Shad
Veteran Member
Took you a few posts to get around to this fact.
You do know how the reply feature works right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is Islam so dangerous?
- Thread starter Raymann
- Start date
Took you a few posts to get around to this fact.
You do know how the reply feature works right?
Same here in the US with our own Founding Fathers. They were mostly Protestant. Lots of people worldwide have wanted to be free of British rule - Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and just about everything else, including atheists and agnostics.
Not that anyone has anything against the British. They just don't want to be ruled by them.
The problem is not in beliefs, faiths or religions, nor in political views or taste in the arts or anything else. The problem begins when any belief, any faith, any religious view, or any matter of taste, stops being about you, and starts being about others. This is the switch from personal faith or political viewpoint to ideology. And it can happen to anyone...though I think when we look around the world, we should be grateful that it seems to happen to not many, in the grand scheme of things.
When the children of Henry VIII of England (Edward, Mary and Elizabeth) each had their turn as monarch, each tried to impress their own religious views on the nation as a whole. The result was too many bonfires filled with too many humans accused of heresy to whichever was the "true religion" of the reign. The result not of the monarch's own religious belief, but of the monarch's insistence that their belief was incumbent upon everybody else.
Perhaps I'm lucky, since I have no religious belief. However, I do have my political and philosophical predispositions, and I could just as easily as anyone else slop over into ideology...except for one thing: my essential political stance is that of liberal democracy. I believe that everyone has the right to live their life according to their own lights, so long as they harm nobody else. I believe everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs and traditions, though I have none. And that everyone has the right to support the candidate or party of their choice in an election, whether it's somebody I support or don't, or even hate. It is sort of hard, once that idea of liberal democracy (Wiki definition is given below) to turn that into an ideology, for the simple reason that it contains its own internal constraint against forcing itself on anyone else. That is, I suppose, if I truly believe it.
Therefore, don't focus one which religion is the more dangerous, or on which political party on the left or right is the more dangerous. Rather, focus on the few individuals, whatever their religion or politics, who insist that only they know what best for everybody else. The more we can sideline such people, the easier this world will be to live in in peace for everyone else.
Wikipedia, Liberal Democracy definition:
Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.
When the children of Henry VIII of England (Edward, Mary and Elizabeth) each had their turn as monarch, each tried to impress their own religious views on the nation as a whole. The result was too many bonfires filled with too many humans accused of heresy to whichever was the "true religion" of the reign. The result not of the monarch's own religious belief, but of the monarch's insistence that their belief was incumbent upon everybody else.
Perhaps I'm lucky, since I have no religious belief. However, I do have my political and philosophical predispositions, and I could just as easily as anyone else slop over into ideology...except for one thing: my essential political stance is that of liberal democracy. I believe that everyone has the right to live their life according to their own lights, so long as they harm nobody else. I believe everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs and traditions, though I have none. And that everyone has the right to support the candidate or party of their choice in an election, whether it's somebody I support or don't, or even hate. It is sort of hard, once that idea of liberal democracy (Wiki definition is given below) to turn that into an ideology, for the simple reason that it contains its own internal constraint against forcing itself on anyone else. That is, I suppose, if I truly believe it.
Therefore, don't focus one which religion is the more dangerous, or on which political party on the left or right is the more dangerous. Rather, focus on the few individuals, whatever their religion or politics, who insist that only they know what best for everybody else. The more we can sideline such people, the easier this world will be to live in in peace for everyone else.
Wikipedia, Liberal Democracy definition:
Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Raymann
Active Member
Christine, are you lying again or just misrepresenting the truth?
The article that you cited doesn't say the crimes were committed by CHRISTIANS, it says they were committed by americans (mostly right wingers).
Right wingers are not necessarily Christians, you know?
So the crimes you attribute to Christians is false again and the statistic you cited is wrong or you just manipulated the information to serve your deceiving tactics.
You've been caught misrepresenting the truth multiple times now. Please be a responsible adult and face the facts as they are.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
These are deaths caused by baptized practicing Christians ?
Raymann
Active Member
The books by themselves don't hurt anyone.
I don't really care which book (the Quran or the Bible) has more violent passages in it.
I do care about the violence that is inspired and committed because of those violent passages.
It is pretty obvious that "some" Muslims are more inclined to be violent as a direct consequence of following their scriptures than the followers of all the other current religions around the world.
THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Yes, facts as to why Islam is dangerous. I said nothing about Christians, and since I can´t open your link, I ask, This huge death toll you say exists was caused by baptized practicing Christians ? Was it the result of the teachings of Christianity ?
be careful when you read about anything all the time. 50% of what is written unfortunately is false and was published on hidden agenda. Be careful and quest for the real facts otherwise you will be fooled.
Thank you for bringing these topics up.
