe. If you equate "decline" by meaning in the material sense, then yes the Islamic countries were in decline as compaired to Christianity. If you mean in terms of morality, then no, Christianity had dropped to the bottom of the heap in terms of the misery it brought upon the multiudes of those days.

If you look at the last 500 years and count up the dead at Christian hands, vs any other religion including Islam, I think you will find there simply isn't any comparison. Christian's like to look at their history with rose colored glasses, and somehow forget all of the death and destuction they have brought to the world.

BTW, less than 10% of western Europeans identify themselves with the Christian church and Europe these days is a fairly passive place compared to the United States.

Yeah I meant in more the terms of 'civilization'. The Middle East was one of the most advanced areas of the world while Europe was in the dark ages. On your other note. I've heard many Europeans just as concerned over the US. Many Europeans worry about how religious comments pop up into Bush's statements as well. Reminds me of an article I just read recently talking about how the US has become more religious and how many view atheists as an enemy (another topic title?). Apparently polls have Americans picking a homosexual president well before an athiest one. Anyway sorry to get off topic here.

[Mith242]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Christian wrongs of the past do not in any way justify the brutality of the radical muslims.

True, but I think the reason why this keeps coming up is because many seem to have the idea that Christians are so 'enlightened' and better than Muslims. I was just trying to point out that Christians have just been as bad. I think the biggest thing we have to hope for is that Muslim fundamentalists subsides and that Islam develops more of a moderate view.

[Charlotteman]

^^^I agree---how ludicrous to assume x-tianity is more enlightened than Islam.

If ya wanna explore true enlightenment, take a peek at atheism some time:)

[somad]

Yeah I meant in more the terms of 'civilization'. The Middle East was one of the most advanced areas of the world while Europe was in the dark ages. On your other note. I've heard many Europeans just as concerned over the US. Many Europeans worry about how religious comments pop up into Bush's statements as well. Reminds me of an article I just read recently talking about how the US has become more religious and how many view atheists as an enemy (another topic title?). Apparently polls have Americans picking a homosexual president well before an athiest one. Anyway sorry to get off topic here.

I'll just make it clear that I am not religious at all... I'm agnostic leaning on athiest.

Having said that, I really don't mind a President who says "God" or says "we pray that ....". First and foremost, it's not against the constitution as he's not establishing a religion by simply bringing it up during speeches. Prohibiting the President from saying anything related to his religion just because he's President is actually against the constitution "prohibing the free practice thereof". It's only recently that a President who prays to and speaks of God gets negative attention.

[monsoon]

I don't think anyone cares if a president has personal religious beliefs, in fact most expect it, and bringing it up only detracts from the real issue. The real issue is the pandering of the President and his Republican party to religious fundamentalists who expect the government to legislatate morality based on their religion. In the USA this means stoping women from having abortions, ending real science and replacing it with nonsense such evolution being replaced by intelligent design, forbidding research on stem cell cures because it upsets anti-abortionists, ignoring global warming, supporting unconditionally Israel's bombing of innocents in Lebanon, interferring in family's personal lives (Terry Schiavo), attrempting to amend the US Constitution to specifically take rights away from people (Gays) and so forth. They are no different than the "Islamic Facists" they pretent to be against.

[Charlotteman]

^^^metro I couldn't agree more.

x-tian fundie politicos and Islamic radicals are creatures from the same morass.

[Mith242]

I'll just make it clear that I am not religious at all... I'm agnostic leaning on athiest.

Having said that, I really don't mind a President who says "God" or says "we pray that ....". First and foremost, it's not against the constitution as he's not establishing a religion by simply bringing it up during speeches. Prohibiting the President from saying anything related to his religion just because he's President is actually against the constitution "prohibing the free practice thereof". It's only recently that a President who prays to and speaks of God gets negative attention.

I was just trying to describe this from a European point of view. They seem to have seperated themselves away from religion a lot more than Americans. But to them they seem concerned from both sides because of the religious references used.

[cinco]

absolute fundamentalism is the enemy. intolerance is the enemy.

[runawayjim]

anyone who truly thinks that faith in a certain religion is the enemy has it all wrong. the problem is people who believe that their religion is the absolute end all and be all of civilization and they should spread their views by any means necessary, even if that includes violence.

islam is not the enemy. there are peaceful muslims living without any problems in the US, just as there are peaceful christians living without problems in the mid-east. those people only have problems with self-righteous christians or muslims decide that the other religion is the enemy and they need to remove them by any means necessary, usually violently.

if you can say that one religion is the enemy, then you should also believe that all the other religions are the enemy as well.

in response to somad saying that the united states is right in pushing democracy on iraq, while the soviet union was wrong to force socialism on other nations was wrong... that's just not the case. forcing a government on a people will never work. it has never worked in history and never will. it needs to happen naturally. most iraqis don't even believe their own current government is iraqi, they consider it american. also, i've heard that many iraqis liked their government under saddam better. there was general peace. while he killed a lot of people, if it you didn't speak out against his sect of islam, you didn't have problems, regardless of what sect you belong to.