Here's a video of a heated exchange during part of a Heritage Foundation panel on Benghazi. A Muslim woman brings up the issue of most Muslims being peaceful. While I hate practically everything the Heritage Foundation does, I found the response to the peaceful Muslims issue thought provoking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUPMve4EC3A
Most Christiansâ,,¢ are peaceful, yet look at what they're doing to the world: not making it better.
-Nam
I never thought I'd be saying this, but the Heritage Foundation is right. Sharia (and more broadly, theocracy of any sort) is the problem. The problem is the constant attempts by the religious to subvert secularism, seize control over the state, and impose religious law to the detriment of virtually everything and everyone else. And this conflict is playing out over vast swathes of the world, not just the Middle East.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 18, 2014, 02:02:08 PM
I never thought I'd be saying this, but the Heritage Foundation is right. Sharia (and more broadly, theocracy of any sort) is the problem. The problem is the constant attempts by the religious to subvert secularism, seize control over the state, and impose religious law to the detriment of virtually everything and everyone else. And this conflict is playing out over vast swathes of the world, not just the Middle East.
They're not right because, in their minds, Christiansâ,,¢ are the ones who actually bring "peace" to the world when they argue against other religions. They are a Christian Conservative organization. When the first guy spoke on the panel he was talking how Muslims feel they are superior to others: that's how the Heritage people feel about themselves: they are superior to all others.
They're hypocrites.
-Nam
Peaceful Muslims make themselves irrelevant to peace by not speaking out against their more violent brothers and sisters. If and when they start speaking up against Jihadists, they'll be relevant.
Some of them have spoken against the terrorist and insist like Christians that a religious war is about love and freedom, not violence. However, the Old Testament and the Quran contradict that, and also the New Testament if read as is for the most part. I do believe most Christians are more civilized than most Muslims, but there are those that pay the price for the radicals in both religions. I'd like to see the moderate Islamics and Christians get together with secular organizations to censor radical religious beliefs that bring more harm than any imagined good by the insane religious. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on June 18, 2014, 04:22:00 PM
Some of them have spoken against the terrorist and insist like Christians that a religious war is about love and freedom, not violence. However, the Old Testament and the Quran contradict that, and also the New Testament if read as is for the most part. I do believe most Christians are more civilized than most Muslims, but there are those that pay the price for the radicals in both religions. I'd like to see the moderate Islamics and Christians get together with secular organizations to censor radical religious beliefs that bring more harm than any imagined good by the insane religious. Solitary
If conservative Christians could stone people in the streets legally, I think many of them would. Secular government prevents them from carrying out theological judgement.
-Nam
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 18, 2014, 03:37:00 PM
Peaceful Muslims make themselves irrelevant to peace by not speaking out against their more violent brothers and sisters. If and when they start speaking up against Jihadists, they'll be relevant.
Yes, I used to wonder about that quite a bit. Why don't they speak out against terrorism? How could we enlist their help? But watching that video was like one of those insight moments; I had never considered peaceful Muslims as irrelevant. They profess that they are not like the terrorists, and that's true, but they are irrelevant.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 18, 2014, 03:37:00 PM
Peaceful Muslims make themselves irrelevant to peace by not speaking out against their more violent brothers and sisters. If and when they start speaking up against Jihadists, they'll be relevant.
To be honest, this is sort of a weird expectation. I mean, it's not like you and I have to denounce other atheists' actions whenever something happens in some Communist hellhole - North Korea comes to mind. Or Christians have to collectively denounce Breivik. It's pretty much a given. Of course, we all often go that extra mile and actively denounce this stuff, but we don't have to. And anyone trying to infer support from silence would be mistaken.
In a broader sense, the point is correct yet the point itself is irrelevant. Humans are a very mixed bunch, Muslims included. If a Hindu kills somebody, does that mean that every Hindu on the planet is magically connected to the murder and they should all condemn it until the end of time? No. People make the mistake of pasting other people into distinct groups, then attaching every action of a person/persons to that group, or in other words, guilty by association. You look like these people, you have similar ideals, therefore you are attached to what they do even if you don't have a social connection with them.
