Send them back where they came from

[Muphex]

I dislike Islam intently, doesn't mean I dislike all Muslim people, just the religion.

Do you dislike it for the values it proposes, or for the (mis)interpretation of its writings?[1] There was a time when people feared Christianity due to the church interpreting it to further their opulence and social standing before Lizzy Tha First stepped in, in a similar way that Muslims are tarred by the same brush as terrorists.

Just querying, like.

OK. So.... "(mis)interpretation of its writings", the Qu'ran is a collection on myths going back many many millennia cobbled together by several men over time and called the word of god. Therefore there is no single definitive interpretation, they are stories and you take from them what you will. It is this very "I am right" "no you are misinterpreting" that causes all the problems within a religion as it is, you only have to look at how fragmented the Christian church is to see this.

I don't fear Islam I just think it's a hangover from times past and its teachings reflect that. It is not relevant in the modern world and causes more harm than good. Same as any religion really.

[Dungeon-Dave]

Same as any religion really.

mm.. I'm not sure if its religion or the interpretation and faith of the religion that's to blame there. You're right in regards that for any religion to be credible, it must respect the values of the disbelievers as well as the viewpoint of the believers - are those that interpret the word of religion as gospel truth and actively take steps to decry disbelievers doing so on the direction of the word they've come to worship? Does it say in the Qu'ran that you should whip women that refuse to wear the burka in public, or is it just the fanatical viewpoint of a male bully that seeks to justify their cruel behaviour?

Someone once said "Science asks questions that we cannot answer; religion gives answers that we dare not question". I'll have to admit I've enjoyed (and learned more from) discussions with more open-minded religious people than those that just label me Spawn of Satan for not blindly understanding/agreeing with their viewpoint. I do see that as more of a behavioural thing, rather than an attitude that's indoctrinated via written word (but I could be wrong).

[Absolute_Zero]

I dislike Islam intently, doesn't mean I dislike all Muslim people, just the religion.

Do you dislike it for the values it proposes, or for the (mis)interpretation of its writings?[1] There was a time when people feared Christianity due to the church interpreting it to further their opulence and social standing before Lizzy Tha First stepped in, in a similar way that Muslims are tarred by the same brush as terrorists.

Just querying, like.

OK. So.... "(mis)interpretation of its writings", the Qu'ran is a collection on myths going back many many millennia cobbled together by several men over time and called the word of god. Therefore there is no single definitive interpretation, they are stories and you take from them what you will. It is this very "I am right" "no you are misinterpreting" that causes all the problems within a religion as it is, you only have to look at how fragmented the Christian church is to see this.

Human nature, read an internet forum or two... heh.

Your summary of the Qu'ran is far dodgier than the thing itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27ran

I note Buddhism also makes your list of dislikes with intent. Curious.
The lack of dogma?
The lack of supernatural founders?
Ambivalence as to the existence (or otherwise) of God?
The Buddha was a fat bastard?

Some will argue that it's more a philosophy than a religion.

[Muphex]

mm.. I'm not sure if its religion or the interpretation and faith of the religion that's to blame there. You're right in regards that for any religion to be credible, it must respect the values of the disbelievers as well as the viewpoint of the believers - are those that interpret the word of religion as gospel truth and actively take steps to decry disbelievers doing so on the direction of the word they've come to worship? Does it say in the Qu'ran that you should whip women that refuse to wear the burka in public, or is it just the fanatical viewpoint of a male bully that seeks to justify their cruel behaviour?

Someone once said "Science asks questions that we cannot answer; religion gives answers that we dare not question". I'll have to admit I've enjoyed (and learned more from) discussions with more open-minded religious people than those that just label me Spawn of Satan for not blindly understanding/agreeing with their viewpoint. I do see that as more of a behavioural thing, rather than an attitude that's indoctrinated via written word (but I could be wrong).

Seems like we are arguing the same point really. It's the interpretation of the "written word of God" that is the issue. It's just arguments over whose fairy story is right as far as I can see. It's an inherent part of religion that different people will interpret the texts in differing ways to match their own selfish/political agenda. It probably doesn't say anything about whipping women who don't wear the burka but it still happens and that's the problem. Religion is far more than the book it is based on.

"Religion gives answers that we dare not question", "why do we have fossils if god created the world in 7 days and is only x thousand years old?" "He's put them there to test our faith". It doesn't say anything about fossils in the bible but the "religion" is modified by some nut job in the southern states to suit his ends and is taught as gospel. It's what's keeping bloody creationism in schools and holding the education of a great many people back. To what end? As I said an outdated philosophy that we can do without.

[Deckard]

I dont tend to trust anyone who has ultimate trust in an "imaginary friend" regardless of religion - Thank you Jimmy Carr. I believe in myself and my friends. I also believe a lot of religions want to hurt me cause I was born gay, thats always a big hurdle to get by too.

[Muphex]

Your summary of the Qu'ran is far dodgier than the thing itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27ran

I note Buddhism also makes your list of dislikes with intent. Curious.
The lack of dogma?
The lack of supernatural founders?
Ambivalence as to the existence (or otherwise) of God?
The Buddha was a fat bastard?

