The Trouble With Islam Today

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's take a minute. Is our society POST cultural relativism?

Cultural Relativism - ie. It's all relative. No culture's beliefs (no matter how mysoginistic or barbaric) can be judged as "good" or "bad", just "different".

But have we actually passed this absurd doctrine? If you think about it, our own society (The Western World) is extremely good at self-flagellation - ie. we are exploiters, racists, environmental destroyers, greedy, etc etc etc.

But we refuse to apply any criticism to any other culture we come into contact with. So have we actually moved past the "all cultures are equal and above judgement" to "all cultures are above judgement, except our own." ?

We've seen countless examples on this forum whereby an objective assessment of some of the more undesirable traits of a particular religion - fundamentalism Islam - is made and met with knee-jerk criticism and accusations of "racism" or "you don't like those people". Mysoginy, oppression of women or anti-gay doctrine is apparently not objectively a bad thing anymore - especially if you dare bring it up in the context of "other cultures."

Apparently fighting against these things is only allowed if you're fighting them in your own culture. So is that the answer?

Perhaps the best chance fo Islam to advance and reconcile with the modern world is for that fight to occur from within.

With that in mind, have a look at the following links and make your own...ahem judgements... of what some women insdie Islam are saying.

"The Trouble With Islam Today"

"The Price of Honour: Muslim Women Lift The Veil of Silence In The Islamic World"

Excerpt:

Another service gynecologists in Muslim countries are called on to supply is post-wedding night verification that the bride was a virgin before the event. "It is not uncommon for a gynecologist to find in his office a blushing young bi-ide surrounded by a whole horde of'male relatives demanding that she be examined," says Dr. Azar. She did not bleed during sexual intercourse on her wedding night, and the men all want to know why.

"You always have to favor the girl, because if you don't, she'll be killed by her family. Sometimes, if the girl has the opportunity, she'll beg you to cover for her. They are very frightened, they know they wi 'll be killed. So you tell the male relatives the bride had an elastic hymen, which many women do anyway, and in such cases she wouldn't bleed.

"Honor killings are still carried out in Jordan. A family will arrange for an underage brother or male relative to do it. Then when there is an investigation, nothing happens. The case is dropped."

Ahmedi Begum The Grandmother who was Raped and Tortured

"It happened at such a happy time," says Ahmedi Begum. "I was so proud. I had just beconie a grandmother for the first time, a boy, praise be to God. My daughter was still in this bed recovering froni the delivery," she says, patting the simple wooden bed covered with a quilt s lie embroidered herself that we are both sitting on. Ahmedi, now a sixty-year-old widow, was waiting for her nephew, Tufail, to return with a bag of cement for some repairs he planned to do in the courtyard. 'That she cares about her little home in Bukarmandi, a middle-class area of Lahore, is evident. Her tiny living room-cum-master bedroom is spotless, the turquoise paint on the walls bright, and there is lace trimming the shelves that house her collection of dishes and glassware. Her nephew returned 'ust as she was opening the gate to visitors. 'I'wo women in their twenties, both completely veiled, wanted to rent the upstairs section of' the house that Ahmedi had been trying to lease because she needed the income. "I didn't know them, but they seemed honest and I was about to show them the rooms when there was a commotion outsi 'de and several policemen burst into the courtyard. In the shouting and confusion they arrested the two women and my nephew. He was just standing there holding the cement. When her son-in-law came home from work later that afternoon, Ahmedi and he visited the police station to find out what had happeiied. The arrest didn't make sense since 'I'ufail and the women were strangers to one another. Even now, five years later, Ahmedi Begum finds it hard to talk about what happened next. "The police put me into a separate room and told me they were arresting me, too. I was shocked. 'I'm a respectable woman who has lived a respectable life. You have made a mistake,' I told them. 'You must let me go.' But they ignored what I said. 'They even took away my earrings and bracelets, my wedding gold. When the officer-in-charge came, I told him the same thing:

