Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should i have an Islamic state?; and where?
Topic Started: Jul 24 2006, 06:02 PM (1,092 Views)
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Poor comparison. Adolf Hitler and his coterie were heavily influenced by occultic beliefs. There were several in the group who detested Christianity as a "weak" Semitic religion. Christianity was supported to a certain extent for purely pragmatic purposes. A better example would have been any one of the brutal monarchs or warring factions of early modern Europe.

As for not using contraception, so what? No country forces you to be Catholic, so why shouldn't a voluntary organization follow its own rules, no matter how uptight they maybe? The Catholic Church isn't executing heretics or fighting wars anymore.


EDIT:
About Hitler, I've actually seen much argument about the extent of role that Paganism vs. Christianity was applicable to that regime. However, I don't recall Hitler claiming to act in the name of Christianity. Didn't he appeal, rather to German nationalism?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:24 PM
Poor comparison.  Adolf Hitler and his coterie were heavily influenced by occultic beliefs.  There were several in the group who detested Christianity as a "weak" Semitic religion.  Christianity was supported to a certain extent for purely pragmatic purposes.  A better example would have been any one of the brutal monarchs or warring factions of early modern Europe.

As for not using contraception, so what?  No country forces you to be Catholic, so why shouldn't a voluntary organization follow its own rules, no matter how uptight they maybe?  The Catholic Church isn't executing heretics or fighting wars anymore.

Not necessarily. Hitler still claimed to be Christian. He went to a Christian school (look at the swastika) and in power he publicly celebrated Christmas for one thing. Also, the Papacy, was pretty much silent, even though it knew, more than the allies did (who were not unguilty) that such atrocities were going on. Therefore, because the then Pope tolerated, or at least allowed without criticism the massacres of innocent jews to happen, does that mean that all Catholics are guilty of the same crime. The answer, quite clearly is no, and any answer to the contrary, regarding Muslims or whoever, is pure bigotry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Excellent point. Religion is a voluntary organization and as long as it remains so, it doesn't matter if you worship Yawheh, Allah, Satan, or Tom Cruise. Conversely, if religion becomes one and the same with the state, it doesn't matter who the religion claims to be God, it is no longer a voluntary organization and is therefore evil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Oh, and for the record:

I like individual Muslims just fine. I do believe that there are plenty of good, peaceful Muslims. However, I'm not impressed by the Islamic world right now, and I think I have good reason not to be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime. I despise collectivism in all forms. However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

Esternarx: On your last point, I agree wholeheartedly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

I myself am not a Muslim so I myself am not in awe of it (or to use your term "impressed by it" and do not respect it hence I do not follow it, same with Christianity. But I tolerate both.
One of the biggest mistakes of the west is to assume that capitalism will have the same effects in every society.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

It is arrogant and I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
It is arrogant and I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

Arrogance is relative. I think it's arrogant of you to suggest that I'm being arrogant. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 09:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, i'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not ground sto attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centre.

And may I say that it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

Well then, I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whereas the majority of Christian societies today have created secular, tolerant polities, the majory of Islamic societies have not. While I believe that religious values are pefectly good grounds for voters to make decisions, I personally respect tolerant, secular societies. Why on Earth shouldn't I respect the societies that fit the model of values that I admire? That isn't arrogance, its common sense. There are secular Islamic nations, but they are the minority. More power to them! Much of the Islamic world right now is rather intolerant, so I don't respect those societies. Whereas the relationship between Christianity and the State took a twisted road before it spawned imperialist theocracies, Islam fused them both and went on the warpath from day one. Frankly, I believe that Islam is going through a phase that Christianity has already grown out of. That is reasonable, as it is a centuries younger religion. In time, if the majority of Islamic countries develops into something I respect, then I will respect that society. However, I see no reason why I should have to respect it as it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:41 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.

The initiation of force. Even if the initiation of force is what prevents a person from running into the road and being run over? Or what prevents a madman from killing you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 09:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, i'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not ground sto attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centre.

