Conquer Club

On the advice given to me, I am starting a post on religions, and whether they can be considered tolerable or negative for society

Both = some people are really helped out through religion, and some are poisoned by it.

hang on the poll buggered up. All of above was meant to be an option and the title was meant to read

Do you consider the following terrorist religions?

Napoleon Ier wrote:hang on the poll buggered up. All of above was meant to be an option and the title was meant to read

Do you consider the following terrorist religions?

Hard to say, Islam is only picking up speed in terrorism even though it's devastating, however historically I think xianity has done the most damage, with slavery around the world, mindless kings and tyrants, and inquisitions.

But could you not see that Islam is itself a terrorist religion in the precepts it preaches whilst xianty is a moral religion that has been abused?I personally see Islam as in ipse a terrorist religion, Mohammad being one who preached murder of kufirs and dhimmitude,.

I think you run into a real danger when you try and consider which religion is inherently more terrorist by nature.

For me i like to look at social context a lot when determining how a religion came to be. When you look at xianity's origins, you are talking about being smack dab in the middle of a fairly strong roman civilization. To take an aggressive stance toward others in their moral precepts, would have probably been fairly disasterous.

However when you look at Islam, you find a tribal setting that is somewhat more conducive to a defeat your enemies, jihadist type of precept. Mohammed could have been led to believe that he had an oppertunity to purify mecca, considering if he could rally a force, they would not be incredibly overpowered. Therefore, it could be argued different precepts could be adapted.

Napoleon Ier wrote:But could you not see that Islam is itself a terrorist religion in the precepts it preaches whilst xianty is a moral religion that has been abused?I personally see Islam as in ipse a terrorist religion, Mohammad being one who preached murder of kufirs and dhimmitude,.

How are they any different? Both were intended as being religions of peace, and have been twisted. We've essentially provoked Islam into doing so by shitting all over their countries for oil, so now the radical anti-westerners justify their actions with their religion so it's acceptable. Wehn you think about it, so do radical xians, but unlucky for them xianity is not enforced in the west so their movements don't pick up much speed anymore.

f*ck Anne Coulter.

Tonked makes a valid point, but once more I believe he just needs to free himself from the system's relentless lobotomisations ( and that is difficult, no sarcasm intended ), and consider that some religions can preach violence, and I must simply estimate Islam does. Mohammetans are told to take by force the Abode of Kufirs. Mohammad practiced terrorist (Creating climate of fear through killings of non-combattants to effectuate political change before anyone asks for definition) raids, and stoned Jews for their race and religion. Islam is also inherently fascist in its world and societal view.

well i think we also run into the issue of doctrine vs praxis. I dont know how much you have read of the Quran, i must admit i have read much less than i have out of the bible, but it seems that you can take as much as youd like out of that texts as you could out of the bible to twist it the way that you would like.

Seemingly if we look at the praxis of the two religions (excluding judaism because it seems to qualify slightly less for now) islam for a number of centuries was rather progressive in nature. The sharia law was interpreted in ways that were fairly positive to those who were of the book, but not practicing islam. Christianity for much of the same period, was much more hostile to those who did not practice their faith. So if we look at how individuals are behaving you could certainly say that in praxis, if not necessarily in doctrine, xianity was less tolerant than islam for quite some time.

Currently it would certainly seem that more of islam is engaged in militaristic fundamentalist thought than christianity is, though we should be fair in saying there are sects of christianity which are very fundamentalist in nature. Seemingly if we look at the praxis now, islam is perhaps less defendable as far as being a religion of peace, though many are working to make it so. Christianity in many cases struggles to be a religion of peace, but perhaps not to the degree of islam.

If you want to look at the future of both religions its difficult to be certain. Certainly if you politicize any religion enough, it is going to potentially be that much more antagonistic in a modern world which is becoming less friendly to religious expression.


However, id also ask you if you wish to critically look at this, to examine some of your own personal biases given the current situation of islam in your region of the world, which you clearly have strong views of.

write in "chili cheese fries!"

I am extremely biased, granted



You are right about politization etc...but as a religion not differentiating between the temporal andspiritual,Islam does that by default.

And I have read the Qu'uran before anyone insults me and says I should open my eyes and respect other religions.

2dimes wrote:write in "chili cheese fries!"

And thank you tonked for debating rather than simply calling me racist and buggering off. Sorare these days...

What? They're delicious!!

2dimes wrote:What? They're delicious!!

Do they preach violence?

Napoleon Ier wrote:I am extremely biased, granted



You are right about politization etc...but as a religion not differentiating between the temporal andspiritual,Islam does that by default.

And I have read the Qu'uran before anyone insults me and says I should open my eyes and respect other religions.

forgive me if you believed i was insulting you, i was simply stating that i had not read as much of the quran, and that i felt most westerners typically had less of a knowledge of that than the bible, at least those who are religiously inclined.

