I don't trust aspies!

Post Reply New Topic

Iamparakeet.

You missed the point. I'm saying it is ridiculous to judge any group based on the actions of a very small minority of crazy people. Would it be better if I said I don't trust Christians because of the KKK and all of the assaults and fire bombings on planned parenthood clinics?

And you're right on that last point Pill. Just look at what the sikhs have to go through.

You mean premeditated attacks such as Tashfeen Malik's?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35094415

Turns out they are not even checking if the snake is poisonous.

So much for caution.

Muslim is a religion. Religion is a choice. People don't choose to be aspies. people may be born into religion but they have the choice to convert it or give it up altogether. I have read that most Muslim people are very peaceful, but what's peaceful about a religion where women are treated like it's still the stone age? I don't want to live in a world where I can't show the skin around my eyelids, go out in public without a male escort, be forced into marriage along with at least three other women, or have my female parts sewn shut.

Of course, all religions are misogynistic, but I don't have to carry a Bible and wear a cross everywhere I go.

Not all of a group might do any given action, but if the actions are consistent with the beliefs of the group and whatnot, then what does it say of that group? People who call themselves "Christians" yet "deny God by their deeds", such as murder, adultery, slander, etc, aren't Christians. However, those people who call themselves "martyrs"/jihadists are acting consistently within their annoying belief system. Going with the argumentum ad logicam of basic some versus all in set theory, ignores the issue of the software pathology which is at fault for the continued violence.

The vast majority of Muslims say that violence and jihad are not consistent with the tenants of Islam just like the vast majority of Christians don't support violence against their "enemies." The "Muslims" who commit these acts of violence are, according to the majority, "denying god by their deeds" as well and therefore are not true Muslims.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that jihad is consistent with Islam. I think the Muslim community might take issue with that assertion.

And you mentioned living in the stoned age. That has more to do with the region than the religions. If you look at the Muslims living in America they are living modern lives just like the rest of us. The moral standards of the entire area seem to be from an earlier time.

I think that what's being missed most by discussions like this is that violence in the Middle East is only superficially religious- that is, sectarian violence only became such a huge issue after WWI when the west divided up the Ottoman empire to suit the needs of France, Britain, the United States and Russia (the latter of whom were facilitators rather than colonizers).

When you force a bunch of people to live together who have no real former ties (Sunni Arabs in Bahrain having a monarchy repressing the Shiia Persian majority) or force apart nations who them become repressed minorities in other nations that now make up their homelands (Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrians, and Palestinians to name a few), there are going to be problems.

The struggle between Israel and the rest of the Middle East is not primarily religious; it's about land and access to shipping lanes and potable water.

The Struggle between Iran and Iraq was not about Sunni vs Shiia, it was about rights to lands with natural gas reserves, the same reason for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

ISIS and other extremists are born of this political nightmare; it is only incidental that religion is used as a token.

Salafism, the extreme Wahhabism practiced by ISIS, is an extreme departure from mainline Islam- Jihadist Suicide bombing and such DIDN'T exist until the 1980s. Every other sect of Islam regarded suicide for any reason as a one-way ticket to damnation. The people who have the most to fear from these people are other Muslims.

ANY religion, even if your entire body of religious documents is a 4x4 piece of paper with "be excellent to each other" written on it, can be used as a means for extremism.

For example, things that the KKK and ISIS have in common:

1. religiosity

ISIS: define on their own terms what the one way to practice Islam is, targeting all other forms of Islam, particularly those who preach tolerance.
KKK: define on their own terms what the one way to practice Christianity, targeting all other forms of Christianity, in particular those who preach tolerance.

2. terrorism
ISIS: commit most attacks on their home soil to control the citizens therein; obvious support of attacks in other nations, with encroachment on other nations such as France.
KKK: commit attacks on their own home soil to control the citizens therein; obvious support of the Nazis and encroachment on the nation of Canada.

3. Propoganda

ISIS: spreads propaganda, PRIMARILY ABOUT MUSLIMS WHO AREN'T MUSLIM ENOUGH.
KKK: spreads propaganda, PRIMARILY ABOUT AMERICANS WHO AREN'T AMERICAN ENOUGH

4. Public Identity

ISIS: wear specific garb that identifies them as ISIS members
KKK: wears specific garb that identifies them as KKK memebers

5. Politics

1. Criticize even the Sunni Theocratic monarchies for not imposing Sharia Law harshly enough.
2. Criticize even the most hard-line Christian politicians for not being "Christian" or "American" enough.

I could go on, but seriously, no one religion is more prone to this than the next. It's the political context, along with geography, that creates violent extremism.

Really then why aren't they passing laws that give women rights, banning stoning and honor killings, etc. why do they gather and watch and cheer on stoning soft raped women? Why if they are against these things do they not get rid of them, how many Muslims from the Middle East have you talked to. Because Muslims who have escaped the area say different things m they say the schools teach hate of non Muslims. That the gov via schools are brainwashing their kids to believe in all the hatred and violence. Have you ever attended these schools and mosques ? All this was reported on liberal news agencies back before the political correctness towards Muslims came about and telling the truth became wrong and saying all Muslims and Muslim nations are great and fine. Women are second class citizens and should be its ok. Stoning and beheading people is ok, don't say bad stuff about Muslims. Is this the future of North Korea will it be bad to say stuff about them and dear leader/god? Islam inmost Muslim nations has been so twisted to fit their agenda that I believe if muhammad was alive he would be horrified of what it's become. There needs to be a change but not many over there want to change they'll just keep supporting the same violence and evil. Would you watch a woman be stoned to death in Times Square?

Christianity has pretty similar core beliefs, as does Judaism, they're all abrahamic monotheistic religions. The dangerous thing is religious extremism, its not that Islam is more evil than Christianity or Judaism. Islam extremists demonize jewish people, various christians demonize muslim people.....two wrongs don't make a right.

No I am talking about discrimination and harassment Muslim Americans are now having to face, from those who would try to get the terrorists back by targeting local Muslim communities as if they're all terrorists deserving of harassment. Also certain comments by politicians that demonize Muslims sure isn't helping that either.

There actually is progress in middle eastern countries, and women getting more rights as people do push for these things. Also I doubt every muslim would cheer on a stoning anymore than every christian would, I mean if we instated the law of the Bible in this country it would look just as bad as any Islamic theocracy. Also how does people harrassing muslims here in this country help anything....muslims here in a secular ran country have the freedom to practice their religion whilst also being exposed to other things and aren't required to stick to a strict religious code yet people want to blanket accuse all muslim americans of 'hating' freedom and such as if every muslim who has come here is out of hatred and wanting to cause destruction maybe some of them take issue with their government system and would rather be here. I mean people say a lot of what the intentions of any muslim must be and what they all must passionately believe, but how many people saying these generalizations have actually talked to any Muslims?

You appear highly aggressive/defensive/argumentative and clearly miss the big picture while insulting many of the people who are attempting to have an adult "conversation" and share their viewpoints. Instead, it seems that you are "bullying" to spread your point of view. I try to avoid confronting bullies, for they will argue endlessly, disrespect others continually, and refuse to change, amend, or fine tune whatever ideas are pre-programmed into their minds. Additionally, if no changes are needed in their thought processes, bullies refuse to teach others peacefully and kindly and use brute force to "cram" ideas down the throats of others while trying to prove their power and superiority. For that reason, I am out. Thank you.

I agree to a degree, but this is not always the case dependent on influencing factors. One cannot simply force oneself to believe something they inherently don't believe to be true by a sheer force of will. For example, for many years I tried to "make" myself Christian. I wanted to believe in god and have faith. Bible studied like crazy. Even went out and ministered to people for a time. But in the end, it's like trying to convince yourself the earth is flat. You may sincerely want to believe that with all your heart, but you can't "choose" to believe what you know or strongly believe to be untrue. People can change when exposed to new ideas sure, but I think simplifying it as a "choice" and nothing more isn't quite correct.

And -

As Pill said, much of this behaviour is cultural and political in basis, not religious. Keep in mind as to the first quote, that female genital mutilation is also practised in many parts of Africa that don't identify as Muslim at all.
There has been progress, but it is slow. I once read the opinion that Islam now is much like the developmental stage Christianity once was - women had very little rights back then, either. And Jesus would likely have been disapproving of Christians once (and in some instances still) just as you say Muhammed would be today. But with time, standards change. It is not so simple as Religion X = bad and responsible for all bad behaviour and injustice, therefore all people associated with that religion must be identical and also bad. There are social, economic, historical, and political involvements which I doubt anyone in the west fully comprehends. Have you been to these schools and mosques that apparently preach hatred? If you believe for a moment that your own media and news sources tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, incorporating every possible angle and all its complexity, with the sole object of correctly and completely enlightening their populace without any political, military, economical or social ulterior motives of their own, my opinion is that you are incorrect.
The problem here seems to be generalisation. Claiming that a whole religion, and every person in it, believes and practices the same thing, regardless of associated factors of time, place, exterior culture, political climate, etc. Pacifists will always regard violence as unacceptable and would jot support the kinds of acts you're describing. Many Muslim people advocate nonviolence and the equality of women. And many Muslim women wear religious attire that covers them up not out of oppression, but out of choice. Just because a man is Muslim, it is my opinion misguided to think he must believe the very extremes of philosophy that have been attributed to his religion. Again, you can't know what is going on in a country and it's religious institutions without being there on the ground with an open mind.

Hmm, always seems to be the complaint among people of differing religious views. I believe you have a point there in general terms, but I'm curious as to how you perceive this thread to meet that criteria? What has been insulting, exactly? Differing points of view are always difficult because of the self/ego complex interprets it as a personal attack, but there has been none of that in here that I could make out. Examples?

The empathy in this thread is overwhelming... Comparing people to snakes... what's next? Comparing them to cockroaches?

Anyway... In official capacity as an *actual* snake, I'd like to draw attention to the following discrepancy (which I believe several other posters in this thread have already pointed out as well):

*Perceived* risk of terrorist attack:



*Actual* risk of terrorist attack:



Since the data ends in 2013, I manually gathered the death toll from subsequent terrorist attacks in the US (including the December 2015 San Bernardino shooting), which increases the number by an additional 64 to 3,444. Please note that this number includes *all instances* of terrorism, like the recent Charleston Massacre by Dylann Roof which had nothing to to with Islam.

Sources:
http://publicreligion.org/research/2015 ... m_WYtKYVW6
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/or ... -violence/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... .93present

Last edited by GGPViper on 15 Dec 2015, 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Umm, I'm pretty sure that was a metaphor, not meant to be interpreted literally, unless I'm in turn misunderstanding your interpretation.

Most of the "gun deaths" are from inner city people killing each other, gangs, or drug-related deals gone bad. People can manage that fear by moving away from it.

How do Americans manage the fear of Muslims of random attacks of hatred?

No.


Source:
Myers, Sage R. et al. “Safety in Numbers: Are Major Cities the Safest Places in the United States?” Annals of emergency medicine 62.4 (2013): 408–418.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3993997/

If you are younger than 15 or older than 45, cities are safer than rural areas with respect to gun deaths. If you are 20-44, rural areas are safer, and if you are 15-19, there is no difference.

More importantly, since the risk of injury is generally higher in rural than urban areas (as the above article demonstrates), getting away from the inner city crowd is generally not a sound strategy in this case.