The next time you see someone accuse all Muslims of either being violent or being apathetic to violence, read what I said above. I have researched this before, people do it with Muslims and other groups as well, where they taint their own perception of a group even if only one person in that said group does a harmful act. Human beings are tribal, instinctual creatures, sometimes when people are being "bigots" it's not necessarily their own conscious fault.
I dont understand the loud woman's point.
Every population on Earth has its share of violent people.
Peaceful people dont really matter anywhere... therefore lets get our hackles up about everyone?
I am confused.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on June 20, 2014, 05:30:07 PM
I dont understand the loud woman's point.
Peaceful people dont really matter anywhere... therefore lets get our hackles up about everyone?
I think the loud woman got her hackles up about the Muslim lady pushing the politically correct view of Islam during a panel discussion of what to do about violent Islam. We don't have the entire clip, but it would be logical to assume the purpose of the panel was to discuss solutions to the problem of Islamic terrorism.
The Muslim lady tries to reframe the discussion into talking about the peaceful intentions of Islam. She seems to want the panel to take time out of their agenda and praise peaceful Muslims. She is attempting to score points for Islam, or at least criticize the panel for not awarding peace points to her religion. In effect, it is borderline proselytizing. But such warm fuzzies are more appropriate in diplomatic speech; Not so much in problem solving on the issue at hand.
Consequently, the loud woman tells the Muslim lady that her purpose there is irrelevant to the problem. The Muslim lady then acknowledges the comment by saying she doesn't want to think of herself as irrelevant, which of course she is not in her everyday life, but her agenda is viewed by the panel as irrelevant in solving the problem of Islamic violence, which she seems uninterested in discussing.
At least, those are the dynamics of the exchange as best I can tell.
The problem I have is that Muslims are anything but a unified people, and as such very much distinct from Nazi Germany or WW2 "Bushido" Japan.
Its an extraordinarily diverse 1.8 billion, and conflicted amongst themselves almost as much as with others.
Now if you want to claim that there are a number of Muslim nations who are ruled by repressive regimes who for example kill people for being atheists or homosexuals then you can compare these states to the Nazis or whomever you feel like.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on June 20, 2014, 09:13:15 PM
The problem I have is that Muslims are anything but a unified people, and as such very much distinct from Nazi Germany or WW2 "Bushido" Japan.
Its an extraordinarily diverse 1.8 billion, and conflicted amongst themselves almost as much as with others.
Now if you want to claim that there are a number of Muslim nations who are ruled by repressive regimes who for example kill people for being atheists or homosexuals then you can compare these states to the Nazis or whomever you feel like.
Muslims in their heartlands are either ruled by oppressive demigod regimes or oppressive medieval religious brutes. I think you need to understand that the people of this organization are bashing Muslims in the way they are because it's their MO, and they score political points in doing so. It's the way the game is played.
Without the entire video, we don't know if the panel was bashing all Muslims or not. But it wouldn't surprise me if the Heritage Foundation was promoting a rather ham fisted George Bush agenda. But even Bush was careful to point out that most Muslims were well meaning. He stated that publicly on several occasions. However, his actions treated the well meaning Muslims as irrelevant. But then, Bush's agenda was in no way an effort at peace. It was an effort at war, and for purposes that we can only speculate about.
Peaceful Muslims are irrelevant? Well, in one way, of course they are. Terrorism is exactly the type of thing that only takes a handful of guys to carry out. How many guys did it take to bomb the Boston Marathon? Two brothers and maybe a few guys looking the other way. Rest of the Muslims; irrelevant. How many guys did it take to bomb Oklahoma City? three (and one's wife). Rest of America; irrelevant.
But the Muslim woman's question is exactly the type of question we should be asking. Who is most often the victim of terror attacks carried out by Muslims? Other Muslims. If we want to end Islamic terror it can't just be a race to see if we can kill them faster then they can be radicalized. We--with a heavy reliance on peaceful locals--need to work to retard the inflow of new radicals. How? I don't have the answers and I don't think the Heritage Foundation, particularly a panel on Benghazi, is the place to look for them.