Log in

View Full Version : Using Faith to Validate Extremism



Capitalist Lawyer
8th August 2005, 00:16
Using faith to validate extremism
Clifford D. May (archive)

August 5, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

The Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty-Years-War, John Browns Pottawatomie Massacre, the terrorist attacks of the Irish Republican Army, the Oklahoma City bombing these are just a few examples of violence carried out by extremists who found inspiration in their Christian faith.

Jewish radicals have justified violence against Arabs by citing the holy war that God commanded Israel to wage against the Canaanites for possession of the Promised Land. As recently as 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a deeply religious Jew, murdered 29 Muslims worshipping in a mosque in Hebron.

The kamikazes of World War II were religiously motivated. And it was members of Aum Shrinrikyo, an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism, who released vials of poisonous gas into the Tokyo subway in 1995.

There have been Hindu terrorists (the word thug originally referred to those who murdered to honor the Hindu goddess Kali); also Sikh suicide bombers.

So those who think Islam is the only religion that gives rise to extremism and carnage need to think again.

But lets be clear, Islam is not as has been repeatedly claimed -- a religion of peace. Indeed, the idea is absurd, considering that Islams founding prophet also was a warrior -- among the most successful in history, establishing an empire ranging from Spain to the South Pacific.

Nor did Osama bin Laden hijack Islam any more than Hitler hijacked Germanic culture or Lenin hijacked the Russian ethos. Rather, Hitler and Lenin drew upon the ugliest threads in their nations fabrics. So, too, has bin Laden invoked Islams most radically xenophobic doctrines to legitimize a vicious assault against all those who refuse to accept his authority, all those he demonizes as infidels.

Today, the overwhelming majority of modern Christians reject such religiously based fanaticism as that represented by the Ku Klux Klan and Timothy McVeigh. Most Jews condemn religious extremists like Meir Kahane.

But while recent polls have found support for suicide bombing declining in most Muslim countries, it is still far from clear that most Muslims unequivocally reject those who murder children in the name of Islam and Islams many grievances.

And that will not become clear as long as commentators on Arab television praise the killers of Iraqi civilians. It will not be clear as long as Muslim clerics in the holy city of Mecca continue to call for jihad against the West.

The West doesn't want us even to say the words 'Allah's enemies, the Saudi cleric Musa Al-Qarni groused recently on Saudi government television. They don't want us to say that the Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslims and the enemies of Islam. But, he added: "This is fixed and established in the Koran...

Hateful rhetoric and incitement to terrorism also can be heard on al-Manar, Hezbollahs television station, from Irans ruling mullahs and even from the Palestinian Authority under moderate President Mahmoud Abbas. By Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again, the PAs Sheikh Ibrahim Muayris said last month.

There are moderate, reformist voices of Islam but so far they are neither as loud nor as forceful as those of Wahabbism, a fundamentalist strain of Islam that emerged in 18th century Arabia. A bargain struck between the Wahhabis and the House of Saud led to the rise, in the 20th century, of what we now call the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Wahhabis gave religious sanction to the House of Saud; in exchange, Saudi princes have generously funded the Wahhabis, drawing upon enormous wealth derived from selling Arabias oil to infidels.

To be fair, though Wahhabi proselytizing has always been noxious, it generally stopped short of calls for a full-blown holy war against the Saudis best customers and frequent protectors, Britain and the United States. What changed that? Ideas that were blended with Wahhabism beginning early in the 20th century, ideas inspired in large measure by the Nazi, Fascist and Communist movements, ideas promoted by such radical groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and such radical theorists as Sayyid Qutb.

The point is this: As Christian behavior need not be modeled on Torquemada, as Jews neednt emulate the Zealots, as there is nothing in Shinto or Buddhism to prevent Japan from living in peace with its neighbors, so too Muslims need not embrace an interpretation of their religion that is hateful, barbaric and incompatible with freedom, democracy and human rights.

It is not inevitable that Muslims will, as bin Laden predicts, join him in an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, intended to return the world to the 7th Century as fanatics dream it must have been. There is an alternative to a Muslim war against the Free World: Muslims can join the Free World instead.

Neither Islam nor any other great religion has always been peaceful in the past. But it should not take a prophet to see the need for tolerance, pluralism and peaceful coexistence in our future.

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and a Townhall.com member group.

www.townhall.com/columnis...0805.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnis...0805.shtml)

black magick hustla
8th August 2005, 00:31
Ahahahahahahaahahaha.

So now, You are defending the Jewish and the Christian Religion but not the Muslim one?

You sound like those sad neocon idiots.

Or wait, are you one?
-
:lol:

The Bible pretty much advocates the killing of children. Christians find the bible as the word of god, therefore they also advocate the killing of children

Mr. Cockrocket, tell that to your christian buddies.

redstar2000
8th August 2005, 01:16
Originally posted by Clifford D. May
As Christian behavior need not be modeled on Torquemada, as Jews neednt emulate the Zealots, as there is nothing in Shinto or Buddhism to prevent Japan from living in peace with its neighbors, so too Muslims need not embrace an interpretation of their religion that is hateful, barbaric and incompatible with freedom, democracy and human rights. -- emphasis added.

Mr. May expresses the hope that Islam will "settle down" and become "tolerant" of other religions...is that reasonable?

Is it possible for any religion to "overcome" its "barbaric past" and become "civilized"?

I don't think it is.

Why? Because "holy books" have no "amendment" process. You can't go back and delete "the bad stuff" and "add some nice stuff".

A "moderate" and "peaceful" follower of any religion is "ok"...until he runs into someone who has read the "holy book". And who argues, quite properly, that the "deity" has ordered us to convert the heathen or smite him.

Such arguments cannot be defeated by appeal to the "holy book" -- they're in there in plain language.

Only in a secular society can religious fundamentalism be "held in check" -- where the violent acts that "God commands" are first degree felonies that will earn you serious prison time.

"Moderation" in religion is not a product of theology...it results from secular law and the state monopoly of legitimate violence that supports it.

When the secular authorities told the Christians they had to stop burning witches, they had to stop. This was not a consequence of theological debate between "moderate" and "extremist" Christians...it resulted from the fact that even the most extreme witch-burner did not want to be hung for murder.

When religion has the opportunity, it readily forms an alliance with the secular authorities -- and the terms of the deal are always the same.

You let us persecute our enemies and we will tell our followers that God has commanded them to be loyal to your regime.

In the U.S. today, Christian fascists tell their followers that George W. Bush is "carrying out God's will" and must be supported. In return, the inner circle of neo-cons around Bush are perfectly willing to allow considerable latitude to the Christian fascists to enact their agenda into law.

Such that, in two or three decades, adulterers could be stoned to death in Yankee Stadium.

All perfectly legal.

As it is today in Iran.

To make the serious followers of any religion follow at least the rudiments of civilized behavior, you have to repress its reactionary tendencies with considerable vigor.

For a number of obvious reasons, that's not an easy task for present-day bourgeois "democracies".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Ele'ill
8th August 2005, 01:47
The Bible pretty much advocates the killing of children. Christians find the bible as the word of god, therefore they also advocate the killing of children

Your communist friends condone the genocide involving every religious person in america. (If you dont' believe me just take a look in the religion forum.) Therefore you are also advocating the genocide of every religious person in america.

Simply put, the bible has been hijacked just as many of these once sound political ideologies. The bible is interpreted differently by different people and there are extremists out there. I think the bible is just a collection of stories thrown together. Do they have significance? Maybe, maybe not but they are interesting to read. Also, explain to me how the bible 'pretty much' advocates the killing of children. I am intrigued. ;)

CoyoteCzarfish
8th August 2005, 01:57
Personally I am not a person of any sort of faith.

But I would think only looking at extremists from either side makes an entire religion look bad. I've never really enjoyed the thought of religion, just another thing to argue over. But I do see it as being a little stupid that you can think the massive amounts of followers of any religion could condone any sort of genocide when in reality half of them probably don't practice as often as they should.

I find it stupid to fight over imaginary friends. I believe the world would be better off without relgion but I won't condone the killing of billions of people to do it, because in a sense that makes you the exact same idiot as someone who uses religion to rationalize killing.

black magick hustla
8th August 2005, 02:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:47 AM




Your communist friends condone the genocide involving every religious person in america. (If you dont' believe me just take a look in the religion forum.) Therefore you are also advocating the genocide of every religious person in america.

No, we don't.

The destruction of religion isn't the mass killing of religious people. If that was the case, most people would be exterminated by socialists.



Simply put, the bible has been hijacked just as many of these once sound political ideologies. The bible is interpreted differently by different people and there are extremists out there. I think the bible is just a collection of stories thrown together. Do they have significance? Maybe, maybe not but they are interesting to read. Also, explain to me how the bible 'pretty much' advocates the killing of children. I am intrigued. ;)

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.

god is cool when choosing his prophets

LSD
8th August 2005, 02:31
Your communist friends condone the genocide involving every religious person in america.

Not this crock again. <_<

Look, Mari3L, do you have a link?

If not, then please, for everyone&#39;s good, shut the fuck up. Accusing someone of advocating genocide is a serious charge, especially if you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.

redstar2000
8th August 2005, 02:34
Originally posted by Mari3L
Your communist friends condone the genocide involving every religious person in America.

Decided to say something clear, did you?

Uninformed? Yeah.

In fact, dumbass? Without a doubt.

But at least it&#39;s clear...and shows why the best you can hope for here is to remain in Opposing Ideologies.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Capitalist Lawyer
8th August 2005, 02:49
I believe the world would be better off without relgion but I won&#39;t condone the killing of billions of people to do it,

So how do you eliminate the public presence of religion without breaking a few (million) eggs?



I find it stupid to fight over imaginary friends.

Nobody in my neck of the woods are killing each other over imaginary friends.

Do you communists always look at the negative side of things? What about the activities churches organize so that kids and parents can spend time together doing fun things like doing crafts, having picnics or fun faires? You&#39;re probably calling me a "pussy" right now but I could careless.

See, that&#39;s the thing with you commies. Nothing satisfies you guys, you&#39;re always complaining that everything is a capitalist conspiracy, this is designed to maintain the capitalist system, etc......

I bet it really angers you when you pass a church on a beautiful Sunday afternoon where people come together, enjoy a few laughs and have a good picnic?

(The commies are probably in the corner, not smiling while smoking a cigarette, and wearing an ugly che-guerva t-shirt.)


One thing that I remember while looking back at my childhood and adolescent years, almost all of the kids who were involved some way in the church: went to Sunday school, made their communions and confirmations, etc....graduated high school, didn&#39;t get into drugs, didn&#39;t obtain a police record, didn&#39;t succumb to gang life, went to college, fell in love, have close families, etc....

Meanwhile, all the morons who caused trouble, got bad grades, were bullies, succumbed to gangs, knocked up their high school girlfriend, committed suicide, got into trouble with the law, got into drugs etc.....didn&#39;t do any of those things that I listed above.

Explain that one guys?

I&#39;d rather raise my future son or daughter on the values of Christianity rather than your pessimistic, cynical realism.

Capitalist Lawyer
8th August 2005, 02:52
Decided to say something clear, did you?

Bullshit redstar. If the news reported that every muslim, christian, hindu, etc....committed mass suicide, you wouldn&#39;t be happy?

redstar2000
8th August 2005, 04:31
Sometimes, CL, I get the impression that there are two people posting under your username.

There&#39;s one guy that can make a reasonable post, construct a coherent argument, etc.

And there&#39;s this other doofus who whines and rants and pisses and moans without even a semblance of rationality.

You posted an interesting article and I thought I made a substantive and coherent reply.

And what did you (or your retarded twin) come back with?


Do you communists always look at the negative side of things?

Um, yeah, we do.

What&#39;s that got to do with anything?

You want positive "thinking"? Get off the internet and turn your dummyvision to the Christian Broadcasting Network in your town.

They&#39;ll tell you that everything&#39;s just wonderful "in the arms of Jesus" -- the men are strong, the women are good-looking, and all the kids are "above-average".

And if you buy one "Rapture-Ready" Kit, they will send you a second one absolutely FREE.


I&#39;d rather raise my future son or daughter on the values of Christianity rather than your pessimistic, cynical realism.

Do it&#33; S/he&#39;ll turn 18 just in time to die in occupied Caracas.

How&#39;s that for being negative? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

KC
8th August 2005, 04:44
Your communist friends condone the genocide involving every religious person in america. (If you dont&#39; believe me just take a look in the religion forum.) Therefore you are also advocating the genocide of every religious person in america.

Mariel, please stop spouting this crap. I&#39;m sick of people saying this. Yes, redstar supports suppressing religion but not violently, and I certainly don&#39;t. I haven&#39;t read where anyone said that, so could you please back this up?

Capitalist Lawyer
8th August 2005, 14:28
Yes, redstar supports suppressing religion but not violently

How do you suppress something without resorting to violence? Good luck.



There&#39;s one guy that can make a reasonable post, construct a coherent argument, etc.

And there&#39;s this other doofus who whines and rants and pisses and moans without even a semblance of rationality.

Too funny to foster a response. I haven&#39;t heard the word &#39;doofus&#39; in ages.

Maybe you communists should look into stand-up comedy rather than politics.


You want positive "thinking"?

What&#39;s wrong with positive thinking? Secular or non-secular otherwise?


Get off the internet and turn your dummyvision to the Christian Broadcasting Network in your town.

I&#39;d rather masturbate in the morning to Katie Couric&#39;s legs.

guerillablack
8th August 2005, 14:54
Alot of you put a large emphasis on religion as if religion never existed the world would be a better place. Wars would still be waged just probably under a different reason.

Ele'ill
9th August 2005, 22:40
The war to rid the world of religion would yield a much higher casulty rate than the wars fought for religion.

redstar2000
10th August 2005, 00:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:40 PM
The war to rid the world of religion would yield a much higher casualty rate than the wars fought for religion.
You assume that everyone who is a nominal member of a particular religion is willing to "fight to the death" to "save it from extinction".

But that&#39;s not true now...and will be steadily more untrue as time passes if present trends continue.

We will begin after the revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries. Then we will broadcast satellite radio, television, and internet service to the countries where capitalism still exists...with plenty of communist and atheist content.

There&#39;s no doubt that some will resist our measures "to the bitter end" -- from greed or lunacy or both.

But I think the numbers will be almost trivial. If we say that one billion people are Christians now, how many of them would be willing to "fight to the death" to save it? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000?

It could even be as few as 1 in 10,000.

Islam is more primitive and rigorous; 1 in 100 Muslims might still be willing, at this point, to "die for Islam".

But in both cases, the passage of time shows the proportion of "true believers" to be declining.

How will matters look in 2105?

The post-revolutionary demolition of religion may well be a lot closer to taking out the trash than to an "atheist crusade".

We&#39;ll see.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

guerillablack
10th August 2005, 06:39
No offense, but that&#39;s the dumbest strategy i have ever heard.