My humble understanding with things like wars, violence and slavery is that they were ancient practices not invented by either the Bible or Quran. While humanity was lacking maturity it was impossible to abolish these practices so often at best some sort of regulation was the best that could be achieved until humanity became more mature and by the 1860’s slavery was beginning to be seen as an evil and Baha’u’llah became the first Manifestation of God to abolish it in a Holy Book.
As we mature still remnants of our past feuding remain and some seek to revive the time when the Caliphs ruled however these attacks do not originate from the Quran but are the selfish ambitions of some fanatics. Neither did the Crusades, the Inquisition nor the conquests of the Umayyads and Abbasids originate from any Holy Book.
The Religion Of God teaches love, tolerance. Peace and unity but the religion of the clergy teach often the opposite things such as wars, division, exclusivism and disunity, hatred and prejudice.
It is the lack of obedience to the laws of love found in religion that is a main cause of these problems for had people obeyed the law to love one another none of these terrible events would ever have occurred.
I just want to add that I really enjoy your questions as they challenge me to think and reflect and when one thinks one learns so I learn a lot from your challenging questions and appreciate very much you asking the hard questions because I suppose this is the age when we have to find out the real truth as opposed to what we’ve been spoon fed for centuries.
And a lot of things we have been told I believe are just lies and need to be questioned. For you it may be religion but for me it’s more what the clergy have been telling us for thousands of years that needs to be seriously questioned as they control the masses but on what pretexts truth or lies?
Audie
Veteran Member
Your response is several points off compass.
That was one of countless big issues
and down to minutae that can be credibly
argued on both sides with religious support.
The more odious of the debators say their
chosen interpretation is the one posdible
and correct True religion- interpretation.
You know that, everyone has seen it.
Why bother to kind of argue over it?
Audie
Veteran Member
Interesting and thanks.
I am free of the clutches of any religion,
partly as result of a somewhat unusual upbringing
in HK.
Perhaps you too can someday get free.
Of course they bern feeding everyone bs.
Being free feels awesome so I’m glad we both feel the same.
Raymann
Active Member
That's why we're having this discussion.
Is it the scriptures? Is it Muslims? Is it the radicals? Is it a mix? Is it the Christians? Is it the west fault?
You said "leave those countries alone (Muslim countries)." Sometimes is not in our interest to leave those countries alone. We cannot afford to let Al Qaeda or ISIS to roam freely around the world committing atrocities.
Secularism primarily and common sense which most religions lack and are unable to adjust to the times because you cannot update the word of God.
Exactly my point on the previous comment.
Somehow Christian countries are more accepting of secularism. Muslim countries are not that easy about secularism and democracy, those are awful words to them.
I did it in reverse mode.
The terror attacks prompted me to find out why?
I noticed most terrorist attacks come from Muslims claiming their doing it for Allah.
Is that truth?
According to them (the terrorists and fundamentalists) they are the real Muslims and they are following the scriptures in a much more in depth manner than the moderates are.
The problem is that the Quran and Hadith can be interpreted in many different ways, it depends on the scholar who does the interpretation.
So why is it that none of the 53 Muslim countries in the world don't use 100% Sharia?
Are they so afraid of the law Allah himself carefully designed? Isn't that in itself quite telling.
ISIS was the closest example of 100% Sharia and that didn't worked very well, did it?
When the scriptures order to kill the infidels there is no discrimination about women, children or livestock, they all infidels if they don't follow Allah.
Who is demonizing Muslims?
At least not as a whole homogeneous group of people.
We are demonizing the Muslims that commit atrocities (fanatics, fundamentalists and terrorists) in the name of Islam. Islam (the scriptures) provide the reason for the terrorists to do their attacks.
Religion of God teaches love and unity.
Religion of priests and clergy teaches war, murder, terrorism, division and prejudice.
Anything at all can be interpreted in many different ways. The ability of humans to twist anything and everything to serve their violent desires is unrivalled.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Some things can be twisted a whole lot more than others. Also, some things don’t need to be twisted because they already are
Raymann
Active Member
Interesting, so using the same logic.
Shouldn't America have the right to attack Afghanistan after Muslims (instructed from Afghanistan) kill 3000 people and destroyed buildings and airplanes?
Would that qualify as mischief in the land?
On the other hand doesn't that Quran passage encourage terrorists to counter and attack America and its allies after America invaded Afghanistan?
What proof do you have that Raymann is dangerous?
I can point to you thousands of links proving that Islam is dangerous.
The fact that terrorists use the Islamic scriptures to commit atrocities is in itself enough reason to justify the title.
Wouldn't that list be almost identical when applied to Muslims.
A few tweaks here and there and you can reuse the same list and rename it "Top ten Signs you're a Muslim"
Most of those reformists seem to be located in western countries.
Nevertheless it is a positive sign and I hope something can be done in practice and not just around a table.