General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the double standard with Abrahamic religion?
Criticize Christianity.. that's considered enlightened progressiveness.
Criticize Judaism.. that's considered enlightened progressiveness.
Criticize Islam.. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOU RACIST ISLAMOPHOBIC KNUCKLE-DRAGGING RIGHTWINGER!!!
We have no problem blaming Judaism when Jewish extremists attack and kill Palestinians. We have no problem blaming Christianity when Christian extremists shoot up or blow up abortion clinics. But when Islamic extremists kill people in Paris, San Bernardino, or Brussels? Nope, it has nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace, and if you dare suggest otherwise then GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOU RACIST ISLAMOPHOBIC KNUCKLE-DRAGGING RIGHTWINGER!!!
Why? Because of conservatives? We should base our approach on reason, and if we value constructive criticism of one belief system that involves an imaginary friend in the sky, we should value constructive criticism of ALL belief systems that involve imaginary friends in the sky, especially when their followers think their imaginary friends instruct them to kill. Regardless of what conservatives think about any specific such system.
If conservatives magically embraced Islam and began preaching against Christianity and Judaism, would that be a logical reason for us to suddenly allow criticism of Islam but flip out whenever someone criticized Christianity or Judaism? Nope. No belief system that encourages its followers to fight the unbelievers or discriminate against people based on their gender or sexual orientation - things all Abrahamic religions do - should be exempt from criticism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)(1) people here are terrified about being perceived as Islamophobic,
(2) they are reluctant to agree with the Republicans about anything, and
(3) they mistakenly believe that criticizing Islamic fundamentalism is tantamount to arguing in favor of US military action in the Middle East.
That's why in many DU threads about Islamic atrocities there will be replies along the lines of "yes, but the Christian fundies are just as bad / would do that here if they could" etc.
Warpy
(111,319 posts)and that means the Islamophobes are full of shit and should be called out.
This is the kind of hysterical, fear-driven garbage that led to the wholesale internment of Japanese citizens in WWII.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Yet Christianity and Judaism are not above criticism, nor should they be.
Nichevo11
(67 posts)Please point out what's hysterical about criticizing a religion that demands a mixing of government and religion, demands that males and females live under different laws, and is stuck pretty much where Christianity was during th Dark Ages?
By the way, I married a Muslim.
I'll bet I have more Muslim friends, acquaintances, and relatives than most people here.
I look forward to the day when Islam evolves out of its current widespread horrors, as the other two religions pretty much have (their lunatic fringes notwithstanding).
I concede that we outsiders often do more harm than good, with our wacky talk of, gasp!, gender equality and gay rights and protection for religious dissenters and apostates.
But yes: it is quite okay to criticize Islam. And you can do it while loving plenty of Muslims.
Warpy
(111,319 posts)Oh, dear.
Nichevo11
(67 posts)You are being obtuse. Is it deliberate?
I think you are much more interested in defending an uninformed position than in exchanging knowledge with a person who has been part of the Muslim community - through my husband and kids - for years.
'Kay. No problem.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I've ever been able to.
I agree with you completely.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)YES
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Only non-thinking people blame a religion when some of its adherents go off the rails.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Warpy
(111,319 posts)Have you checked out the security at any women's clinic in this country?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)However, to be fair, Christians have to add a little extra effort to be violent. "Turn the other cheek" and "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.", theoretically, should refrain any logical follower of the New testament from committing violence. But religions and their followres are not logical, so there's ample room for idiocy in Christianity too.
But, to be fair, as far as doctrines go, "slay the infidels" tends to induce more violence than "Turn the other cheek". Which is why Dawkins or Sam Harris say Islam is probably more violent than other religions.
Response to Albertoo (Reply #11)
BlueSpot This message was self-deleted by its author.
Marr
(20,317 posts)He'll never be in a position to have all those 'fags' that he's so convinced god hates, dragged into a stadium and beheaded. Were he in the Middle East, he'd have access to real authority.
The west has long since relegated it's religious loons to the periphery. They do have influence in some cases, but nothing like their analogs have in the Middle East.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)See? We have no problem calling out the fundie Christians who murder doctors for doing their jobs but blame Islam for the terrorism? Heaven forbid we post about the obvious - these people are being radicalized in their mosques but that's a no no on DU. Well, I stopped giving a shit about being called an Islamophobe - pretending the problem doesn't exist is ridiculous.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Yep.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Mathew 10:34
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Tell me, are there any verses in the bible that condone or promote violence?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)But there are billions of people on this Earth who follow those religions, and they all pretty much just want to live their lives in peace.