Id also argue your point about seperating the temporal and the spirtual is different in praxis than in doctrine in christianity in much of the more conservative sects as well....there is certainly a mentality that has arisen admist some of the politicizing of christianity in the united states that believes we need to promote christianity to a much closer state of uniformity with the state than before. its not always expressed in those terms, but its not far from the sentiement.

no no! not you friend! you are very sensible and reasoned...others however, from experience, may prove more vitriolic

I suppose I could agree with the religious neo-cons you cite to he extent that it is good to homogenize religion forsociety and America is a Christian rooted country, but then your traditions also preconcise secular state. So I a divivded.

preconcise - recognise?

I supose if there's not enough fries to feed everyone there could be some violence. Especially if there was some whisky and foot ball involved.

2dimes wrote:preconcise - recognise?

I supose if there's not enough fries to feed everyone there could be some violence. Especially if there was some whisky and foot ball involved.

it becomes somewhat difficult to (and let me make up a technical term) sacrilize the states in a global economic system, because economics do not care much for the social fabric of religion, except for where they are forced to intersect. I would imagine the CEO's of large corporations care little of the religious beliefs of the culture they are in, until they are forced to market or create the product tailored to those particular needs.

However, countries are probably linked more now than ever because of our economic systems. Lack of confidence in a country like china, affects the entire global economic system, even though china doesnt play by the same rules yet. Clearly the middle east has a commodity that the western world wants, and therefore there is going to be a lot of economic interaction involved.

Still economies dont operate in a vaccum as much as many may not particularly care about religious sentiments. States tie themselves to particular industries or commodities, especially when they are essential for the survival of the nation, such as oil to places like saudi arabia. Therefore, states have to be able to work together, to keep everyones coffers full. IF the states dont cooperate, we dont get the economic things we want adding to the tension.

When religions are politicized and states are moved away from secularization, you run into problems, because people do not view different religions as compatible, or at least as compatiblie as they used to.

Whilst your point I can understand,
I am still not sure that the economic argument really works. We can still co-operate, even if our religions are different. When religion and oppression intersect (cf. Saudi Arabia) its different matter, granted, but then Imnot talking about an America where XPianity is imposd, just one loosely based on it. besides,moral fabric, is to me, far more iportant than economic success (well, to a degree).

unriggable wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:hang on the poll buggered up. All of above was meant to be an option and the title was meant to read

Do you consider the following terrorist religions?

Hard to say, Islam is only picking up speed in terrorism even though it's devastating, however historically I think xianity has done the most damage, with slavery around the world, mindless kings and tyrants, and inquisitions.

Yes and Judaism's been great-stealing other peoples countries, messing up the middle east for years, oppressing minorities etc
Having said that, most organised religions have an awful lot of blood on their hands.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Whilst your point I can understand,
I am still not sure that the economic argument really works. We can still co-operate, even if our religions are different. When religion and oppression intersect (cf. Saudi Arabia) its different matter, granted, but then Imnot talking about an America where XPianity is imposd, just one loosely based on it. besides,moral fabric, is to me, far more iportant than economic success (well, to a degree).

Well i think the argument is that, we really dont want religions to become more politicized because it makes economic cooperation much more difficult. If you look at moderates in pretty much any spectrum, they have little problem cooperating, which is good for anyone. I mean there are a lot of people in the middle east, who want to live a western lifestyle, these people tend to typically be more moderate. However, when you start to talk about more conservative practioners, we are looking at a worldview that feels attacked, and doesnt want to participate.

I wonder if we arent attempting to do some of the same thing in our (read american) own society today. Its less of an issue in europe i feel, or at least ive found little to suggest differently. And since the us seems to dictate a fair amount of foriegn policy stances for much of europe (im not saying completly, but you have to pick a side toward us policy) it causes problems if the us moves farther to the right. There is then more adopting of practices which are antagonistic to islam, which not only causes christianity (conservative american christians) to adopt hardline stances vs islam, but it perpetuates the islamic fundamentalist mentality that the west is out to get them.

In short, the farther to the right christianity in america moves, the more it effects american foreign policy, through representative voting...which helps to dicatate western policy toward islam as a whole, in an aggressive fashion. This only promotes terrorism as far as im concerned.

hmmm. You know a lot more about your own country of course, and make intelligent points. Yet, i dont see XPianity as incompatible with reasoned m-e policy. I think oil and commercialanity (since we're making tech vocab up) would be more dangerous than XPanity


America, I reckon, ought to find a reference point for itself, culturally and religiously : Christianity. Would you oppose that completely (I as your opinion as an average american) or do you think this could reconnec America with is roots and be positive.