Religion
Related: About this forumIsis beheads 4-year-old girl then forces mother to soak hands in her blood after 'swearing to Allah'
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-beheads-4-year-old-girl-then-forces-mother-soak-hands-her-blood-after-swearing-allah-1566529?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahooBut of course, this had NOTHING to do with religion.
It's all politics, according to some DUers. If it weren't for religion, they would have done this anyway, and just found a different excuse, because hey, this is just the kind of thing that people think of doing when they wake up in the morning.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randr
(12,418 posts)had to do with Christianity. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Anyone can claim to do any manner of evil in the name of anything.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Crusades were called by Popes as religious wars. They fought under the cross. Religious wars.
randr
(12,418 posts)I am not sure the HCC represents the heart of Christian Religious belief in this day and age.
Just saying your are fighting for a religion and bearing the symbols thereof does not in any manner imply that the religious principles of any religious sect are actually being applied.
A whole lot of bad ass has been proclaimed in the name of all religions not to mention political ideologies.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the Crusaders felt the need to fight for is because of religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)After earlier projections of the Greeks and Romans in this area.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Opposition to other empires, with other gods.
rug
(82,333 posts)Accept the monads or die!
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In Hebrews 8(?), Paul in effect deifies Plato's Theory of Forms.
But one of the problems, was that saying that only the forms in heaven are good, is implying that people here on earth, are unimportant. Which is a point of view all too convenient, for a military man.
rug
(82,333 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)You might want to read the Bible.
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Or Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Numbers 31 is also an eye-opener. God tells them to attack another group and kill the men, the married women and the male children but to keep the virgin girls.The reason why? Two Midianite women “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)They're about the only folks beheading people regularly today. Clearly they get it from conservative attachments to old religious values. Which moreover, they constantly quote as the reason for their today-unusual behavior.
rug
(82,333 posts)
still_one
(92,510 posts)modern Christianity, along with its different factions does subscribe to that kind of brutality, even in the most fundamental forms.
So the question might be, what percentage of Muslims would have a fundamentalist mindset? Is there a large percentage that subscribe to Sharia law?
I would think the answer to that question would depend on where they lived, and how secular the government was where they lived
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are you the sole authority on what is or is not the "Islamic religion"?
rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Continuing to champion ancient superstitions is a sad sad way to proceed thru life.
Besides Pyrrhonism is way older than Christianity and still not responsible for atrocities.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since I'm not peddling superstition I'll assume you're not peddling bigotry.
Response to rug (Reply #109)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)it has a great deal to do with it.
The entire concept of Sharia law would not exist if not for the Islamic religion.
randr
(12,418 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,754 posts)same as Shari Law, only you can't eat camel or work on Sunday.
840high
(17,196 posts)
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Imagine running a Democracy with the rules of the old Testament.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm perplexed as to why you'd think otherwise.
randr
(12,418 posts)Of the people at the time of the Crusades.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Plato's realm of ideal forms doesn't exist. There's no such thing as an objective "Christianity" against which all professed Christians may be measured. All Christianity is interpretation.
randr
(12,418 posts)Therefore the interpretation of ones view of a religious doctrine is distinct from actually living the professed belief.
Individuals and societies at large change their interpretations, yet cling to the ideal of a "golden rule".
Most every religion has a version of the "golden rule" and it seems to be the first tenant tossed aside when it gets in the way of the many violations of religious doctrine that temp us in life, be they inspired by greed, fear, or hatred.
All Islamism is interpretation!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow the premises. Whether or not a religion can be propositionally defined has no bearing on whether or not its followers practice what they preach.
A completely unsupported assertion. I don't see Christians at large clinging to anything except a professed belief that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. And there are exceptions even to that.
Another completely unsupported assertion. In my experience, very few religions hinge on one simple idea.
All Islamism is interpretation!
I think you've completely missed the point.
The problem with your initial claim -- that the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity -- is that major religions like Christianity and Islam are themselves so diverse that they are impossible to define propositionally. You can't say "The Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity" when you cannot accurately define what "Christianity" is. The fact of the matter is thousands of Europeans willingly made a very long and very dangerous journey to Outremer, and the vast majority of them had very little material to gain from the exercise. They took up arms and traveled across land and sea because they believed they would be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven. I have little reason to doubt the sincerity of their belief.