The problem with bashing Islam for the actions of the worst Muslims, is that it's currently being used as a way to throw suspicion and hate at billions of Muslims across the world, and ignores the political reasons of why people would join a islamic terrorist group in the first place. (perhaps it has to do with us starting bullshit wars, displacing and murdering millions of them with impunity, and destroying the future of entire generations of young people in certain Muslim countries?)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)As is "blessed are the peacemakers". And don't get me started on "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Riiiiiiight.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It seems to have slipped my mind.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)One of the favorite verses of homophobic Christians is in Leviticus. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Granted that's in the Old Testament but it still gets cited quite a bit.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The name of the religion is Christian, not Leviticusian.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)To others, they are god's word. When you go and prove those millions of people wrong, we can talk about what "Christianity" really is.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)To answer yours: who gets to define the religions?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Granted, in the Western world we aren't executing homosexuals like in the Middle East, but at the same time, there's no shortage of homophobia here either.
I almost want to say Judaism is the least homophobic, but then again, Jews are a tiny, tiny minority in most countries and don't have much influence there.
Actually, being against homosexuality was established in the Old Testament... aka the Tanakh.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But Paul is not so easily dismissed. You may not call yourselves Paulians either, but had he not prevailed in the Petrine-Pauline power struggle, to call yourselves Christians you would have had to have become Jews subject to the 613 laws first. He incidentally had something to say about homosexuality and no arsenokoitai does not by any stretch of linguistics, grammar or context apply exclusively to temple prostitutes. So do you discard Paul and his outreach to the gentiles and separation from Judaism so cavalierly from your own holy writ?
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Very good point.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Why do you think it took societies dominated by Christians approximately two millenia before Christian attitudes started changing towards homosexuals and women's rights?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Must be OK!
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)And christian dominated societies persecuted them for a couple thousand years after Jesus came and went, and some are still trying.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)That doesn't stop countless Christians and Jews from embracing the message of the Old Testament.
a la izquierda
(11,797 posts)But nope, many were tortured and executed for not embracing Catholicism.
I have thousands of pages of documents sitting in my office that demonstrate just how "peaceful" Spanish Catholics and English Christians were in the Americas. Having the skin ripped off one's foot and then being burned alive...peaceful stuff.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Hundreds of years ago people certainly did horrible things in the name of Christianity. The difference is that earlier this week many people were murdered and maimed in the name of Islam.
REP
(21,691 posts)Catholic terrorists bombing the crap out of Protestants, fully supported by the local Church authorities, taking out important military targets such as department stores and band barracks.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The IRA was really nothing to do with religion. The quarrel was about getting the British out of Ireland, not transsubstantiation or papal authority.
REP
(21,691 posts)Please don't make me laugh that hard.
Well, at least you're not using an Irish username.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I may have to rethink my position. Perhaps the Irish would have welcomed British rule if only the British had happened to be Catholics.
Thank you for your well-reasoned argument.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Criticism of Islam" I have found, usually has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophies and thoughts of the religion itself, and is instead used as a blanket condemnation of 1.6 billion people for following one form of it or another. These 'critics" then use "but what about Christianity / Judaism!" to obfuscate their doing so.
Also I've noticed that people tend to respond pretty poorly to criticism of Judaism, at least coming from non-Jews, for much hte same reasons.
Oh, the burden of social dominance, I suppose 
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)the mere 160,000 or so extremists. (Best estimates put the extremists at about 10% of Muslims)
But that doesn't mean we should ignore those 160,000 extremists who really do want to see Western civilization destroyed.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)... given that exploding population, climate change, financial collapse, and escalating violence are in the process of tearing civilization apart anyway. Forty years from now civilization will be smoking ruins, and 100 years from now the human race will likely be gone from the face of the planet. So, in the long run, why should I care what idiotic fantasies people believe in now?
In fact, I don't even know why I'm posting this response. Or why I post anything here. I'd say there's a good chance I might come to my senses any day now and just not bother with nonsense like the Internet, DU, politics, or caring about causes. Maybe this post, #1,790 will be the last time I visit here. Or maybe, like when I quit smoking many years ago, breaking this harmful habit will take a few tries. If the top of this message still says "Binkie The Clown (1,790 posts)" a year from now, then you'll know I came to my senses and just walked away, here and now. Today. If you see more posts from me, then I'm still trying to recover from this silly mental derangement of posting messages on the Internet, in the foolish hope delusion that they might mean something.
Then again, I might stop after post #1,800. That's a nice round number. Time will tell.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)and is an outrageously high best estimate, I can only hope.
I lived in Jordan for 2 years and as far as I knew I never met a single extremist.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,348 posts)71% of Jordanian Muslims think Islamic law should be the official law of the country. Of those, 58% say it should apply to non-Muslims too. 67% of them think the penalty for adultery should be stoning - a particularly barbaric form of torture for a death penalty. That's very nearly half of Jordanian Muslims. I'm sure you met plenty of them in 2 years.
82% of those favouring sharia want the death penalty for someone who leaves Islam. That's over half of Jordanian Muslims. Is thinking that a change in belief deserves death 'extremist' to you? You met plenty of those people too.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)I'll take that as a reasonable definition of extreme. The times have certainly changed and perhaps my circle wasn't representative even then. (It's been decades, and the only Muslim I know now is my brother-in-law, an American, and definitely not extreme.) I want to say the context here was more about bombing, but it is weak sauce compared to what you have linked there. I submit.