'I'm a grandmother, a widow, a respectable woman, why are you keeping me here?' He said they would free me in a little while." As Ahmedi talks, her work-worn hands turn over and over in her lap. "As I was sitting there waiting, one of the police opened the door and said, 'If you want these other women, here they are,' and they pushed them into the room. 'They were naked, bleeding.... They raped them again in front of'me. I covered my eyes," says Ahmedi, unconsciously doing the same thing again. "I couldn't watch." Her anguished response angered the officers. Ahmedi was forced to her knees, her ai-ms pulled to her sides. "Why are you covering your eyes? Watch it, watch it!" she was told. Then, while they still held her, a police officer thrust his penis into her mouth. "-I-hey were laughing and shouting 'suck, suck,"' says Ahmedi, as the tears slide down her face. "I, who have never known any man's body except my husband's. Such shame, such shame. I was a grandmother, a woman of honor. But they weren't finished with me." just like the other two captives, the five-foot-tall widow was stripped and, like them, she was held down while one officer after another repeatedly raped her. "It went on for hours, and the same with the other girls. I cried, I prayed, I asked God why. I don't know how many policemen came through that room that night. It could have been fifty. I will never forget their laughter, their shouting." Ahmedi thought it was over when they dragged her outside. "It was morning and I believed they would let me go," she recalls. "But they threw me on the ground, and holding me facedown, they began to beat my whole body with a wide leather strap. I thought they would kill me. Suddenly the beating stopped.... Then I screamed and screamed. I felt as though my insides were on fire. I have never known such pain." A police officer had forced a lathi, an oversize truncheon, covered in fiery chili paste, into Ahmedi's rectum. It was done with such violence that her rectum was ruptured, and the chill paste burned like acid on the lacerated tissue. Mercifully, Ahmedi passed out. When she regained consciousness several hours later she was in Kot Lokhpat Women's Prison. "I couldn't walk, I couldn't speak, my mouth was too swollen. My clothes were covered in blood." Ahmedi lay almost motionless for days in her cell until a government minister made a VIP tour of the jail. During his visit, prisoners were required to sit on the ground with their criminal files in front of them. "He saw the blood on me and spoke to me, but because of my mouth I couldn't reply," says Ahmedi. "He ordered a doctor to see me." He also ordered the police commissioner of Lahore to investigate the matter.

The medical report detailed the savage assault and documented that Ahmedi had been subject to "severe sexual torture." The other two women in the case had been charged with "roaming about," which can be viewed as prostitution in Pakistan. At the same time, Ahmedi learned that she was in prison charged with zina.

Zina, sex outside of wedlock, encompasses adultery, fornication, and rape, and its maximum punishment in Pakistan is stoning to death for those who are married. For unmarried transgressors, the punishment is up to one hundred lashes, and ten years' imprisonment.

and on and on....

Books and sites like these - women inside Islam fighting for change and speakign out: is this our best chance for peace between Islam and the rest of the world?

Edited December 1, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[guyser]

Where are the "other works" ?

[WIP]

Let's take a minute. Is our society POST cultural relativism?

Cultural Relativism - ie. It's all relative. No culture's beliefs (no matter how mysoginistic or barbaric) can be judged as "good" or "bad", just "different".

And I hope you don't mind if I've edited the rest, since I occasionally read Irshad Manji's blog and I've heard all of these arguments that everyone who wants to challenged time-honoured JudeoChristian prejudices is a cultural relativist. Well, not all of us are cultural relativists just because we want to allow change to happen in a fast-changing world.

The irony is that it is primarily Christian nationalist, who want to impose something similar to what the Muslim clerics are doing in the Muslim World, on secular Western nations like the U.S. for example, by blurring the lines between church and state beyond recognition. So excuse me if I don't feel like stroking the egos of Christian imperialists by joining the chorus telling us how bad the other brand of religion is!

Once the Religious Right has accomplished their goals of destroying public education and replaced it with home-schooling, banned abortion, brought back restrictions on birth control, we will start seeing the lives of women in Christian theocratic regions look remarkably similar to the lives that Muslim women live in the East. If you talk to any older Pakistanis who have vacationed in their homeland after a prolonged absence, you'll hear a lot of stories about how much has changed in the last 20 years or so. One of my colleagues at work, told me that when he was young, the young people in his town were wearing whatever western clothes they could afford - girls wanted the dresses they saw women on TV and in Bollywood movies wearing. But after a generation of religious law enforced by religious police and random gang attacks, most of the young women are wearing the burqas or niqabs that he first saw when he worked briefly in Saudi Arabia as a young man. Outside of the Arabian Peninsula, the burqas and the public stonings are recent phenomena, and not part of the local traditions. Even in Arabia, the black niqaabs only go back about two centuries to the time when the Wahabbi movement began gaining influence.

