Not a response to the article but thought I'd add a comment to your blog with a response to this that made me laugh

Reply #8 By: Muggaz - 9/6/2004 12:35:51 AM I hate me too. Welcome to the club. BAM!!!

I can always count on you to make a lot of these ego cases (including myself) lighten up Muggaz.

Peace,
SuspeckTed

I can always count on you to make a lot of these ego cases (including myself) lighten up Muggaz.

Gee Damn, My intention was always to be percieved as a vitriolic hater of all things clean and pure... I guess I failed again

I disagree... Most people in any given religion (Christianity, Islam, even Atheism) are not forced to be part of that religion, but make that choice freely. ...And if you were born into a given religion, you can always convert to another, or lose your faith altogether...that alone is evidence of people's capability of independant thought.

Good point Event Horizon - personally, I am a Taoist - not religious, but spiritual - my mind and body is my temple, and I relish the freedom that living by the Tao gives me - we are all creatures of nature, and we must abide by the laws of nature, go with the flow if you will, and if your flow involves an organised religion, good for you, but you are the person that determines the course of your river - no one else.

BAM!!!

Good post,
IMO, the problem with religioous beliefs is that it is giving a whole meaning to good or bad, because it is moral in essence. the big problem is human beings subjective and having different vision of good or bad. Ultimately, being a religious zealot means that you are so sure of your own truth that you disregarding anything else and anyone who is standing differently than you.
Not every religious is like this. And this behaviour cannot be found only into religious people. Generally, the big problem with belielf is that unlike knowledge it doesn't stand very well doubt... and that's what fanatical people are totally unable to see and accept.

If i wear a Jewish skull cap* and shoot someone in the face, does that mean i killed them on behalf of my religion? No

But, the problem is that people have been and will continue to wage wars over the differences in religion, and when they do, it is because of the religious beliefs that they have which are different than anothers.  This is nothing new at all.  Just look at how long the Irish have waging wars amongst religions.  The Christian God is viewed differently than the Muslim God, and so there is hatred back and forth.  The same goes for Christians having problems with religions that don't believe in Jesus.  Heck, there is even intolerance for different Christian religions.  People are being blind if they can't see that historically religion has been the root of many hateful wars, and I doubt that it will stop any time soon.

PS- they are called Yarmulke or Kippah

'Religion' (if such a thing exists) may be morally neutral, but religions are not. Which is what makes them actually practiced forms of faith rather than neutered generalizations about God.

Neither Islam nor Christianity is morally neutral. Both are proselytizing teleological belief systems having a vision of the final good, and those visions are in opposition to each other.

Religion is not a kitchen utensil for cutting bread. It is a weapon meant for the butchering of its opponents and that has been the principle occupation of the adherents of both Islam and Christianity since they became aware of each other. Belief in Christ negates belief in Allah. Belief in Allah negates belief in Christ. True believers of either sect, in order to be true believers, cannot tolerate, will not tolerate, and ought not to tolerate such negation. Otherwise, they become hypocrites and liars.

Christians point the finger toward Muslims, because it makes them feel better about their ‘little’ hate crimes. No one denies there are bad Muslims in this world, if they did, they would be blind – yet by the same token – to hypothesise that there are no Christians as evil as these ‘non-terrorist’ Muslims is farcical.

There are bad Muslims and there are bad Christians. But what you consider to be 'badness' is actually fundamental to both Islam and Christianity as acts of faith. You misunderstand faith if you think that violence is alien to it or somehow inimical to its nature. It is not. As both Christian and Islamist zealots (zealots of any sect being that sect's true believers) will tell you, killing a believer of an opposing sect is a virtuous act.

When ‘Christians’ or ‘Muslims’ act on behalf of their religion, it’s up to their personal integrity as to whether they use the knife for making a sandwich or stabbing in the guts

Any true believer will always choose the latter over the former in order to be virtuous in the eyes of his God, which is a state far more highly valued by him than that of being a 'tolerant individual', for example.

There is no warm and fuzzy middle ground where religions can meet in a spirit of tolerance. Proselytizing religions spit on tolerance, as well as upon the dead bodies of those who oppose them.

Christians are just as adept at stabbing as Muslims… practice a little homemaking, and I think we will all be a little better off.

Again, you talk as if antagonistic proselytizing faiths have some common ground or mutual 'home'. You plainly do not understand such forms of faith. You live in a warm and cuddly Tao where we can all get along. Christians, Muslims and Jews, do not. Any true believer of any of the three sects mentioned would quite properly consider your Tao to be yet another godless heresy and be just as willing to butcher you as any other heretic.