And may I say that it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

Well then, I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whereas the majority of Christian societies today have created secular, tolerant polities, the majory of Islamic societies have not. While I believe that religious values are pefectly good grounds for voters to make decisions, I personally respect tolerant, secular societies. Why on Earth shouldn't I respect the societies that fit the model of values that I admire? That isn't arrogance, its common sense. There are secular Islamic nations, but they are the minority. More power to them! Much of the Islamic world right now is rather intolerant, so I don't respect those societies. Whereas the relationship between Christianity and the State took a twisted road before it spawned imperialist theocracies, Islam fused them both and went on the warpath from day one. Frankly, I believe that Islam is going through a phase that Christianity has already grown out of. That is reasonable, as it is a centuries younger religion. In time, if the majority of Islamic countries develops into something I respect, then I will respect that society. However, I see no reason why I should have to respect it as it is.

Most of what is wrong in the middle east is about Nationalism NOT religion. Religion is merely used for political purposes.

And as for secular states, such as Britain, where there is a state religion with a head of state who is also head of the religion? Or America, where not even a single senator has ever been elected who declared himself "unreligious"? The same country where the KKK was in operation? And where doctors can be killed for aborting foetuses? Those sort of secular societies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:41 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.

The initiation of force. Even if the initiation of force is what prevents a persion from running into the road and being run over? Or what prevents a madman from killing you?

Yes, if a person want's to do something that will get themselves killed, that's their business and no one else's. But preventing a madman from killing me is not the initiation of force. It is the reaction against the threat of force. So far, the government has not actually initiated force against me in the strictest sense of the phrase, but they have indirectly initiated force against me by threatening me with it and having both the means and the authority to carry out said threat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:49 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:41 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.

The initiation of force. Even if the initiation of force is what prevents a persion from running into the road and being run over? Or what prevents a madman from killing you?

Yes, if a person want's to do something that will get themselves killed, that's their business and no one else's. But preventing a madman from killing me is not the initiation of force. It is the reaction against the threat of force. So far, the government has not actually initiated force against me in the strictest sense of the phrase, but they have indirectly initiated force against me by threatening me with it and having both the means and the authority to carry out said threat.

But what about not allowing a man to marry more than one woman? Surely that is an initiation of force, based on religious principles.

I would love to continue this discussion, but unfortunately I have to work in the morning. Goodnight all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Well, I'm not prepared to simply dismiss religion the way you are. Religions have many aspects, and can definately be exacerbating factors. I disagree with a lot of the foreign policy of my country, which I think is also an exacerbating factor. However, I haven't come to the same conclusion as you, that religion isn't a factor. I think it is a factor, one among several, and my reading of history and theology bears me out on this. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a day when a peaceful and tolerant Islam is the main face that displays itself to the world, and I respect you if that's the Islam you see. But that isn't the face I see now for the most part. I do respect it when I see it.

As for Britain, well, I'd point out that Britain, as well as Greece for example, do not use coercion in religion, and are generally free societies, despite having official Churches.


By the way, as I write this, I am, to a certain extent, seeing where you are coming from, so I'm going to drop out of this, while I work out my own thoughts a bit more clearly. I appreciate the dialogue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:51 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:49 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:41 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.

The initiation of force. Even if the initiation of force is what prevents a persion from running into the road and being run over? Or what prevents a madman from killing you?

Yes, if a person want's to do something that will get themselves killed, that's their business and no one else's. But preventing a madman from killing me is not the initiation of force. It is the reaction against the threat of force. So far, the government has not actually initiated force against me in the strictest sense of the phrase, but they have indirectly initiated force against me by threatening me with it and having both the means and the authority to carry out said threat.

But what about not allowing a man to marry more than one woman? Surely that is an initiation of force, based on religious principles.