A lot depends on economic conditions - when times are tough, people get more religious, and when they're good, they forget all about the Church! At the turn of the last century, the great advances in science and technology led to economic prosperity and a move away from religious zeal -- for a time, they called it the Golden Age of Freethought, when prominent public speakers such as Robert G. Ingersoll, could draw large crowds and sell books advising the public to leave the churches and form new organizations that could make better use of all of the new discoveries being made........and of course, the age of freethought was followed by WWI, and later - the Great Depression, which destroyed public confidence and sent them flocking back to the churches again. I suspect that the same thing will happen again, and if times really get tough, we will see the hardest of the hardline of Christian Fundamentalism, such as the Reconstructionists - who believe it or not, want to replace civil law with the Mosaic Law (anyone for a stoning), and if that time comes, nobody on the Christian Right will have any moral authority to point fingers at the other guys!

[JerrySeinfeld]

And I hope you don't mind if I've edited the rest, since I occasionally read Irshad Manji's blog and I've heard all of these arguments that everyone who wants to challenged time-honoured JudeoChristian prejudices is a cultural relativist. Well, not all of us are cultural relativists just because we want to allow change to happen in a fast-changing world.

Yay! Change for the sake of change - sounds intelligent and well thought out.

By the way - this isn't about resisting change. It's about objectively wrong behavior - for example genital mutilation or oppression of women.

Don't forget - the west is the society that has embraced such things as women's and gay rights.

It's Islam that wants to change us back - as in backwards.

I can understand to the unintelligent how this kind of thinking might represent something "new" because you haven't seen a muslim woman gangraped then sentenced to 6 months in prison for "socializing with a man outside her family" in your own hometown lately. However, it's not really "change" to something ew. It's reversion to the old.

The "christian right" is often, tirelessly, relentlessly and thoughtlessly used as a red-herring in response to complaints about certain objectively wrong Islamic beliefs.

But I'd just like one question answered: When was the last time a harmless bible thumper from tennessee self-detonated in a public coffee shop?

Thanks for the input.

Edited December 1, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[WIP]

Yay! Change for the sake of change - sounds intelligent and well thought out.

No, change for the sake of survival! Every year, the world gets more crowded, more polluted, and non-renewable resources are further depleted.....change is coming regardless, the choice is whether to recognize future needs and adapt, or ignore them until disaster strikes.....so far, our track record for planning ahead isn't very good. And a good share of the blame goes to organized religions that encourages the "be fruitful and multiply" way of thinking in overcrowded third world countries.

By the way - this isn't about resisting change. It's about objectively wrong behavior - for example genital mutilation or oppression of women.

Yes, we all know things are bad for women in the Muslim World. What I am getting nauseated by, is hearing the message from Christian supremacists who would rekindle these same attitudes and customs in the West, and may have the opportunity if things get really bleak over the coming years.

Now, since the article you quoted, primarily deals with the threat of honour killings of women who have their virginity questioned, it's worth noting that this and other customs associated with sharia law have their antecedent in the Mosaic Law contained in the first five books of the Bible. In Deuteronomy Ch. 22, we learn that the Law has a provision for men who have turned on their wives after they've been married and makes a claim that she was not a virgin on their wedding night, he can demand that his father in law produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets) -- if he doesn't have them, or misplaced them somewhere, the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep:

22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

This sort of scene, which plays out every day in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, could be coming our way if the Christian Reconstructionists (the people behind the 10 commandments monuments) have their way.

Don't forget - the west is the society that has embraced such things as women's and gay rights.

And the conservative churches have been fighting against both of them.

The "christian right" is often, tirelessly, relentlessly and thoughtlessly used as a red-herring in response to complaints about certain objectively wrong Islamic beliefs.