You can't judge the state of a religion by its "golden rule", if it even has one (I would argue none do). You have to look at how that religion is practiced. You have to look at what its followers generally believe, how they generally behave, and then square what you've found with what its followers have historically believed, how they have historically behaved, and, finally, what is written in their holy texts.
You want to talk about what is and what is not "Christian""? Take a look around, go read "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmid MacCulloch, and then read the Bible, Genesis to Revelation. See what you find.
randr
(12,418 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Religious apologists are like theologist.... scrambling and tying logic into Gorgon Knots to try to make things that aren't true or relative true and relative.
Poor poor put upon religionists!
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you find that difficult to grasp?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Spell check. I actually hit the "f" instead of the "d".
But any knot will do.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts).. and their quotes match religious texts, it is only rational to assume that indeed, religion is a major part of their motives.
In fact, it is highly irrational to assert otherwise.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)in an argument isn't interested in solving today's problems.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)
CanonRay
(14,144 posts)it's like the Germans using the bayonet on Belgian babies in WWI. ISIS is terrible and capable of much evil , but some of the latest reports coming out of there have the ring propaganda.
rug
(82,333 posts)Followed by skeins of internet plagiarism.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)While I am an agnostic, While religion itself is not evil, it is used by people who enjoy inflicting evil on society. While I believe it was described as "Opium for the masses" by Karl Marx and it does allow a measure of comfort for billions of people, it also allows cover for those who enjoy making other suffer and it is certainly abused by politicians who want to control our lives.
Response to skepticscott (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in your attempt to defend this. I said nothing of the kind and you know it.
Response to skepticscott (Reply #7)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)As noted, you know I said nothing of the kind.
The implication is that religious beliefs motivate people to do horrible things, and in this particular case, Islam is the religion involved. Next week it may be Xstianity. Couple that with the fact that none of the good attributed to religion couldn't be accomplished without it.
Your fallacious argument from personal ignorance is duly noted and dismissed.
Response to skepticscott (Reply #11)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)when you know full well that's not what they said is not being "civil". It's intellectual dishonesty, and deserves to be called out.
In response to your challenge: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/obama-isil-not-islamic/index.html
Did you seriously think that was going to be a "gotcha"? I could find a host more very easily, if you'd like to look even more foolish. Of course, you could have found them yourself in about 30 seconds on Google, if you were actually interested in the truth.
So tell us why you're so determined to defend the beheading of a 4 year old girl in front of her mother?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)He never defended the murder of this child and you know it. So you're not exactly being "civil" are you? He did however question your motive for what you posted and how you framed your words.
Response to Leontius (Reply #41)
Post removed
Leontius
(2,270 posts)that he did not say. Explain how this exercise of intellectual dishonesty by you is acceptable behavior.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)doesn't even have the gumption to leave his posts up. He's cut and run and decided to scrub everything, because he got his intellectual ass handed to him after jumping in to deflect criticism from Islam for being the cause of this.
And your inability to answer my question is duly noted. As usual.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)until you do answer, we're done here.
Response to Leontius (Reply #111)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Leontius (Reply #49)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)couldn't be accomplished without it, where exactly does that leave you?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that a lot of it wouldn't happen without religion.
What motivates people more and convinces them that their evil is justified more than thinking that it's what a supreme being expects and demands? Nothing.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Just three real quick ones that have just as much motivation to do evil as your little bugaboo religion.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Religion isn't the main cause of evil, though religion can give assholes excuses.
The US regularly fabricates excuses to engage in military actions. The expressed excuses usually have nothing to do with religion, though religion may play a part for some people in their support of US atrocities against Third World nations.
In the link you posted, President Obama claims ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Few people actually believe that (outside of Muslims themselves that have a very different view of their own religion). But Obama doesn't want it to look like the US is engaging in a holy war against Islam and Muslims, despite the fact that the US has bombed numerous Muslim nations in recent history.
So religion can play a part in supporting evil in this world, but the actual motives of war promoters are selfishness and greed. Special interests in the US are constantly promoting war. They make a profit out of the misery. They want certain nations weakened so other nations can dominate. No morals there.
US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.
The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.
To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.
Most of this mass-murder by the US wasn't done in the name of religion, but the victims are all just as dead, regardless of the excuses by the perpetrators.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)being selfish about?
I'm sure you'll make some tortured and convoluted attempt to explain why it was "selfishness" and not religiously inspired bigotry and self-loathing that made shoot all those people, but that'll just prove that your contention is meaningless and unfalsifiable.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I have no way of knowing what was in his mind when he murdered all those people, though mass-murder is a selfish act in the extreme. He wasn't likely motivated by only one thing, though religion likely played a part.