The correction of what 10% of 1.6B is had to be made; I think you would agree to that?
I
muriel_volestrangler
(101,348 posts)What they really meant, I can't tell.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)1,600,000,000 times 0.1 = 160,000,000
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Religions have no demonstrated value added to this world,
and plenty of divisiveness and religiously mandated violence to account for.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Altruism is coded in our genes. It's part of the survival of the species. See 'The Selfish Gene'.
Religions are just catch-all ideologies which claim altruism for themselves and channel it.
But the key point is that it is not religions which foster altruism.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Name us some atheist charities.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)When everyone believed in a god, the founders of charitable works too were believers.
As for secular charities, there are quite a few, quite well known:
UNICEF, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, ACLU and Planned Parenthood in the US
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and there are still plenty of religious believers and others than support it.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)It's only since the 2000's that the movement toward secularism has accelerated
(22% unaffiliated now, higher among the young)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That will win a lot of elections.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Evolution takes time.
Hopefully, with the cumulative effect of higher education, we can hope to see religion wane to very low levels by the end of this century, bar WWIII or an asteroid hitting the planet.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
Marr
(20,317 posts)Civil Rights Movement.
That is a moment where human progress transcended religion.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)n several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men".[85][86][87][88][89] However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way"[90] and "even better" as "brothers",[91] to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.
The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery; it was used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists. [92][93] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master, Philemon; however, Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus, who he says he views as a son, not as a slave but as a beloved brother in Christ. Philemon is requested to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul.[94]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_New_Testament
Marr
(20,317 posts)I'm amazed that religious apologists try to argue otherwise.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible
The Old Testament goes into great detail as to who can be enslaved, raped, etc. The New Testament urges slave masters to treat their Christian slaves kindly, and slaves to serve obediently. That's not a condemnation of slavery, no matter how much you twist it. It's describing how slavery should be conducted.
But even if you insist on interpreting these unambiguously pro-slavery passages as somehow unclear, it's little better. I mean really, if the Bible was such a valuable guide to morality, why would it fail to condemn slavery?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)of the issue.
The Bible reflects the world within it was written. Slavery was endemic to many societies at that time, it was unfortunately a norm.
I would point out, again, that the anti-slavery movement in the US was driven by religious people. Almost completely by religious people, starting with the Quakers.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The Bible contains passages that undeniably describes how Christian slaves and slave masters should conduct themselves. The passage you cited requires some seriously liberal interpretation to be viewed as anti-slavery. Even if your interpretation is correct, which I don't think it is, why on earth would the Bible, the word of god and source of morality, be cryptic about condemning slavery?
Religious people were, as you said, at the heart of the anti-slavery movement in the US. But again, their opponents were on much firmer biblical ground. The moral sense that told them slavery was wrong was clearly not derived from the Bible.
As to your first point, if a book is the word of god, I don't see why it's morality would be so defined by the era in which it was transcribed. I mean, it's not like we're talking about some minor issue here. We're talking about slavery-- something the whole world now agrees is utterly immoral. So god just chose not share his real feelings on the topic at the time, why? Because he didn't want to be rude?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and from it you draw the false conclusion that the moral sense that told them slavery was wrong was clearly not derived from the Bible. Again, simply your interpretation. Judging by the vast number of religious denominations formed over interpretation of the Bible, yours in simply one more. The Bible is a vast and complex work, subject to many ideas about it.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm
The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated: the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created. That impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism. Both movements arose in England and America during the Age of Enlightenment—the eighteenth century. The pietism of the Quakers, a radically egalitarian Protestant sect, asserted the love of God for every human being, regardless of color, sex, or station in life.
Edit to add: The Quakers came to this conclusion about 300 years ago, before it was a practice anywhere.
Marr
(20,317 posts)then it is completely useless as a guide to morality.
Your argument seems to be that the text can be twisted to say anything you want it to say. So it's flexible enough to be adapted and re-interpreted to reflect moral advances happening in society. So what do we need the Bible for?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That's all. Nor the litmus test of a few hundred million others.
My argument is no such thing, by the way.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I understand that, for many, belief comes before both of those things. That's fine-- but fervent belief adds nothing to an argument's credibility.
The Bible, as I said, unambiguously condones slavery. The Old Testament actively promotes it. That's quite obvious in any honest reading of the texts.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)That's all.
Marr
(20,317 posts)"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles."
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."
Jesus recommends disobedient slaves be beaten in at least one parable, and we're only talking about the New Testament here.
You can believe whatever you like, of course, but our arguments are not equally valid. I can cite actual, plain passages for mine. You can only ever hope to find a passage that might, if looked at just so, maybe, possibly, be seen as a repudiation of slavery. And even then, the Bible would only be ambiguous on this unambiguously evil practice.