The Christian Right has the same beliefs and goals as Muslim theocrats. In fact, they often make common cause in their shared interests of promoting theocracy over secularism. Just recently, the Vatican issued a press release thanking Muslims for "returning God" to Europe:

"It's thanks to the Muslims," he said in a speech printed in Friday's L'Osservatore Romano, the official daily of the Vatican. "Muslims, having become a significant minority in Europe, were the ones who demanded space for God in society."

Vatican officials have long bemoaned the secularisation of Europe, where church attendance has dwindled dramatically in recent decades, and urged a return to its historically Christian roots. But Tauran said no society had only one faith.

The "return of God" is clearly seen in Tauran's native France, where Europe's largest Muslim minority has brought faith questions such as women's headscarves into the political debate after decades when they were considered strictly private issues.

Looks like they admire that oppression of women thing that you want to go to war with the Muslims over!

But I'd just like one question answered: When was the last time a harmless bible thumper from tennessee self-detonated in a public coffee shop?

Thanks for the input.

And until 20 years ago, the Muslims could have said the same thing! The Tamils were the first to use suicide bombers as a military strategy in the Sri Lankan civil war. Until George Bush became president, Americans could have said "when was the last time we tortured prisoners?" All things are possible where single-minded religious zealots are involved, and who knows, the next generation of abortion clinic protesters may include suicide bombers. But the question betrays the desire for self-congratulation. Didn't Jesus say "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

[bush_cheney2004]

Until George Bush became president, Americans could have said "when was the last time we tortured prisoners?"

Take your pick:

2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976......

[Oleg Bach]

All imprisonment is a form of torture. It is a matter of degree. Take the Canadian family law system. One person files a false report against a father or mother. The person is removed from the household that they built and paid for. The person's tax records are brought into play - and a working stiff will be given a bill of well over 100 thousand dollars that is impossible to pay...then that person will sit in some cheap room with plastic curtains weeping and gnashing their teeth out of sheer lonelyness and utter anguish over the fact that they are not allowed to be with the onces they love - their children....that's torture...Canadian social engineers have been torturing men woman and children for a few decades now - all in the belief that only THEY know what is good and right.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Take your pick:

2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976......

Precisely. Our society is oversensitive.

Back in the day fighting the germans, the nation got behind the effort. Those black and white "news films" being shown in the theaters didn't depict the "terrible behavior" of soldiers and question the effort. Nations went to war together. But don't kid yourself. If you think we kicked the Germans' ass twice without a little "push" here and there, you're living in a dreamworld.

Now? We've ghettoized war. Soldiers are "evil torturers" and the "national effort" is for shit. Victory isn't newsworthy - as we can see now in Iraq - only our own country's misbehaviors are - despite the complete disgusting nature of our enemy's behaviors.

In the Arabic world, they put pictures of suicide martyrs on grade school bulletin boards, in coffee shops and in public as POSITIVE role models.

In our country, we decry a "poor treatment" (judgement call) of a few prisoners in abu graib.

[Black Dog]

Books and sites like these - women inside Islam fighting for change and speakign out: is this our best chance for peace between Islam and the rest of the world?

Probably. But the more people like you demonize and generalize about Islam as a whole, the harder it is for reformers to make any progress.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Probably. But the more people like you demonize and generalize about Islam as a whole, the harder it is for reformers to make any progress.

Why would that make it harder? How exactly?

I find that the more people like you try to glaze over every single transgression by a muslim men gunning his way through a jewish community centre, or blowing up a london tube or a madrid train, or a baliu nightclub or an american airplane or a mumbai hotel or a Toronto mosque preaching hatred and extremism or honour killings in England and Canada....etc.... the more you pretend there is no common thread and no problem, the more this kind of thinking will fester inside mosques and in our countries.

Pointing out facts and common threads about violence around the world perpetrated by muslims against innocents isn't "demonization"

Calling someone who does so a "racist" is.

Edited December 5, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[DogOnPorch]

Probably. But the more people like you demonize and generalize about Islam as a whole, the harder it is for reformers to make any progress.

Good plan. The best way to bring about change is to maintain the status quo.