Bitching about the violence and hate inherent in religion is as intelligent and useful a critique as complaining because rain is wet. Of course its wet. It has to be, because its composed of water.

Muggaz,

Not a bad article, but I would like to challenge a couple of things respectfully if I may.

First, I agree wholeheartedly that you can use the teachings of a religion in a few different ways. That being said, you use the illustration of a lebian couple who had their house burned by Christians. While this is an abhorrent, inexcusable act, I have noticed that the number of those kinds of acts in the present day tend to be enough of a minority to be newsworthy, and, in fact, tend to be denounced by a good number of differing sects of Christianity.

Among Muslims, on the other hand, these acts are an everyday occurence. While they are also committed by the minority of Muslims, there are a good number of clerics that remain silent on these actions. They do not condone them, per se, but in many cases fear retaliation from the Muslim factions that DO commit these deeds. I see an analogy here between the majority of decent, honest Muslim clerics and the decent, honest Christian ministers of the deep south in America in the 1880's or in Berlin in the 1930's. What the honest Christian ministers who failed to speak up didn't realize is that, by not speaking against these acts, they bore some degree of responsibility for the atrocities. Their position was one of moral guidance of their parish, and they abdicated out of fear.

The Muslim clerics should try and learn a lesson from the misguided Christian pastors who abdicated their responsibility. They will risk much in "outing" the terrorist factions among them, but they stand to gain the respect of much of the world. If we are to pursue peace, it needs to come from all sides.

As a closing note, the Ayatollah who ended the standoff at the Mosque in iraq is a shining example. I truly wish him well and hope that his example serves as a light for other Muslim clerics to follow.

PS- they are called Yarmulke or Kippah

Thanks

The Muslim clerics should try and learn a lesson from the misguided Christian pastors who abdicated their responsibility. They will risk much in "outing" the terrorist factions among them, but they stand to gain the respect of much of the world. If we are to pursue peace, it needs to come from all sides.

How can you expect these Muslim clerics to learn a leson from Christians when they have an inferiority complex based on the the fact their religion is constantly deemed as immoral by the west? I know exactly what you are saying, and while it is a pipe-dream in todays climate, Idealy, the Muslim clerics would realise that the west doesn't have anything against Islam, just act's reported to be commited on behalf of Islam

When the Imams understand this, and the Western general public understand this, we can look forward to social progression, at the moment, it is just tit for tat though, and the fighting wont cease until the West focus on working with the moderates of Islam, rather than flaming the religion in general, creating a cycle of hate and mis-conceptions.

BAM!!!

when they have an inferiority complex based on the the fact their religion is constantly deemed as immoral by the west?

Please. What makes you think they care one tiny whit what the west thinks of their religion? Do we feel inferior because they've declared our religion to be immoral and all of us to be devil-loving infidels?
The only thing they may feel inferior about is our vast technological advantage.

the Muslim clerics would realise that the west doesn't have anything against Islam, just acts reported to be commited on behalf of Islam

... by Muslims, with the encouragement or even at the behest of those same clerics....

the fighting wont cease until the West focus on working with the moderates of Islam

The West IS focused on working with the moderates. We also have the problem of protecting both ourselves and the moderates from the extremists.

hate filled articles directed towards Muslims 'educate' and give the moderates reason to work with us

I never said, nor even implied, that my set of opinions contained such a ridiculous and obviously unworthy sentiment. My opinion is that articles such as Greywar's are insignificant in the greater scheme of issues, representing merely one point along the spectrum of opinions expressed about Islam in general. If a Muslim chooses only to read whatever negative things he finds, that's a problem of his focus, not ours; there are already plenty of positive things available for him to read if he chooses.
On the other hand, if a Muslim wants to know what sorts of problems he needs to address in order to change some peoples' perceptions of his religion, certainly an article like that would serve as a good starting point for areas that non-Muslims misunderstand.

Would you rather lead all Muslims to believe that the world has no problems at all with anything that is being done in the name of their religion, whether it be murder, rape, mayhem, genocide, or other wholesale slaughter?

I know there are problems with Islam, that does not escape me, but to put a blanket of blame across 1 billion people because of the actions of radicals is just unfair - and it will not achieve anything except

Actually, if we are lucky it will achieve a greater effect, namely that the people who are unjustly blamed will stand up and say "Do not blame me, I am against that sort of activity!" Thus finally giving Islam the peaceful voice it needs to be denouncing violent acts with, instead of the resounding silence in the aftermath of mass destruction as the world waits in vain for Muslims to speak out against acts done supposedly in their name.