It isn't a matter of subjective interpretation anymore than 1+1 is subjectively 2.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You don't understand my argument. You focus only on slavery, one might say fixated on this issue.
I am talking about the total acceptence, or rejection of the Bible. For you, the deal-breaker is the passages about slavery, as you interpret them. This is not an estimation of the value of the teachings of the Bible to me, or many others.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seriously, it's like three thousand years of mythology and history and genaology and cultural mores, thrown togethr in one singular work, by dozens, maybe hundreds of authors, and then re-filtered through the lens of each successive generation since.
You can find a biblical passage for huffing whippets. You can probably find one to justify huffing the dog whippets; it wouldn't surprise me.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Those that want to put a knife to my neck can fuck off and I can name some groups from many religions that would do that. There are no held beliefs that are moral if the objective is to just cut your head off or blow you up with bombs or millions of bullets. That is brutality. Inhuman drones that bomb kids, the entire thing is a shit sandwich.
Was looking the other day at countless bombed and destroyed cities in Syria, then I read about China having 40 empty cities that could hold millions of people. Weird world.
Fascist and/or religious peoples tend not to get along well with me.
brooklynite
(94,684 posts)I also believe that most people lead perfectly secular lives, despite the religion they profess to believe in.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That education moves us closer to secular societies and that it is pretty obvious that pro freedom is still an enlightening trait. I just won't respect butchers and I doubt anyone else does either. We all want to live happy long lives with family and friends. Modern religions reflect that imo. Despite some strongman areas of the world that tend to stay lawless.
zigby
(125 posts)As a matter of fact keep religion away from my whole damn body! I grew up under the spur of homophobic bigoted jesus freaks, and I'll fight to my last breath to not end up there again!
seanjoycek476
(54 posts)Frankly, I think all religions are a sham.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)In other countries, it's Islam, or other religions, that really fuck things up, particularly for women.
But Christianity has done immense harm to the USA, its people (again, primarily females), and its environment. It has largely stood in the path of scientific and social progress as a big, nonsensical blockade of mythology and fact-less dogma and nonsense.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Many positive social movements in American history were driven by religious persons with social justice agendas.
Civil rights movement, abolitionist movement, women's movement, had big religious drivers.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and trust me, I lost my religion a while ago.. currently liberal theology, whether Christian (regardless of flavor) Jewish or Muslim, are at the forefront of worker justice movements in the US. Would you like some links? And damn it, today was a damn good example of that in San Diego.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)it's just a matter of degree
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)who double-park near the church in my neighborhood on a Sunday.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Religion was part and parcel of Western and all societies,throughout human history. It created a unifying and universal structure between the emerging nations of Europe. It provided a community basis for moral behavior, for societal structure. The religion inspired much of the greatest art ever created. The monasteries of Europe preserved ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts and passed on the knowledge.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)doesn't exactly fit your model, does it?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Lots of things are taught. Doesn't mean people accept the teaching.
Catholic church disallows birth control. Ignored by 95% of Catholics.
Anyone moral would be moral with or without religion.
Same for immoral.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)which doesn't, in itself, mean very much, does it?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)...why haven't you stoned any of your neighbors to death? I assume some of them work on Sundays, right?
It's because some biblical texts are obviously not to be taken seriously. So apparently, your sense of right and wrong exists independently from the biblical text.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The sense of right and wrong is developed within the religious study itself. I speak of religion in general, not just the Abrahamic religions.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)and you are welcome to it.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)You disregard parts of the Bible. You can't say religion is the source of morality while disregarding parts of it.
I'd also just like to mention that it is, frankly, supremely arrogant and insulting to claim that religious people have some kind of lock on morality. So is the claim that the all-powerful creator of the universe takes a particular interest in your life, while all sorts of horrors and injustices occur everywhere. I mean, there are children dying of cancer and starvation and a million other cruelties, and religious people think god goes out of his way to help them find their car keys. The whole thing is absurdly arrogant.
The whole 'behave how we say or you'll burn in fire forever' bit...
Of course the 'how we say' part changes on where and when you are.
That's opposed to behaving in a decent manner because you choose to and not because the only thing holding you back is fear of punishment.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)does the on-going Catholic pedophile fit? Do explain.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)under their aegis (like charity), but no blame for what they do? Good to know.
But really the point is that the church, with its unworkable celibacy requirement and willfully blind eye to the results, not to mention its complicity in covering up those results, is teaching the clergy to behave in this manner.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Morality" is a 100% cultural construct, almost always - but not always, of course - rooted in religion. it varies widely from society to society, era to era.
Don't confuse morality with ethics. Ethics are almost universal, and are probably instinctive on some level. Morals, by constrast, are usually escape clauses for unethical behavior - "it's okay to defy this common human standard because my personal mythical being says so."
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct.
While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different:
• ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions.
• Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Defining_ethics
zigby
(125 posts)Not sure why people have to bend over backwards to throw a book full of hate, sexism, homophobia etc as some sort of evidence that a couple things Jesus said make up for thousands of years of oppression.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)But the previous poster is right. When you look at the actual history, all established ethical systems have their roots in religion. The fact that religion is not necessary now for morals and that many religions inspire a minority of people to do terrible things does not change the historical record, even if you cry "bull" several times over.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mean, look at the various sources here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Its quite exhaustive and complicated.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)People who come up with non-religious ethical systems are doing so in societies that already have religion-based ethical systems which, for a variety of causes, no longer serve the morality of their adherents. But where does that sense of right and wrong come from? Invariably it's rooted in previous ethical systems whose adherents or leaders, for whatever reasons, are failing to live up to their own standards. Those who reject religion as a foundation for morality--and there are plenty of them--do so because religions become about self preservation of power & influence. Which is to say, they quit living by the moral standards these religions themselves have inculcated in society. The branches may be corrupt, but the roots still run to the same ground.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Many of the ones of the past were more concerned with making yourself right with the gods by performing the right rituals at the right time, etc.
Unless you want to claim that Animism is the root of all ethics and/or morality, you don't really have a leg to stand on. Generally speaking, most ancient religions didn't concern themselves with laying out the groundwork for how people would treat each other. That developed independently in most cases, usually as part of governmental or tribal law. They may have invoked the gods for legitimacy, but mostly after they developed the ethics.
For example, Roman Catholic ethics, rooted in "natural law", is largely a combination of its theology and post-hoc addition of largely secular/pagan Greek ethics and philosophy.
nonsense
muriel_volestrangler
(101,348 posts)They were pretty diverse in religious practices, and didn't insist that territories they conquered take up Roman religious practices as they were at that moment (once an emperor was established, there was the insistence on recognising some of the as gods, but the civilisation was established before that). And the same goes for the Greek too.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)When I made the comment I made. You are correct about the Roman era.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Empire collapsing and the ascendance of Roman Catholicism. But there would have still been a "Western Civilization" of sorts regardless of what religion or religions took precedent. What if Constantine didn't legalize Christianity? Would it have been the end of the world? No, just a different one, and I don't think the ethics and virtues that people held would have changed that much in that time anyways.
In addition, rather than art centered on Christ and Saints, it would have been Gods and Goddesses, with elaborate temples and fantastic paintings, etc. Assuming, in this world, that the Roman Empire collapsed, which seems likely, Europe would be fragmented, much like in our timeline, with commonality among the latin speakers, a split with the Greek speakers, etc. Assuming another religion didn't take absolute prominence in the Roman Empire before collapse, such as Mithraism, or a Solar cult or two, there would have been less that unified Europe religiously outside of shared gods, of which there were a lot, mostly thanks to the Romans.
The thing is this, art, music, literature, culture in general, can use religion, religions, myths and legends as sources, but the actual creative impulse is innate, those are merely subjects for creative output. Even if there was no religion, another subject would have been chosen for such things.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this is the history that actually happened, and religion played a very important role in that history.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Abraham?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Yes, all three are Abrahamic. My point was that we're happy to criticize two of them but dismiss criticism of the third as racism, Islamophobia, etc, when I don't think any of them should be above criticism.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)I don't see you blaming Christianity and calling Christians as inheritely violent
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Sure, the Pentagon scolded him for " failing to make clear he was not speaking in an official capacity when he made church speeches casting the war on terrorism in religious terms," but do you think Ol' Billy gave a shit? He clearly knew which fairy tale he was serving, and he wasn't afraid to declare it loud and proud, issuing his proclamations in full uniform at more than 20 religious events in 2002 and 2003.
So we can wave a scrap from an treaty from a quarter millennium in the past, or we can point to the US history of disproportionate military action against Muslim countries and citizens. How many were killed as a direct result of that treaty? How many were killed as the result of direct US policy (i.e. military action) since then?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Sorry, not very convincing vs a treaty endorsed by the United States government which stipulates the United States of America is not built in the Christian faith.
Better luck next time.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)If you don't think that it's irrelevant, then please indicate when it last featured significantly and explicitly in US law or foreign policy.
We are bombing the shit out of Muslims because other Muslims don't like that we've been killing and persecuting Muslims for many decades, centuries-old treaties notwithstanding.
Sure. The US is not a Christian nation except in matters of tradition and policy.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)A bit more convincing than a mere general who has been reprimanded.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Our pious General got a tiny wrist-slap for spilling the beans, but "righteous crusade" dog whistles were all over the whole operation.
I see that it's important for you to pretend that this is not the case, however, and far be it from me to expose you to ugly reality.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)you've got one general.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)You've got some non-binding letters and an irrelevant centuries-old treaty, and I've got reality.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)read facts, rely on your biases less, look for balance in your arguments
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/roots.html
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Hoary documents, even the nominally sacrosanct Constitution, are subordinate to fact.
It is convenient for you to imagine otherwise, but your imagination is as unimpressive as your patronizing tone.
That's fantastic!!
Thanks for the laugh! 
Orrex
(63,219 posts) Bucky
(54,041 posts)The US negotiated from weakness during the Adams administration and the intent of that "not a Christian country" clause was, in effect, begging the Muslim pirates of North Africa not to keep on kidnapping American sailors.
When the treaty was renewed in the early 19th C, the first order of business from the US Senate was removing that phrasing from the treaty's language. America wasn't a Christian country, if you go by the Constitution, but all its senators certainly were quite Christian.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)However in conjunction with your reminders to same Orrex about the separation of Church and State, plus with the bios of the founding fathers, roughly half of which were vaguely deists and certainly not devout Christians, it would be fair to say that the United States has not been established as a Christian nation. Despite the conservative rhetoric which tries to work back from the rather late inscriptions of (Christian?) deism on the currency (started during the Civil War, took hold after WWII only).
Bucky
(54,041 posts)Much as it would delight me to believe so, the facts just don't back up the idea that the Founders as a group were religious liberals. A few heavy hitters were deists--Washington kind of, Franklin, Jefferson--a survey of the religions of the Founders shows they mostly were pretty conventionally Christian, mostly Episcopalian or Congregationalist, and quite a few were devout. Of course comparisons of the social role of religion in the 1700s and now are inherently flawed. It was the Baptists back then who wanted to disestablish the Anglican/Episcopal church from state authority (as opposed to the theocratic bent of today's rightwingers). The roots of the movements to expand civil rights, provide for society's poor and oppressed, and end the scourge of slavery in the country were based on the works of very religiously devout citizens in the late 1700s.
I agree the country isn't based on Christianity, of course, but we shouldn't blind ourselves to the irony that to a great extent it was religiosity that made the US such a progressive country in the early Republic.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)What I meant is that the founding fathers were as a group less religious than the society they lived in, so much as to be called religious liberals in the light of their day.
Paine and Franklin had harsh words for Christianity, Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli,
Jefferson and Madison had misgivings toward the clergy and its claims to influence society.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And his administration was intimately connected with the right-wing evangelical Dominionist movement.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The fact an imbecile of apocalyptic proportions got elected and held religious views and nominated religiously inclined stooges still did not make the US a theocracy. Just a Republic led by an ass.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)The actions of the US government were, in fact, "guided by religion" under the administration of George W. Bush, contrary to your assertion. And we've seen the consequences of that for Muslims - over a million Muslims in Iraq killed over the course of the last decade, millions more displaced, and a power vacuum that has directly led to the scourge of ISIS.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Not sure what word would render justice to the real distinction
The Constitution of most Muslim countries makes a clear reference to religion, Islam and/or the Quran and/or the Sharia as a guiding principle. While the US Constitution is not in any sense founded on any religion, while some president (with a vacuous grin and a fake Texas accent) can think he is 'guided' by his religion.
I suppose the difference is in the permanence of the guidance:
constant and constitutional vs accidental and personal.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)This isn't Manifest Destiny, which was indeed fueled by Christianity.
Perhaps some people enlist in the military and some officers push for military action for the sake of getting to kill some Muslims, and yes, those are Christian fundamentalists who deserve to be criticized as such.
However, President Obama isn't authorizing military action in the name of Christianity or the Christian God. Cynics could argue it is about expanding our political influence and/or appeasing regional allies like Saudi Arabia, but it isn't based on religion.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)You need to identify the target of the critic and nature of the criticism. Are you referring to theological criticism of the relgion or derogatory generalizations about the followers of Islam?
The types of statements that get a person accused of being a racist Islamophobe frequently merit denunciation.
Is Frank Gaffney a critic of Islam or a sociopathic hate monger? Has anyone suggested deporting all Christians from America? Have you tried criticizing Netanyahu on a college campus or on-line forum recently? It is remarkably easy to get accused of being anti-semitic.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You think it's difficult to criticize Netanyahu on a college campus?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)It makes them all(Jew, gentile, Muslim, whatever) look foolish and dumb in my opinion.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Like throwing men off buildings for being gay or committing mass murder because you don't like a cartoon is worse than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding or being reluctant to pay for abortion coverage in a health insurance plan.
malaise
(269,157 posts)the theft of their lands by Jews using religion for the atrocities?
Just try and defend the Palestinians and see the attacks right here on DU.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)McGraw Hill caved and burned its copies, rather than have this seen by young Americans:
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/mcgraw-hill-destroys-textbook-after-complaints-maps-are-anti-israel
And how is Gaza doing?
malaise
(269,157 posts)to notice that three are pointing back at you 
Mosby
(16,334 posts)That series of maps is filled with outrageous, bald faced historical revisionism, it's been debunked over and over again and yet people here continually use it and defend it even though it's complete bullshit propaganda.