The link I provided showed numerous evil acts that weren't primarily motivated by religion. All evil acts are motivated by some form of selfishness, regardless of the rationalization.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but saying it over and over as if it's self-evident doesn't make it true.
Try again.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)he is willing to harm someone else, for whatever reason, is selfish (unless, perhaps, he is profoundly mentally ill. But then he is sick and not necessarily evil.) That should be self-evident.
People have minds of their own. Anyone that claims their imaginary god told them to murder is only murdering someone out of their own desire to murder. Murderers put themselves above those that they murder.
There's nothing magical about religion, such that, religion makes evil acts not selfish. There's nothing magical about religion, such that, a person murdered in the name of religion is any more dead than someone murdered for any other alleged reason. Evil is evil.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)It doesn't just give them excuses, it gives them ARMIES of believers.
Dorian Gray
(13,532 posts)I know religion is used by world leaders, movements, etc. to rile people up to fight in the name of something. I'm not a moron.
But do you really believe that WITHOUT religion, most of the horrible things that people do would happen?
I believe that people would find other justifications.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)while being mostly indifferent to the great majority of evil in this world, which isn't religiously motivated, shows there is some major bigotry going on.
The US has for several decades been bombing the shit out of quite a few Muslim majority nations. Does he ever indicate that he cares? No. Does he give a shit about the many millions of people the US has murdered around the world in recent history? It doesn't seem so. He can't blame it on religion or Muslims, so it doesn't count.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is because they are posting here in the RELIGION group.
You don't need to viciously insult someone. Just argue your point. If you want to claim that religion can never motivate people to do bad things, and the only people who do bad things aren't religious, then say so. Be aware though that some may find such an stance to be extremely bigoted against non-believers.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)They don't. No one here is claiming that.
But there are some pretty horrible ideas contained in the texts of religions - particularly the Abrahamic religions. Do you agree or disagree?
Response to trotsky (Reply #10)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Many people right here on DU say religion has nothing to do with ISIS, or any other horrific act committed in the name of religion. All you have to do is look.
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #20)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)been practiced "in the name of atheism", as opposed to by people who happened to be atheists?
Please tell us you're not going to trot out the tired, lame, eternally debunked Stalin/Mao meme.
As far as "to do with", if you would trouble yourself to read the dictates of Islam in its sacred texts and the laws derived from them, the direct causation is rather obvious. Pretending that it hasn't ever been demonstrated is just more intellectual dishonesty and deflection.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't normally like to use caps but since you were fond enough of them to put in your OP, I thought I'd indulge you.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)1) Motivation matters, and motivation that posits something greater in importance than benefit to nature and humanity makes crimes against both far more plausible. When Tyrant X, however fearsome, tells you to kill or torture, you have the choice to decide Tyrant X is wrong and find a way to remove him from power. He is after all, just a human like you, who can be wrong, can be defeated, and will eventually die. When God Y tells you (through human interpreters, natch) to do this he is inerrant, omnipotent and eternal and humanity is as nothing to his will. All rational people should deplore any cause or ideology that is worth more than life itself, because by definition that debases and devalues life.
2) Rationality matters. When people base life-changing decisions on (one of many) interpretations of the collected folktales of itinerant peasants from the Levant from the Bronze Age to the Early Middle Ages, almost to a man ignorant of the sources, provenance and context of these folktales, and use these decisions to impose the diktats of these myths onto others, they are abandoning any hope of evidence-based, teleological decision making. What's best for the people based on circumstances and opportunity might be to raise pigs, or open a bank, or settle in a territory that has more natural capital but lacks a few ancient shrines compared to the one they are killing and dying for vainly, but they cannot do that because OogaBooga supposedly said no to some long-dust conman who's no longer around to explain why.
3) Social Norms matter. One of religion's most abiding sources of power and influence is in the normative nature and privileged positions it holds. It's rude to criticize religion because...well it just is and has been for centuries so there. Religion is seen as making people more moral and trustworthy despite statistics, psychology and common sense to the contrary. Even secular nations use phrases like "that's mighty Christian of you" and even nonbelievers have a bad habit of putting scarequotes around any Christian (sorrry, "Christian"
who does anything vile no matter how deeply, openly and permanently the wrongdoer was/is active in the faith. By pointing fingers at religion as motivating evil, and refusing to back down in the face of the inevitable finger-wagging poutrage, people who do this add just one more beak-sharpening to the erosion of the mountain of unchallenged privilege and self-importance which religion uses to stifle dissent, progress, and personal liberty, which are religion's greatest fears.