It sure is. The government shouldn't have any say whatsoever in marriage. Marriage is a voluntary contract between individuals and therefore something that the government has no business defining or regulating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Syawla, I missed some of your points that you had added in the edit. However, you had stated that you need to stop this discussion, and I need some time to rethink some of my views. So I'll drop those points, if you don't mind.


To all involved:
In general, I got a little harsher than I would have liked, and probably said a few things that I shouldn't have. I apologize for any offense, and I don't think I'll discuss this topic further for some time. Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:57 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:51 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:49 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:41 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:40 PM
Esternarx
Jul 28 2006, 08:38 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 08:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, I'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not grounds to attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centred.

And, may I say that, it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

It is not arrogant. I don't care how old something is, if it doesn't place respect for freedom above all else, it doesn't deserve my respect.

I am not talking about being anachronistic and sticking with tradition (God knows I am a British Republican).

But "respect for freedom" from what?

Freedom from the initiation of force.

The initiation of force. Even if the initiation of force is what prevents a persion from running into the road and being run over? Or what prevents a madman from killing you?

Yes, if a person want's to do something that will get themselves killed, that's their business and no one else's. But preventing a madman from killing me is not the initiation of force. It is the reaction against the threat of force. So far, the government has not actually initiated force against me in the strictest sense of the phrase, but they have indirectly initiated force against me by threatening me with it and having both the means and the authority to carry out said threat.

But what about not allowing a man to marry more than one woman? Surely that is an initiation of force, based on religious principles.

It sure is. The government shouldn't have any say whatsoever in marriage. Marriage is a voluntary contract between individuals and therefore something that the government has no business defining or regulating.

My God! I have actually been talking with the ACLU about starting a suit against the federal government for recognizing marriage, because it is, purely a religious sacrement, and therefore violates the seperation of church and state! Continuing this argument therefore would remove marraige laws from the books and require civil services to bind under the law, an agreement between two people. Marraige stays in the church, civil services stay within the state, and therefore, gay marriages cannot be banned!

You are the first person, anywhere, to hint an agreement with this! You are mt idol, E!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:56 PM
Well, I'm not prepared to simply dismiss religion the way you are.  Religions have many aspects, and can definately be exacerbating factors.  I disagree with a lot of the foreign policy of my country, which I think is also an exacerbating factor.  However, I haven't come to the same conclusion as you, that religion isn't a factor.  I think it is a factor, one among several, and my reading of history and theology bears me out on this.  Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a day when a peaceful and tolerant Islam is the main face that displays itself to the world, and I respect you if that's the Islam you see.  But that isn't the face I see now for the most part.  I do respect it when I see it.

As for Britain, well, I'd point out that Britain, as well as Greece for example, do not use coercion in religion, and are generally free societies, despite having official Churches.


By the way, as I write this, I am, to a certain extent, seeing where you are coming from, so I'm going to drop out of this, while I work out my own thoughts a bit more clearly.  I appreciate the dialogue.

Religion is a factor but it is not the only factor.

If you look at the middle east, it is made up of states that were either set up for the benefit of the western powers, the Soviets or states with governments which threw off both. Most of the "Axis of Evil" countries have governments who were put in power through anti-western revolutions (Iran, Iraq under Saddam). In order for these early revolutions to make any headway against the western backed elites in the 60s and 70s, they had to co-operate with similarly disaffected nationalists in neighbouring countries, otherwise they'd have simply been defeated. But this area is full of vastly differing cultures (Lebanese people are very different in culture to Iranians, e.g. language) so these nationalists needed a way to justify co-operation of this sort. The one, and probably only, thing uniting the disaffected people in the region culturally was religion and so that was tapped into in order to promote these activities. This then threw up opportunities to extremists in Palestine and elsewhere (who were always there, just as there are extremists in all religions) to influence policy, because these were people who would fight for the cause. I look at the sitution now, as a case of not being able to put the genie (these militant Muslims) back into the bottle, especially when the West appear to be interfering in the area for their own self-interest. So, rather than go to war with these dangerous militants themselves, they encourage and support these extremists to go elsewhere (Saudi Arabia is particularly guilty of this). It is yet another reaction in the region to post-1918 colonialism, with the USA playing the part of Britain this time. Do you seriously believe that the government in Syria or Iran has any interest in the people of Palestine, or Iraq and their religious co-affiliation, especially with the Sunni, Shia divide? And the fact that a good proportion of Palestinians are Christian? This is about power politics. Iraq, until the demise of Saddam, was the only power in the region powerful and active enough to be able to challenge Iranian domination of the region. Iran is of course going to use any opportunity it can to cripple this country and destabilise it. Israel, by the same token, with it's US backing and technology is another power that threatens this hegemony, hence why Iran supports assaults against it. Syria, meanwhile, is playing poodle to an extent that makes Blair look like he's standing up to George W. Bush.