This "map" is just one small part of the collection of lies told by progressives mostly about Jews, Zionists and Israelis across the Web and in our communities, there is nothing even remotely similar to be found in left wing criticisms of Islam, Muslims, Arabs etc.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Interesting, though. MSNBC was pressured into a retraction, as well, for a running similar map:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/msnbc-map-of-palestine/
It's like online when I post something someone doesn't like, even after 14 years on DU or whatever it is, I still get called out as a propagandist promulgating "lies told by progressives mostly about Jews, Zionists and Israelis across the Web and in our communities, there is nothing even remotely similar to be found in left wing criticisms of Islam, Muslims, Arabs etc."
Oh. I don't recall you posting anything when I wrote this:
Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection
Proud to say I shook hands with a guy who shook hands with Edwin Black.
Mosby
(16,334 posts)Margaret Sanger, heard of her?
For anyone interested, what follows is a short, non-comprehensive debunking of "the map that lies":
Frame 1 - the land designated as "jewish" is land that Zionist Jews purchased from landowners, the area in green was not Palestinian, it was British. Before that it was part of the Ottoman empire. The frame is a lie.
Frame 2 shows the UN partition plan that was never implemented because the Palestinians and Arab states declared a war of genocide against the Jewish Zionists. The frame is a lie.
Frame 3 shows the green areas as Palestinian land but both Egypt and Jordan annexed the west bank and Gaza after the War of Independence so the frame is a lie. Ironically if Israel had not liberated the west bank and Gaza in the 6 day war in 1967 the notion of a Palestinian state would be long gone.
Frame 4 shows in green the areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority have full control, this was agreed to during the Oslo accords. All the area within the WB lines is part of a future Palestinian state so the frame is a lie.
Just curious, what do you think would happen if Israel made frame 4 an actual reality?
Be careful what you wish for is all I can say.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It was in that post from 2004 you didn't bother to read I linked you to.
Here's something else you'll want to miss:
Who enabled NAZI Germany to round up the Jews? Think IBM.
Frame 4 is the reality.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.587901
Do you have a source or link to back up your contentions?
Bucky
(54,041 posts)We have no problem blaming Judaism when Jewish extremists attack and kill Palestinians.
No, bright eyes, I for one have a gigantic problem with people who try to conflate criticizing Israel with criticizing Judaism. It's inherently anti-Semitic to do that.
I don't ever attack Christianity; I attack hypocrisy of individual Christians. I do the same for Muslim hypocrisy. Sorry, but you can't just make shit up in order to win an argument.
SMH
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)sometimes with violent results. So folks want to be seen as clearly on the other side of that.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)He's a rather loathsome character.
Exhibit A:
God: Hey, Abraham, go kill that son of yours that I promised you would have. Slit his throat, and burn his body as an offering to me.
Abraham: Uh, sure thing. You're the boss!
Abraham proceeds with building altar, tying up his son, and is about to slit his throat when.....
God: Just kidding! Hahahaha!! I was just testing your faithfulness. Because I'm a crazy, sick, insecure, jerk!!!!
Why on earth would anyone worship that guy?
Mariana
(14,860 posts)when Jephthah murdered his daughter as a human sacrifice to the very same god. It seems one of the reasons the story was noteworthy in the first place is that Jephthah was so broken up about killing his only child. If it had been a slave that came out of his house first and was subsequently murdered, the story wouldn't have been written down and we never would have heard about it.
No matter how many nice things Jesus is supposed to have said, this particular deity that is portrayed in the stories is a disgusting character. It is bloodthirsty, vicious, and hateful. If I somehow became convinced it really exists, I still could never, ever worship it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)All those religions are stuff we came up with, and the Abrahamic religions were not the inventors of the abuse of women or enslavement of all and sundry, although they have been prime exponents of that sort of thing at times. Until the evil that lurks in the hearts of men is rooted out, founding some new religion or attacking some old one will not get you far.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Many spend their time attacking Christians and defending other religions.
They do it because they think it makes them sound like better people.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)"By The Numbers - The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics"
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)That was very powerful and worth watching.
ileus
(15,396 posts)While we don't support the terrorist acts of radicalized muslims, we have to come to the rescue of their religion because of our hate for the other two you mention.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I'm able to draw a distinction between belief systems and humans.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)They fail to see that millions and millions of Muslims are even more radical and more conservative than christian conservative Republicans.
Look at how many Muslims support sharia law, stoning of women, cutting off hands of thieves, killing apostates, murdering gays, etc.
They're like conservatives who wouldn't participate in an execution themselves, but support and vote for capital punishment. They want it to be the law of the land.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)directed at Islam, that posters to an ostensibly left-wing forum would react negatively to the furtherance of right-wing talking points RE: muslims?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)The progressive criticism of Islam is no different than the progressive criticism of Christianity and Judaism. We're concerned about such things as misogyny, homophobia, and violence, all of which are permitted and sometimes even encouraged according to the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran.