4) Rebuttal matters. On DU no religious outrage is left without kneejerk defense that "religion had nothing to do with this". It's a meme so strong and so widespread that you are starting to see the reverse used ironically, and this caused your objection (one must ask, did you ever object to the original apologetics?). It doesn't matter if religious followers cite religious motivation to attack religious targets on the order of a religious official, DU faitheists will pretend it's all about US foreign policy or western imperialism. It doesn't matter if religious parents bring in religious authority figures to kill their children in a religious ritual, the "real" culprit is mental illness or lack of social support (why o why do the mentally ill never seem to cite the absence of gods as a reason to kill their kids?). It doesn't matter if a religious congregation beat apostates to death in a religious ceremony, thy're "really" just brainwashed right wing separatists who latch onto religion as a group image. Somebody has to be willing to say that the waddling quacking aquatic bird is actually a duck.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Where some believer or believers defend "Faith" and dismiss a horrific act with the "This had nothing to do with religion!" defence. See also the father of the Orlando Pulse murderer: a cry that his son's actions/attitudes had nothing to do with religion was just about the first statement out of his mouth.
Just because you aren't familiar with it is no reason for assuming that others aren't, or for attacking a regular poster here who is.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)doesn't like being confronted with facts.
rug
(82,333 posts)Maybe you can link to a post that said that.
I understand erecting straw men is easier than developing an argument, but do try.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)There are people who literally claim that ISIS has nothing to do with religion. It's basically bigotry against non-believers to say that. By arguing that people who do bad things aren't doing it because of religion, it implies that they aren't religious, i.e. are non-believers. That only non-believers can do evil.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,412 posts)for adultery: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218230726#post22
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Surely there are economic factors driving patriarchy in Syria.
Marxists might argue that religion is ultimately an economic institution in fact. So might some anthropologists.
Multifactorial explanations are appropriate for most complex social phenomena.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,412 posts)And it is used because idiots read about it in barbaric books from over a thousand years ago, and think a deity told them to do it. It's not 'economic'. Sometimes, bloodthirsty psychopaths just have to be blamed for their decisions, done explicitly in the name of their religion.
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #50)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,412 posts)Starting at #20 would be highly misleading. Suggesting that is dishonest.
rug
(82,333 posts)The dishonesty is contained in your post: economic factors "for adultery".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,412 posts)OP: ISIS stones Iraqi woman to death in public for adultery ... The Sharia Court then decided to stone her to death in public ... They called on people to take part in the execution, saying we’re in the holy month of Ramadan and we should show commitment to Allah’s Sharia and that the woman deserved death for committing adultery
Reply #10: Maybe they were all suffering from mental illness.
Reply #11: You try to reply to #10 as if it talked about "the phenomenon of ISIS". But it didn't. So I pointed out, in #12, you were trying to distract people. Only by ignoring all those earlier posts in the sub-thread before #20 could a conman try to persuade anyone that the topic was 'the causes of violence'.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And religion uses that to support and carry out all sorts of atrocities. It's the religion that makes it "OK".... to the religious.
Religion is very much part of it.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ---Steven Weinberg
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that because HE has never seen anyone say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam or religion, that it can't ever have happened.
It's not as if it's that hard to find, though, even if you hadn't seen it commonly on DU.
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't be coy.
Response to rug (Reply #63)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't blame me. FYI, he says it has nothing to do with Leon.
No, I'm not angry, I'm bemused.
Dude needs to pay better attention...
That's fuckin funny.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)To pay attention to the usernames of the people involved in discussions in this group before you go around saying people are angry and should join to fight ISIS.
Trotsky is a regular here and posts all the time..
I'm more of a lurker than a poster but trotsky and rug have been here for a very long time.
Roflmao
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How does the positive things about religion (few tho' they be) make all the millions or billions of adherents of those religions positive?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)All of the credit when people do good things in the name of their religion, but none of the blame when they do bad.
Can't have one without the other, desperately as they try to.
As an outsider, I see human beings capable of both good and bad, inside and outside of religion. But only religion has the unique feature of being able to "justify" an act as being ordered by a god and therefore totally immune from reasoning or moderation. That's extra evil.