I tend to agree, Jerry. At some point all the values I grew up with were suddenly wrong and my culture became relative to someone's who puts their women in bags. Plus you've got some PC do-gooder telling you how you should feel about the whole affair. I bugs me, too.

-------------------------------------------------

Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

---Arnaud Amalric: 1209 AD

Edited December 5, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

Precisely. Our society is oversensitive.

Back in the day fighting the germans, the nation got behind the effort. Those black and white "news films" being shown in the theaters didn't depict the "terrible behavior" of soldiers and question the effort. Nations went to war together. But don't kid yourself. If you think we kicked the Germans' ass twice without a little "push" here and there, you're living in a dreamworld.

Now? We've ghettoized war. Soldiers are "evil torturers" and the "national effort" is for shit. Victory isn't newsworthy - as we can see now in Iraq - only our own country's misbehaviors are - despite the complete disgusting nature of our enemy's behaviors.

In the Arabic world, they put pictures of suicide martyrs on grade school bulletin boards, in coffee shops and in public as POSITIVE role models.

In our country, we decry a "poor treatment" (judgement call) of a few prisoners in abu graib.

The problem though is your arguements are subjective not objective and based on your personal beliefs as to what should be the appropriate values we all follow.

Yes I know you feel your opinion as to the values we should have should be like the good old days when things were black and white and there were clear cut lines drawn between good (the allies) and the bad (the Axis) but we do not live in that era.

More to the point while you think things were black and white in the good old days they were not. They were no different then they are today. Go find out how many good Christians with string family values were sympathetic to Hitler and and felt people had to know their place.

Be honest. Isn't your nostalgia really based on...the feeling you are no longer top dog in a world of too many who think they are equal to you and now have the same rights as you?

Is it political correctness that really bugs you or the fact the good old days where a good Christian was white and everyone else was inferior and segregated no longer exists?

I also question how you talk of soldiers. do you think soldiers want you to glorify their having to kill people?

That is the last thing they want and I know because I take the time to talk and learn from veterans and have never met one who has not warned me to stay away from people who glorify war for the wrong reasons.

What they want from you is that you show in your actions you can be tolerant and take advantage of your democractic system they die for.

They have to fight a new war. It's not clear bad guys v. good guys. The last thing they can be is rigid and inflexible like you and see things in black and white.

Today's soldier fights an enemy with no uniform or visible identity. So they have to be flexible, open-minded and no they can not sit around lamenting the fact that the enemy does not all look the same and always cry out "Achtung!" or "Banzai".

You want to be of support to the Canadian troops, stop lamenting the good old days and try understand what they have to deal with today.

That is precisely why today's Canadian soldier is not the World War Two soldier of the past although they retain the honour code and traditions to remind them and us what we stand for.

They have had to change because times have changed. Their role is not just conventional warfare but other things as well. They know their actions not their words are what Afghanis watch and that is why I admire them so much.

I can not imagine how hard it must be to have to fight an invisible enemy that could be the very citizens you also have to treat gently and politely because you don't know whether someone is or is not a terrorist and you know if you alienate a non terrorist civilian you could turn them into a terrorist.

It is an impossible job they are managing and yet they do it and die for it and I salute them and their dedication and transforming the world war two army into an every evolving institution where soldiers take on the impossible precisely because they have been trained to be flexible and open mind and know when to apply their discipline.

You and I have to do the same. Talk is cheap. You want to really impart your wisdom or what you feel proper values are? I say learn from our soldiers. Learn it is what you do, not what you say that spreads the message.

Show in your actions the values you think are appropriate. Words as to what is wrong will not work on the next generation they never have. They did not work on you when you were younger and they will not work on the young today.

Words mean nothing. Its our actions the young will watch and learn from. So we have to do things as part of charitable or community projects or if you really believe in religion, through your church.

People understand when you do something with your hands and through your actions to help people.

That is what our soldiers are doing. They are not just killing. They are not just one dimensional characters that march and kill. They feel, they think, they experience pain both physical and emotional precisely because it is not black and white and with every step they take something unexpected can happen.

We owe them to govern ourselves in a similiar manner and not be afraid of the unknown and the need to change. That is what they are teaching us.

Er at least so I think.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Rue

[JB Globe]

Why would that make it harder? How exactly?

Because any nation, society, etc, no matter how divided they might be internally - when faced with an external threat, people will rally together. When that happens, people who do not join together are considered to be extensions of that external threat. Thus reformers who don't temper their efforts get turned into people who've been influenced by that external threat, and no one listens to them, because they're just speaking the words of the enemy.

To flip this on you: how exactly is demonizing Islam helping reformers in the Muslim world? How is it improving the situation? Do you really think that someone in Pakistan is going to read a post like this and think: "wow, this guy who doesn't understand my religion or culture is right, my religion really is evil and violent, I'm going to become an atheist"

People either tune out the "Islam is evil" argument completely, OR it gets used by extremists how are more than happy to turn it into the perfect kind of propaganda: "See, this is evidence that no matter what, Americans and Europeans will hate you simply for being Muslim, there is no possibility of peace so long as you are Muslim because they think that Muslims are inherently violent and evil, they will not stop until they've killed or converted us all

You know this because when was the last time you saw a publication from another country that said "America is an evil and inherently violent religion" and said "yeah, that guy is right, I'm going to listen to him instead of my own authorities and public figures" - you would just tune it out or it would fuel your resentment of wherever that message is coming from: "don't tell me what my reality is, you don't even know what you're talking about"

Really, can you point to any real positive impact that the whole "Islam is evil/violent" campaign has had in the Muslim world?

[Black Dog]

Good plan. The best way to bring about change is to maintain the status quo.

Yeah, that's what I said. Iijit.

Honestly, I’m curious to know how, given all the baggage, a bunch of white westerners wagging their fingers at the Muslim world will bring about any kind of internal reform.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yeah, that's what I said. Iijit.

Honestly, I’m curious to know how, given all the baggage, a bunch of white westerners wagging their fingers at the Muslim world will bring about any kind of internal reform.

What does "white" have to do with it, black dog? You're bringing race. Let's hear what's really going on in that little head of yours.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, Jerry,

JB, Rue and Black Dog have made some excellent points.

How does our culture condemning other cultures help at all ?

And, as usual, I don't understand your criteria for determining which cultures are a problem to you. You seem determined to use individual examples of crimes as evidence, but if we come back with instances of Christian misdeeds (let's say, abortion clinic bombings) are you going to move the goalposts ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually, Jerry,

JB, Rue and Black Dog have made some excellent points.

How does our culture condemning other cultures help at all ?

And, as usual, I don't understand your criteria for determining which cultures are a problem to you. You seem determined to use individual examples of crimes as evidence, but if we come back with instances of Christian misdeeds (let's say, abortion clinic bombings) are you going to move the goalposts ?

I'm still waiting for black dog to explain what race has to do with this.

Meantime, If you'd wish, MH, shall we explore exactly the number of "terrorist" incidents inflicted upon innocent civilians in the past 10 years were perpetrated by muslims, versus other religions?

To refuse to acknowledge the obvious and persistent attacks upon innocents in the name of Islam this century is not only willful blindness, but an extreme example of "moving the goalposts" in the name of "cultural sensitivity" with no regard whatsoever to reality or facts.

There has been one common thread in the past 10 years with respect to bombings in otherwise peaceful areas, whether it's London, Madrid, Bali, New York, Toronto or anywhere else: Islam. To ignore this plain and simple fact in an effort to paint those who observe this fact as "moving the goalposts" isn't "making an excellent point" - it's the usual mindless willingness to ignore reality in the name of boundless, boundless tolerance.

Edited December 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[guyser]

are you going to move the goalposts ?

Looks like he did.

Might as well try nailing jello to the wall.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually, Jerry,

JB, Rue and Black Dog have made some excellent points.

How does our culture condemning other cultures help at all ?

And, as usual, I don't understand your criteria for determining which cultures are a problem to you. You seem determined to use individual examples of crimes as evidence, but if we come back with instances of Christian misdeeds (let's say, abortion clinic bombings) are you going to move the goalposts ?

I'd like to hear more about these recent christian misdeeds, just so we can all agree on where exactly the "goalposts" are.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually, Jerry,

JB, Rue and Black Dog have made some excellent points.

How does our culture condemning other cultures help at all ?

And, as usual, I don't understand your criteria for determining which cultures are a problem to you. You seem determined to use individual examples of crimes as evidence, but if we come back with instances of Christian misdeeds (let's say, abortion clinic bombings) are you going to move the goalposts ?

You're willing to take the most recent Mumbai terrorist attacks,9-11, Madrid Bombings, London Tube Bombings, Bali Nightclub Bombings, countless suicide bombings in Isreal, beheading of newsreporters and others, Chechnya school massacre, threats against Canada's primeminister, Shooting a nun because of a cartoon, and countless other attacks - all perpetrated against innocent civilians and all in the name of Islam.

So let's get this straight: you're willing to take all of that and then some, in the past few years, and measure that against, what exactly? Against a couple of aborion clinic killings in the distant past?

That's not only moving the goalposts, my friend. That's moving the entire sport to another planet.

[Michael Hardner]

Goalpost:

When was the last time a harmless bible thumper from tennessee self-detonated in a public coffee shop?

Moved.

Now, we've provided you what you asked for - a single example of this type of crime.

Before we move on to round 2, which will involve raw numbers, you will have to acknowledge that your challenge in round 1 of the argument was met.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Goalpost:

Moved.

Now, we've provided you what you asked for - a single example of this type of crime.

Before we move on to round 2, which will involve raw numbers, you will have to acknowledge that your challenge in round 1 of the argument was met.

Please. I'd like to see the cite of a christian self detonating.

Second, in the past 7 years Mumbai terrorist attacks,9-11, Madrid Bombings, London Tube Bombings, Bali Nightclub Bombings, countless suicide bombings in Isreal, beheading of newsreporters and others, Chechnya school massacre, threats against Canada's primeminister, Shooting a nun because of a cartoon, and countless other attacks - all perpetrated against innocent civilians and all in the name of Islam.

Now. Please provide specific examples over the same time period of similar christian attacks on non-christians in the name of their religion.

Please and thank you.

Do you know what's almost laughable? The left wing sing along press has basically ceased to even report this kind of violence for what it is: Islamic intolerance.

Remember the recent gay bashing case in September in Vancouver? Guess what religion the guy is. Take a wild guess what religion that hates gay people he comes from. Of course the press and people like you refuse to see the connection - willfully refuse.

How about Mumbai? The word Islam barely made it to the press reports, mostly not at all. But take a wild guess who perpetrated the attacks? Take a wild freaking guess.

Edited December 12, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Michael Hardner]

Why, though, are you asking for things that are so specific ?

You're specifically asking for suicide bombers - why is that ? I can find Christians who have killed others in the name of their faith ? Is that not good enough ?

[Oleg Bach]

Why, though, are you asking for things that are so specific ?

You're specifically asking for suicide bombers - why is that ? I can find Christians who have killed others in the name of their faith ? Is that not good enough ?

No one who has true faith kills others. Those that do kill are faithless..The trouble with Islam is that it was a bad idea to begin with. Just like Christianity - the second the founders of these faiths left the earth - all the followers went nuts. Religions were the original corporate bodies. The founders were the mind and once the mind left the body stumbled about for the next 2000 years seeking the head. Suicide or self murder was never an idea put forth by Mohamid or Christ. To murder yourself in the commission of the murdering of others is pure lunacy. Makes me think of what Christ said when he looked on and saw how utterly stupid and delluded human beings were..."How much longer do I have to put up with you?" I am sure that the founder of Islam would vomit if he were to witness the insect like behaviour that takes place at Mecca. Christ would have given the pope a punch in the nose if he were to look at the horded earthly wealth that is the Vatican..."Hey POPE...I told you to gather up the wealth and put it in a common purse so all could come and take as needed" - apparently the Vatican only held up half the contract - the gathered but did not disperse. Looks like all religions failed.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why, though, are you asking for things that are so specific ?

You're specifically asking for suicide bombers - why is that ? I can find Christians who have killed others in the name of their faith ? Is that not good enough ?

Can you please provide these examples? We can both discuss.