Some will argue that it's more a philosophy than a religion.

Not being an arse here but I can sometimes come across as being over t'internet, genuine debate type response to follow:

Why is my interpretation of the Qu'ran dodgy? I genuinely don't understand what you mean here. You either believe that 1. It is the word of god handed down to Muhammed, 2. that it is the writing down of many myths that existing throughout the middle east over several thousand years into a book and probably happened over many years (my belief), or 3. That someone who wasn't Muhammed authored it.

All the evidence and similarity of stories within to established folklore makes me believe that 2 is true (could be wrong though).

As far as Buddhism is concerned as I have pointed out I don't think you can separate the written philosophy from the actions carried out int he religions name (no matter how misguided or how much the proponents "min-interpreted" the text). Religion as I say is more than the written word. You only have to look at Thailand to see what is being carried out int he name of Buddhism (raids on Christian churches accused of converting buddhists away from the religion). The there was the Dalai Lama openly admitting to taking 1.7 million a year from the CIA throughout the 60's and sending a crack group of monks for military training in America. It isn't the benign, peaceful religion it is played out to be (and by religion I of course tie the actions of those that act in it;s name to the religious texts, as I say as far as I am concerned they are linked - you may disagree).

[Absolute_Zero]

Why is my interpretation of the Qu'ran dodgy? I genuinely don't understand what you mean here. You either believe that 1. It is the word of god handed down to Muhammed, 2. that it is the writing down of many myths that existing throughout the middle east over several thousand years into a book and probably happened over many years (my belief), or 3. That someone who wasn't Muhammed authored it.

All the evidence and similarity of stories within to established folklore makes me believe that 2 is true (could be wrong though).

[...]the Qu'ran is a collection on myths going back many many millennia cobbled together by several men over time and called the word of god.

The Qu'ran assumes the quasi-historical stories of Christian/Jewish scripture in the same way that we would accept history as taught... that, however, is but a minor part of the Qu'ran. Principally it's the supposed communication from the angel Gabriel to Muhammad in the 7th century.

"The Qur’an in its present form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and because, historically, controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point."

The text is almost certainly quite accurate (order, less so) in a way that would be difficult for Christians to argue regards the NT canon.

So, I find this to be a dodgy summary.

[...]the Qu'ran is a collection on myths going back many many millennia cobbled together by several men over time and called the word of god.

Except "called the word of god", which it undoubtedly is and almost certainly isn't.

As far as Buddhism is concerned as I have pointed out I don't think you can separate the written philosophy from the actions carried out int he religions name (no matter how misguided or how much the proponents "min-interpreted" the text). Religion as I say is more than the written word. You only have to look at Thailand to see what is being carried out int he name of Buddhism (raids on Christian churches accused of converting buddhists away from the religion). The there was the Dalai Lama openly admitting to taking 1.7 million a year from the CIA throughout the 60's and sending a crack group of monks for military training in America. It isn't the benign, peaceful religion it is played out to be (and by religion I of course tie the actions of those that act in it;s name to the religious texts, as I say as far as I am concerned they are linked - you may disagree).

To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby: All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. If you can find anything regards the Buddha to support violence of any kind...

[PFVA]

I've read what this march is about and I really think it's a very bad idea.

Whoever thinks the contrary should go to Egypt (a moderated Muslim country) and march to the Canal war monument carrying "symbolic coffins" to honour British victims of the conflict. Then see if protests will be limited to a couple of Facebook groups.

But that's what makes Europe different and a democracy. It's having the right to a peaceful demonstration against something. If we take away that right aren't we doing exactly what they are doing?

If you try to think from their point of view and you see the thousands of innocent Apheghanis killed and you look at media and you see them only mentioning the British or other European and American soldiers killed in there and nothing about the lifes of the Apheghanis destroyed. Besides the fact that when countries go thru what they are going, for the second time actually since Apheghanist was a victim of the Cold War too, it's going to take 3 or 4 generations for it to go back to normal maybe we can see why they maybe so upset they want to march.

Maybe too what the Muslim group should do was to honour the victims of both sides in that conflict. The soldiers are doing what they are being told to do. It's not their fault. They are fighting a war that it's probably not even winnable at this point, specially after the disastrous idea of a bunch of corrupt people in invading Iraq that only served, besides getting control of their oil, to increase an already exhisting hate by the west, which is often exploited by equally corrupt governments on their side. In my point of view they should go march in front of the Government and Parliament offices honouring the victims of both sides.

[Dungeon-Dave]

Seems like we are arguing the same point really. It's the interpretation of the "written word of God" that is the issue.

Yup. Or rather, you communicated your point rationally enough for me to understand it. I guess my next topic of debate would concern the definition of religion itself: is it the word, the interpretation of the word, or the blind following of someone's interpretation that makes the religion?

I'm reminded of the scene in the Life Of Brian when the girl holds aloft the slipper and someone raises the gould. The entire crowd then begin to divide into two directions, choosing which religions icon to worship.. but all based upon two individual's interpretation of what makes a religious relic.