The conservative criticism of Islam is based on Islam not being Christianity. Terror attacks are a convenient excuse for conservatives, but the real reason they despite Islam is because it's, well, different. There was also a time when conservatives didn't like Catholicism ('Idolaters who aren't real Christians') or Judaism ('They killed Jesus'), and some Republicans even couldn't get themselves to vote for Romney in 2012 for no other reason than that he's Mormon (again, not a 'real Christian')
Conservatives don't ever talk about LGBT and women's rights when criticizing Islam, because then they'd be hypocrites.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and violent, you can understand why people push back?
Deadshot
(384 posts)I criticize all of them equally.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)is pretty much equivalent to sentencing someone to death by stoning for being gay.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)There, that's a more apt analogy.
Deadshot
(384 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)We Christians on the LEFT are almost always decent human beings. Lots of examples. The ones on the RIGHT give all of us a horrible name.
Nichevo11
(67 posts)He caused public outrage by saying
something like, "My justice department is so non-corrupt, we would even arrest the Prophet if he committed a crime."
Egypt is a secular (sort of) dictatorship, not a theocracy. Still, it's pretty easy to stifle discussion if an unguarded word, selectively interpreted, brings mindless shrieks of "Blasphemer! Apostate!"
In liberal circles, we are soooo much superior: selectively-interpreted critique of Islam only brings shrieks of "Bigot! Islamophobe!". And becaise this is America, no one gets imprisonment, or her head chopped off, or is beaten to death in the streets over it.
But the mindless cries of "Bigot! Islamophobe!" still have a way of stifling grown-up discussion.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And their attempts to counter against actual bigotry against people sometimes spill over into valid criticism of ideas.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It can be as easy to conflate religion in and of itself, personal and sectarian interpretations of religion, and religion as a justification to do X as it is to conflate a nation (imaginary lines on map), nationalism (pride predicated on those imaginary lines) and civic duty (rationalizing those born on the other side of the imaginary lines do not deserve assistance).
Recognizing the difference in religion, religious interpretation and religious justifications are implicit in reaching a valid conclusion.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Not to mention, xenophobia and other forms of chauvinism.
Before you say "Islam is a race, not a religion!", consider the fact that the majority (in fact, the vast majority) of Muslims around the world are not white (or at the very least, aren't perceived as white - which ultimately, is what determines one's racial status).
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)FAIL. I have no problem blaming Israel when IDF goons attack and kill Palestinians.
Israel != Judaism.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Technically they aren't an arm of the government of Israel, and their religious beliefs do fuel their attacks.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)But who encourages them to squat on Palestinian land? 
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)think the beliefs surrounding "God's chosen people" settling land he supposedly set aside for them is fueling a lot of that conflict.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and he was probably referring to the few crazed settlers who do stuff, not the brave IDF soldiers who defend the Jewish State of Israel (and there is indeed a lot in common between far-left Israel haters and Islam apologists in their bad arguments and view of the world).
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)In particular violence perpetrated by orthodox settlers who think that the 'holy land' must be 'cleansed' of 'unbelievers.'
Some of those settlers have attacked Palestinian kindergartens and firebombed Palestinian homes.
In other words, I'm not really talking about the IDF, rather about fundamentalist Jews who seek to displace Palestinians by any means possible, including violence and murder.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)tho sometimes I do wonder, how much of it is the post-colonialist garbage, or the fact that it was a Republican in office when America first engaged with Islamic terrorism (had it been Gore in office on 9/11 and conducted the subsequent potential military actions, would progressives be less apologetic to Islam?).
Oneironaut
(5,519 posts)Religion is just that - an idea. It should be subject to the same criticism that any other other idea is.
A common fallacy is to say that any criticism of a religion is also criticism of that religion's followers. The two are separate. The statement is made to shut down a completely legitimate discussion.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Not all Jews, Christians, or Muslims, believe in everything their religion tells them. So in regard to Islam, who is the true Muslim: the one who wants to coexist peacefully among followers of other religions, or the one that wants to eliminate the followers of other religions? Having read the Quran, I'd want to argue the latter, but knowing that very many Muslims do not believe in that, I also do not want to condemn them for the few idiots who seek a literal interpretation and then use that to justify their violence.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I criticize Christianity far more than Islam because I'm an ex-Christian who has read the Christian bible cover to cover along with some study of Christian focused history. Basically, I can talk far more intelligently about Christianity than I can Islam, which I know only a little bit about. My only personal experience with Muslims has been extremely positive. The only points in regards to Islam I can really argue reasonably intellegently are fundamental points that apply to all religions (like existence of God, or separation of church and state, or pointing out that there are multiple branches of Islam).
Isamaphobes in my experience have no ability to intelligently talk about Islam itself and try to isolate from other religions in a dishonest manner. Though, I think some do try to use the large ammount of Islamophobia to attack legitimate criticisms in the same way some try to portray all criticism of Israel as anti-semetic.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)This thread now has close to 200 replies. I've tried to read them all. I don't agree with every response, but I can respect the fact that everyone has tried to reply in an intelligent manner. 
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which the Abrahamic religions share a belief in.
