What is wrong with religion?

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Religious fundamentalists generally believe in toleration when they're in the minority; they're only dangerous when they have political power.

So the toleration that me and my brothers and sisters feel is only because we are in the minority? Couldn't possibly be because we really aren't blood thirsty, and we really do tolerate others and what they think. You have a very limited view of muslims and religious people in general.

Between Bush and his Christians and bin Laden and his Muslims, nobody is safe.

I'm willing to bet there are people across the world who feel safe from both. I'm not just talking about your little corner of what you know.

They are, and we've all seen the killing in recent years, from Darfur to Indonesia, from Palestine to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Serbia to the streets and subways of New York, London, and Madrid.

Now take the number of people doing that killing and contrast it by the number of people not killing and see what you come up with. Because Chicago is a big city and there are ALOT of muslims in it, yet, I don't see any killing we're responsible for.......maybe I ain't looking in the most hardcore circles huh?


Now there are extremists and this I will not deny. They are dangerous and they are most intolerant of anything beyond their most strict, skewed view of the world and religion. I will not accept that all of us by default are extremists merely because we hold tightly to what we believe. Being a fundamentalist does not automatically imply that a person is willing to bring harm to others merely on the basis of differing beliefs.


Just a note as well, you quoted a fundie muslim talikng about peace and tolerance right before you went on that little tirade about religious intolerances. Just wanted to point that out.

 

[Smoke]

Now take the number of people doing that killing and contrast it by the number of people not killing and see what you come up with.

The majority of medieval Roman Catholics weren't Inquisitioners or witch-hunters, either, but the Catholicism of the day provided the rationale and the justification, just as fundamentalist Christians are happy to justify Bush's military adventures and fundamentalist Islam provides the rationale for terrorism.

As a peaceful Muslim:

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to go to war for the defense or advancement of Islam?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to place restrictions on non-Muslim religions?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to compel people to convert to Islam?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to destroy pagan temples and pagan idols?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to seize churches and temples and convert them to mosques?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to compel non-Muslims to pay the jizya?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to punish apostates, blasphemers, and homosexuals?

 

[rasor]

I
The question which is begging to be answered now is, as we can see that religion "in general" is not the source of evil and human beings just used it in the wrong way, so then, what's wrong with religion?

What is wrong with Religion? Muriel Gray writing in the Glasgo Herald with reference to the London bombings ie 7/7 wrote

Everyone is being blamed,from the obvious villainous duo of Bush and Blair to the inaction of the Muslim communities.But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus.The cause of all this misery,mayhem,violence,terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality,the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn't so.

 

[gnostic]

the number of women and moral depravity are increasing, two seperate thingsn are mentioned here. I did not say the number of women which cause moral depravity are increasing. The said the number of women are increasing(in ratio to men) and the amont of moral depravity is increasing. You understand English right probably better then me so why do you not recognize what kind of statement it is.

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding your statement.

You did write:

You are forgetting how many people are born every year who happen to be women. And since the number of women and moral depravation is increasing it is not going to diminish.

My problem is that you had put both in the same sentence. So you should understand why I have misunderstood that you have linked women population increase to depravation increase. It would have being best had you put them in 2 separate sentences instead of putting them all in.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to go to war for the defense or advancement of Islam?

No I do not believe it is wrong to defend muslims or Islam from attack even if it means war. I do believe it is wrong to go to war and kill only to impose Islam, since Islam can spread more through peace than any war.

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to place restrictions on non-Muslim religions?

If the religion itself is proven to be the factor behind the harm of others then it is not wrong to impose a restriction upon it. For instance, if a certain religion calls for the sacrifice of people or animals, and it is becoming a problem then that religion must be restricted. If it is not the religion but the people causing harm, then the people must be restricted.

I suppose you placed the words "in every case" to trip me up. You thought these were yes or no cut and dry answers from a fundie who can only follow one track and see only one thing didn't you?

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to compel people to convert to Islam?

Yes. (that one actually was cut and dry...)

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to destroy pagan temples and pagan idols?

Muslims are forbidden to destroy the religious temples even in war, even if they are paganistic in nature.

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to seize churches and temples and convert them to mosques?

Yes I do. The christians have just as much right to a church as I have to a masjid.

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to compel non-Muslims to pay the jizya?

No I don't. The jizya is a tax mandated upon certain groups of non-muslims who can afford it. Just as zakat is mandated for muslims only who can afford it. Unless you think a government imposing a tax on its citizens in wrong.

Do you believe that it is always and in every case wrong to punish apostates, blasphemers, and homosexuals?

Apostates are punished according to shariah, blasphemers are left alone, it is no harm to speak badly of Allah many people do so and feel worse in their hearts than what has manifested on the tongues, and homosexuals cannot be punished for being homosexual either. The act of homosexuality is wrong in our eyes yes, but who would know if someone is doing that? One cannot punish on the assumption that one is gay, or even the knowledge that one is gay.




Do I meet your standards of a peaceful muslim my leige? Did I pass did I?

 

[neves]

What is wrong with Religion? Muriel Gray writing in the Glasgo Herald with reference to the London bombings ie 7/7 wrote

Everyone is being blamed,from the obvious villainous duo of Bush and Blair to the inaction of the Muslim communities.But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus.The cause of all this misery,mayhem,violence,terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality,the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn't so.

Do you honestly believe if religion ceased to exist …all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance disappear with it…? You forgetting the root cause here… Human beings…

 

[Sahar]

fundamentalist Islam provides the rationale for terrorism.

What's "fundamentalist Islam"?!!!

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Do you honestly believe if religion ceased to exist …all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance disappear with it…? You forgetting the root cause here… Human beings…

Didn't you know neves that if religion were not here, all the people would live happy peaceful lives full of nothing but good for themselves and others. Humanitarianism would be at an all time high, and so little killing, thievery, rape, tyranny, and oppression would happen, it would be a virtual utopia. God neves, you realy gotta learn about this.

There are other minor causes for the worlds problems, but religion is the #1 cause of all problems facing the world today.....goodness brother I shouldn't have to tell you that!

 

[Smoke]

I suppose you placed the words "in every case" to trip me up. You thought these were yes or no cut and dry answers from a fundie who can only follow one track and see only one thing didn't you?

No. I did it because if something is only generally forbidden, and is permissible in some cases, then it's a matter of application, not a matter of principle.

Unless you think a government imposing a tax on its citizens in wrong.

I do, when that tax is based on the religion of the citizens.

Do I meet your standards of a peaceful muslim my leige? Did I pass did I?

You admit the possibility of using violence to serve the ends of Islam and in the execution of Islamic law, though not in as many cases as the majority of Muslims, including Muhammad. Once you open that door, who gets to say when violence is a good or a bad thing? If I'm a Muslim who believes that Islam is threatened by the West, why am I wrong to fight against the West? If I'm a Wahhabi who believes that the Shia are apostates, why am I wrong to punish them?

 

[Smoke]

Do you honestly believe if religion ceased to exist …all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance disappear with it…?

No more than I believe we'd be immortal if we eradicated cancer. I'd still prefer not to have cancer.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Once you open that door, who gets to say when violence is a good or a bad thing? If I'm a Muslim who believes that Islam is threatened by the West, why am I wrong to fight against the West? If I'm a Wahhabi who believes that the Shia are apostates, why am I wrong to punish them?

Islam actually dictates for us when it is wrong to use violence and when it isn't. It matters not thjat a wahhabi THINKS shia are apostates, it only matters if they are or not according to Islam.

Now I digress and say that the misunderstanding of these individuals in no way lessens the harm they cause. TO this end I believe they should be dealt with summarily. If a person mistakenly believes another person is an apostate and kills them for it, even though it is against ISlam doesn't make the murder less painful for the victims families. It also does not excuse it.