Arkansas Granny
(31,542 posts)unsubstantiated report from an anonymous source before I would believe this. For one thing, I can't imagine any mother threatening her 4 year old child with beheading if they don't obey. This reminds me of the tale of Saddam's soldiers throwing babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But the fact that it doesn't take a giant leap of faith to assume it is true speaks volumes to the shit ISIS has actually done.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I don't know about now but in the early day of the Iraq war our soldiers were exposed to Christian mems to get them hopped up enough to do the job. Our military is in no way religion free. It is frightening to think about, but reality often is.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,180 posts)It is rapidly deteriorating into "My God is bigger than your God!" juvenile spat, which would be pathetically laughable if these cultists didn't have access to weapons of mass destruction.
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/75184:military-evangelism-deeper-wider-than-first-thought
Perhaps no other fundamentalist Christian group is more influential than Military Ministry, a national organization and a subsidiary of the controversial fundamentalist Christian organization Campus Crusade for Christ. Military Ministry's national web site boasts it has successfully "targeted" basic training installations, or "gateways," and has successfully converted thousands of soldiers to evangelical Christianity.
Military Ministry says its staffers are responsible for "working with Chaplains and Military personnel to bring lost soldiers closer to Christ, build them in their faith and send them out into the world as Government paid missionaries" - which appears to be a clear-cut violation of federal law governing the separation of church and state.
"Young recruits are under great pressure as they enter the military at their initial training gateways," the group has stated on its web site. "The demands of drill instructors push recruits and new cadets to the edge. This is why they are most open to the 'good news.' We target specific locations, like Lackland AFB [Air Force base] and Fort Jackson, where large numbers of military members transition early in their career. These sites are excellent locations to pursue our strategic goals."
peace13
(11,076 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Just read their propaganda-material:
ISIS re-establishes the Caliphate, repairing the Umma.
All the Muslims join ISIS.
Then the forces of "Rome" attack. (Nowadays interpreted as "the West".)
The war drags on.
Satan eventually reveals himself that he has been in charge of the "armies of Rome" the whole time.
Satan's armies drive back ISIS.
ISIS is close to defeat.
The final battle is waged on the Dabiq-plane (an actual place), in Syria.
At the brink of defeat, ISIS eventually defeats Satan's forces and they go to heaven.
This is about as close to mainstream Islam as hermetic Occultism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and caribbean Voodoo are to mainstream Christianity.
Former ISIS-members have told that the religious indoctrination of ISIS-fighters only covers cherry-picked parts of the Quran, intentionally ignoring other parts.
It's religion, Aye. But it's not "Islam" as 99% of Muslims would define it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of what religion, and Islam in particular can generate in terms of intolerance, hatred, violence and murder. It doesn't change the fact that they are motivated by religious belief, nor does it mean that if you stripped away iSIS, that what's left of Islam would be entirely peaceful, tolerant and non-violent. There are plenty of violent manifestations of Islam that far more than 1% of Muslims wholeheartedly endorse.
And what you describe has a Xstian equivalent in far more mainstream denominations. Why do you think the Left Behind books were so popular? Why do you think so many Xstians believe in the Rapture?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)As opposed to "mainstream" Islam which does what, exactly?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)How many believers actually go by the book?
Have you ever heard of a Christian who follows all the rules of the Bible?
Mainstream-Muslims cherry-pick the parts of the Quran they like, just as Christians cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they like.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It would be impossible for any believer (in one of the Abrahamic religions at least) to follow everything in their book(s).
The point is that virtually anything can be cherry-picked. And the people who pick the bad stuff are exactly as justified in doing so as are the people who pick the good stuff.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I have a preference for good stuff over bad stuff.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This is where you have difficulty with words.
stone space
(6,498 posts)In picking cherries, I prefer the fruit to the pits, false equivalences aside.
I can't justify choosing the pits. I'll end up with a cracked tooth if I try.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And after over a month to think about it, I see you still are choosing not to understand what I said.
How sad.
stone space
(6,498 posts)And after over a month to think about it, I see you still are choosing not to understand what I said.
How sad.
We've been out of the country this last month on vacation, and without internet access.
Is this "reinstatement" thingie that you speak of something new here at DU?
There's nothing sad about going on vacation.
I'm just now seeing your reply, and responding to it. I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time contemplating your post for an entire month, even had I been aware of its existence.
I understand the attempts to justify theologies of violence via false equivalences with theologies of nonviolence. It's not a lack of understanding. It's a lack of agreement.
I find theologies that advocate beating swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks to be more justifiable than theologies that advocate living by the sword.
We all cherry pick, whether we pick the fruit, or the pits.
But let's not pretend that that they are equally justifiable. That's a false equivalence that seeks to justify hatred and violence.
In Colombia, where we just got back from, folks will be choosing between peace, and a continuation of decades of war.
That's called cherry picking.
It's something that we all do. Even atheists. Cherry picking is not just a religious exercise.
Response to stone space (Reply #141)
Post removed
stone space
(6,498 posts)
MFM008
(19,836 posts)
pansypoo53219
(21,010 posts)randr
(12,418 posts)
applegrove
(118,915 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Hope you're not making the argument that religion cannot be violent, hateful or bigoted as a matter of principle. Because I'd have to make you look foolish, then.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)since there is no reason that crimes can't be motivated by religion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Try again.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)been allowed in the koran or the old testament. They are not acceptable religious expression today.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Well, not to you, maybe.
But then I'm sure you don't bomb clinics that carry out abortions, shoot nightclub patrons, kill satirical cartoonists or hack atheists to pieces with machetes.
applegrove
(118,915 posts)indigenous kids for a good part of the 1800s and 1900s. Kids were forceably removed from their homes and sent to boarding schools run by the churches to culturally change them. Abuse aside, and many were abused, it is considered cultural genocide to force kids into such religious schools in canada and make them lose their identities. Religion can no longer be expressed that way in Canada. It is not considered christian by those practicing their religion in canada. It goes against the basis of their religion and how it is currently interpreted here. You cannot force people into another culture. So too terrorism and genocide in the middle east. Do not forget most of the victims of ISIS or al Qaeda are muslims. It is religion perverted. You give ISIS power by calling them islam. Don't forget that the GOP need americans to feel like they are helpless in the face of invading islam. It is Trump's stump speech and a new wedge issue. They don't want americans to feel they have a poker in the fire of fighting back. The better to get them to vote against their best interests because they, helpless to invading islamic terror they can see everywhere around them, they will vote out of fear. The GOP has lost so many of their favourite wedge issues that they need to build up more. Remember after 9/11 how airports carried books on islam so that the USA would not respond to 9/11 with fear and hatred but with understanding? That was a few GOP wedge isssues ago.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which just isn't that surprising coming from someone who has a penchant for employing logical fallacies.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sure you recognize that NTS is itself no more than a logical fallacy which . . . . good heavens, it was you . . .. . employed.
Incorrectly.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
The post in question was the epitome of the fallacy. If you don't think so, your unsupported opinion will be given all the respect it deserves.
, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[2]rug
(82,333 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Feel free to proceed on your own.
rug
(82,333 posts)That right, scottie?
Warpy
(111,456 posts)and the story has nothing to do with Islam and plenty to do with tribalism that is stealing its name. Whether there's any truth to it (probably not but you never know what psychotic speed freaks will do), it has nothing to do with the 1.3 billion people who live peacefully as Muslims worldwide.
Does Islam need reform? Hell yes. Does Christianity? You bet, there's plenty of misogyny and LGBT bashing there.
However, I tend to treat stories like this one with a great deal of skepticism, fog of war obscuring truth and all that.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,532 posts)They're monsters. There isn't anything they wouldn't stoop to.
Having said that, you must be glad you got to make a POINT using this monstrous story. That must feel good.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This is the source:
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1828642
The woman who called for anonymity also explained how the ISIS has filled Tal Abyaz street to al-Naeem square in Raqqa with heads of slaughtered people to create horror among the people and then mutilated the body of a young man who refused to join the terrorist group and then hung his head.
"They rape women, take children to war, loot houses and threaten people in Raqqa with beheadings if they don’t agree with their daughters' marriage with the ISIS members," she added.
The crime was revealed after an earlier report by the British Mirror newspaper last year that the ISIS militants fed a desperate mum the mutilated remains of her son - after telling her it was cooked meat and rice, it was claimed today.
Al-Alam News Network
TV Network
Al-Alam is an Arabic news channel broadcasting from Iran and is owned by the state-owned media corporation Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. Wikipedia
Founder: Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
Founded: February 23, 2003
Headquarters: Tehran, Iran
Owner: Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Extremely dubious sourcing and sounds moreclike insane literalism than the type of fundamentalism or sociopathy those monsters are known for.