To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby: All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

I thought that was conflation: when the identities of individual objects become confused since they share similar characteristics. Oddly enough, I've seen too many examples of those since being in the IT world - people wrongly identifying something due to them matching characteristics.

But that's what makes Europe different and a democracy. It's having the right to a peaceful demonstration against something. If we take away that right aren't we doing exactly what they are doing?

It's one of those "I don't agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it" situations... and I agree with it. We live in a free society[1] where we can say what we want without fear of reprisal; we can speak out against govt bodies and satirise them in the press knowing we won't get a visit from the KGB one night or be jailed by the "people's police" for dissension. It's also the reason why I agreed Nick Griffin should have his spot on Question Time: don't censor him for saying stupid things, let him stand up proudly and make a compete cunt of himself.

I recall someone once said that wars were fought as a result of petty squabbles over resource (turf wars, Palestine/Bronx et al) or opinion (religious beliefs) - sometimes both. Yet sharing resources equally (communism) or removing opinion ("Equilibrium"/"Fahrenheit 451" etc) isn't the answer.

[1] no, I know being arrested for photographing a copper and being searched for having a suspicious shoulder-bag is indicative of freedom erosion, but we aren't Mega-City One *just* yet, are we?

[kitkat]

I've read what this march is about and I really think it's a very bad idea.

Whoever thinks the contrary should go to Egypt (a moderated Muslim country) and march to the Canal war monument carrying "symbolic coffins" to honour British victims of the conflict. Then see if protests will be limited to a couple of Facebook groups.

But that's what makes Europe different and a democracy. It's having the right to a peaceful demonstration against something. If we take away that right aren't we doing exactly what they are doing?

If you try to think from their point of view and you see the thousands of innocent Apheghanis killed and you look at media and you see them only mentioning the British or other European and American soldiers killed in there and nothing about the lifes of the Apheghanis destroyed. Besides the fact that when countries go thru what they are going, for the second time actually since Apheghanist was a victim of the Cold War too, it's going to take 3 or 4 generations for it to go back to normal maybe we can see why they maybe so upset they want to march.

Maybe too what the Muslim group should do was to honour the victims of both sides in that conflict. The soldiers are doing what they are being told to do. It's not their fault. They are fighting a war that it's probably not even winnable at this point, specially after the disastrous idea of a bunch of corrupt people in invading Iraq that only served, besides getting control of their oil, to increase an already exhisting hate by the west, which is often exploited by equally corrupt governments on their side. In my point of view they should go march in front of the Government and Parliament offices honouring the victims of both sides.

Couldn't have said it better mate.

[Absolute_Zero]

I thought that was conflation

Association fallacy
By which I mean that being "ethnically" Buddhist doesn't make you a religious Buddhist. e.g. the UK is nominally Christian... with few Christians in it.

OTOH, my personal opinion is that you can do violence and still legitimately call yourself a "true" Muslim... despite the Imams and experts that conveniently say otherwise.

The problem is that you can get both from the Qu'ran... and the division is chronologically obvious. In the early years when Muhammad's forces were weak and vulnerable you get the pragmatically peaceful verses that are respectful towards other traditions. Later, as his forces grew to dominate the region, they become more aggressive.

[disciple]

The there was the Dalai Lama openly admitting to taking 1.7 million a year from the CIA throughout the 60's and sending a crack group of monks for military training in America.

Really? Got a link for this?

[Absolute_Zero]

The there was the Dalai Lama openly admitting to taking 1.7 million a year from the CIA throughout the 60's and sending a crack group of monks for military training in America.

Really? Got a link for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai ... IA_backing

In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the US Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA).[46] When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organisation did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the US Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."

[disciple]

Hmm that wikipaedia article's a bit light on detail.

In his autobiography the Dalai Lama's says he wasn't aware of the source of this money being channelled in to support the Tibetan government.

"Naturally, my brothers judged it wise to keep this information from me. They knew what my reaction would have been."

I think it needs to be understood that the Dalai Lama is also a political leader (probably not for long), and there are certain responsibilities there. I'm not sure you can point and say religion is bad because the leader of a country chooses to defend itself against an invader.

It very likely wasn't a "crack group of monks" as has been said, implying a group that spreads religion through violence. More likley a portion of the Tibetan army to be used in defence of Tibet.

[ElfQrin]

But that's what makes Europe different and a democracy.

Couldn't have said it better mate.

As a Muslim leader said to Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini during an Islamic-Christian meeting "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you."

I couldn't have said it better.


I'm all for free speech, yet I don't think this include the right to do whatever you like insulting the people who lives there and their millenary culture and way of life.
If you invite me to your home (let alone if I come uninvited) either as a guest for a lunch or to work there, would you call free speech if I want to move all your furnitures because I don't like the way you've placed them, and may be throw away the pictures of your dead relatives and the holy book I've found in your library because they offend me? Will you really let me do that and even feel superior because you know I'll never tolerate that you could do the same in my home?

I don't think this is about democracy or being tolerant, this is stupid and masochistic, pure and simple.