Misunderstandings, ignorance, and things of this type hardly ever excuse harmful and dangerous behaviour. Those that are harming other unjustly should be dealt with, but it is unfair to paint us all under that brush and say that people with strong religious beliefs are automatically susceptible to unjust and harmful behaviour due to those beliefs.


Most religous people, muslims included, just aren't into the religion enough to try to impose it on others forcibly.

Take for instance Islam and the shariah. Some non-muslims think that muslims want to establish shariah whether peacefully or not. This, in practice, is not true. In theory it may be, but not in reality. Simply because muslims, under shariah, would become way more accountable than any non-muslim, and shariah is harder on us. Certain punishments cannot be given to non-muslims at all, but all things apply to muslims. The truth of the matter is that many muslims, through weakness of iman and commission of all types of sins that shariah would catch them up on, do not want shariah to be established. Many muslims will not be able to engage in many of the injustices and worng-doing that they are attached to, if the shariah was ever truly established.

I said all that to demonstrate that people of many religious groups (not just muslims) simply aren't that involved on their religion to truly want to kill other in righteous anger. When people use religion for that purpose it's usually them that are the farthest from the teachings of the religion they profess, not those closest to the ideal.

 

[Smoke]

I said all that to demonstrate that people of many religious groups (not just muslims) simply aren't that involved on their religion to truly want to kill other in righteous anger.

No, but those who are that involved in their religion often are, and both the pious and the impious find ample justification for violence in religion. The Ustaše acted with the blessing of Catholic clergy, and the Crusaders with the blessing of the Popes. Jewish law demanded the extermination of the Amalekites, and Muslim law demands the killing of male apostates. Muhammad ordered the extermination of the male Banu Qurayza and sanctioned the selling of their wives and children into slavery; Ali burned apostates; Elijah is said to have slaughtered the prophets of Baal; Cotton Mather urged the Puritans not to falter in hanging "witches"; Pope Gregory XIII had a commemorative medal struck to celebrate the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre; a Mormon jury refused to issue any indictments for the Mountain Meadows Massacre; Kahanists glorify fanatics who indiscriminately murder Arabs; and jihadists glorify fanatics who indiscriminately murder Jews. These aren't impious people on the fringes of religion, but pious believers and the religious leaders themselves.

No doubt, even without religion, people would find an excuse for violence. But it's a major fault of some religions that they so readily provide excuses that no other is necessary. Not all religions do. I have yet to hear of a Buddhist Crusade, a massacre committed by a mob of Unitarians, or a Jain suicide bomber.

 

[rasor]

Do you honestly believe if religion ceased to exist …all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance disappear with it…? You forgetting the root cause here… Human beings…

No of course not. I think what he is saying is that the misery,mayhem,violence,terror and ignorance caused by religion will disappear.Which sounds reasonable to me.

 

[gnostic]

No of course not. I think what he is saying is that the misery,mayhem,violence,terror and ignorance caused by religion will disappear.Which sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, I agreed that the religious "factor" to violence would not exist, even though it won't eliminate violence altogether from other factors.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

In all seriousness, do people really think they can get rid of religion? If so how will this be accomplished?

 

[gnostic]

In all seriousness, do people really think they can get rid of religion? If so how will this be accomplished?

It can't.

Obviously there are too many followers. And the followers would die defending it, or even kill to keep their religions.

I am non-violent person. I would never force anyone to give up their faith, right or wrong as their belief may be. I would prefer die myself than force anyone to give up their belief, even though I may disagree with their belief and their practice.

However, I do have problem with religion mixing everyday life and trying to impose people with their religion, particularly when they mix religion with politics. I am quite sure you know my stance already in regarding to separation of state and religion.

Religion should be personal, and only those individuals who adhere to their belief system should freely follow them, but they shouldn't be making religious practice or moral as laws for everyone else to follow. Keep your religious ideals and ideology to yourself is all I ask.

I also have problem with religion that justify their actions, which can sometimes be violent, and sometimes just discriminatory.

 

[Smoke]

In all seriousness, do people really think they can get rid of religion? If so how will this be accomplished?

Of course not. But I hope that someday in the distant future humankind will outgrow dogmatic and hateful religions, at least.

But the question was, What is wrong with religion?

 

[neves]

No of course not. I think what he is saying is that the misery,mayhem,violence,terror and ignorance caused by religion will disappear.Which sounds reasonable to me.

This is like stabbing someone in the heart in order to cure his cancer… sure the cancer would not affect him anymore, but did you really have to kill him in order to accomplish this…? Religion is not the cancer… the effects of Humans is… that’s the real wild card here… and no a Human doesn’t always do bad things either…

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Then I am sorry for misunderstanding your statement.

no worries.

You did write:

My problem is that you had put both in the same sentence. So you should understand why I have misunderstood that have linked women population increase to depravation increase. It would have being best had you put them in 2 separate sentences instead of putting them all in.

regardless, they are still within the boundaries of understanding within english. It doesn't matter if I put them in the same sentence when i am clearly stately that each of them are increasing and are in no way increasing in light of one another.

i sorry you misunderstood but it would have been best if you just read the sentence and understand it according to certain rules of the english language and not jump so quick to come and answer without reading it and understanding it clearly. or at least ask first to make sure you are clear. Is it hard for you to go are you saying women and moral depravity are increasing because of each other.

I ask if unclear you should try it, it helps in alot of cases.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

That's what's wrong with the Abrahamic religions. They find it impossible to respect differences.

I guess this is based off your huge knowledge of Islam and other relgions.

Buddhists or Shintoists don't care what religion you belong to; Hindus and pagans don't care what God you serve, but in the Abrahamic religions, except for the very most liberal fringes, everyone believes that his way of believing is pleasing to God and that all others are offensive to God. In such a situation, respect for the beliefs and practices of others is impossible. Toleration is possible, but rarely practiced.

It is obvious you are not a student of history.

Genocide was invented by the worshipers of the Hebrew God and is still a positive commandment (though not really applicable) in Judaism. Christians felt no qualms about exterminating most of the population of North America in the service of their God, and it was nice Lutheran and Catholic family men, brought up to think of Jews as "other" and as Christ-killers, who ran the gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps.

Islam has always had a policy of forcible conversion or extermination of the most vulnerable religions, and of persecution of the "People of the Book." The much vaunted "tolerance" of Islam -- under which the People of the Book were enslaved in droves and those who remained free were subject to special taxes, endured stringent restrictions on their religious practices, businesses and personal lives, and often had their children forcibly taken from them

any evidence for this, can you give me a specific incident in the time of Muhammed or the any of the caliphas.

-- only seems like tolerance in contrast to the horrors of late medieval Roman Catholicism. Most of the terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslim fundamentalists,

Wow. when communism took over in russia and 30 mil were killed I did not know stalin was muslim. when the nazi's killed 25 mil germans and 20 mil russians. I did not know that they were all muslims. I did not know the IRA were muslims. I did not know timothy Mcvey was muslim. I did not know the russian gang lords who the afghanis fought were muslims.

and most of the violence in Iraq presently is between Sunnis and Shias. The most fervent supporters of the U.S.'s unprovoked invasion of Iraq have been American Evangelical Christians.

Look at the horrors carried out by dogmatic Marxists.

yet they never called it terrorism.

Not all religion is necessarily evil, not even all Abrahamic religion. Bahá'ís and Sufis, and liberal Christians and Jews, manage to respect the beliefs of others. They're all considered apostates and unbelievers by the more traditional followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though, and the unreformed and dogmatic forms of those religions are irretrievably violent, hateful, and intolerant. The true believer cannot respect that which he believes his God hates.

Wow, so you really do not know much about Islam.