The Middle East contains no-more religious extremists than anywhere else. The difference there (Israel is not an exception to this by the way) is that there, extremists can influence events because there is an open window of opportunity caused by people's disaffection. Very much similar to 1930s Germany. That old adage about "those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it", seems to me a poignant way of ending my rant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion but i hve take my decision. :lol:

I will have my islamic state in Oceania in the miconesian Islands, i'll create it tomorrow and will ask to Norightsia to put it on the map the same day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
Should i Judge Christianity by Leo X Pope?...John Calvin?...George W Bush?...Don Baggeget Bozzo(Luckly you don't know this guy)...

As for any human matter religion, also if builded with the goodest intentions, is subject to be manipulated and interpretated, because God has decided to not come from the sky to teach the real true...
I think that we must give respect to all faiths on the earth
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:43 PM
Syawla
Jul 28 2006, 09:34 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Syawla: I never said that I would blame all Muslims for any crime.  I despise collectivism in all forms.  However, I don't like the Islamic world now, and I don't find the religion very impressive.  I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the religion, and the society.

I never said you were, but I was arguing against your argument that "when the Islamic world gets it act together, i'll give them respect" by saying that the crime of an individual CLAIMING to act for an ideology or religion is not ground sto attack the religion itself, or the area where it is based and centre.

And may I say that it is also slightly arrogant to suggest that an ancient religion of some 1 billion people, needs to change to earn YOUR respect.

Well then, I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Whereas the majority of Christian societies today have created secular, tolerant polities, the majory of Islamic societies have not. While I believe that religious values are pefectly good grounds for voters to make decisions, I personally respect tolerant, secular societies. Why on Earth shouldn't I respect the societies that fit the model of values that I admire? That isn't arrogance, its common sense. There are secular Islamic nations, but they are the minority. More power to them! Much of the Islamic world right now is rather intolerant, so I don't respect those societies. Whereas the relationship between Christianity and the State took a twisted road before it spawned imperialist theocracies, Islam fused them both and went on the warpath from day one. Frankly, I believe that Islam is going through a phase that Christianity has already grown out of. That is reasonable, as it is a centuries younger religion. In time, if the majority of Islamic countries develops into something I respect, then I will respect that society. However, I see no reason why I should have to respect it as it is.

Secular? yes but attacked by religiuse power.
In Italy we have the MUllah of Vatican that preach to Religiouse schools and many religiuose laws meanwhile they cry of eastern invasion and the defens of the faith(wors i think we have forgot nearli 500 years ago)
President Bush, pray during the political offices and gives favor to many churches and religiuose(foundamentally anti-democratic) associassion

Asyou see our secolarism have not so solid bases
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Ok, I'm confused. I could have sworn I posted on this topic ten to twenty minutes ago, but I don't see it, so I'll post again:

Syawla: That last post is a great analysis. I'll concede your point there.

Filo: I think we need to be more vigilant about guarding secularism. And I think I was being overly one sided in my previous comments: there are parts of Islam that respect. What kind of Islamic nation will you be making.
And also, sorry that we side tracked your topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply