People can't seem to understand that one group does not define a religion. I know several Muslims and studied Islam and it is a noble religion if you ask me.
I see nothing wrong with hating a religion (the idea itself). Especially the 3 top ones, which have a plethora of reasons to dislike them. While the people who practice them are most often good people, that doesn't change what's in their holy books and what they purportedly believe.
I guess what I'm getting at is the "Without religion, good people would be good. Bad people would be bad. Making good people go bad takes religion." My usual case is Ziad Jarrah, flight 93's hijack pilot. He was smart, went to college in Germany for aerospace and stuff. He dressed western, socialized western, had a close girlfriend for years and a good moderately wealthy family, had the distanced sort of "yeah, God's there, pray, it's all good" interpretation that many people tend to have, not highly devout or heavily indoctrinated, befriended some of the radicals who considered his religious views weak. His wedding was planed for 9/22, he bought a suit and told his family on 9/9 that he was excited for it. Then the group said Allah needs you, so he writes a lengthy suicide note and attempts to crash a plane into a building.
had the distanced sort of "yeah, God's there, pray, it's all good" interpretation that many people tend to have, not highly devout or heavily indoctrinated
That's what scares the crap out of me because that's where I was for years.
Yes, the people themselves generally are decent because they refuse to act upon such things. They happen to be more moral than their deity, yet they claim adherence. Some disagree with their book's orders, but they still claim they come from the most-high source, so they must be unquestionably true and good and righteous. Some act upon those presuppositions.
Some act upon them. Yet these are blacksheep that stain the name of the religion, which otherwise, does not need to be lambasted. Hate, is an extremely strong word, and serves nothing to resolve this raging sectarian divide. Dislike seems appropriate, but hatred indicates an overzealous and active intolerance and repelledness.
The problem is they may actually be doing it right, based on the history. Just because a majority aren't preaching violence doesn't mean that's not what it's about. They all still claim to worship the god who gets his jollies sniffing blood. Is that not stain enough itself?
but hatred indicates an overzealous and active intolerance and repelledness.
To their beliefs? Yes. To the people? Not until they act upon them.
The problem is they may actually be doing it right, based on the history. Just because a majority aren't preaching violence doesn't mean that's not what it's about. They all still claim to worship the god who gets his jollies sniffing blood. Is that not stain enough itself?
No it isn't stain enough. They worship his benevolent side, and ignore/hide from his evil side.
To their beliefs? Yes. To the people? Not until they act upon them.
Then that is pretty pointless and utterly a waste of effort in hating something that is not put into practice by the majority of them.
something that is not put into practice by the majority of them.
Acting on their beliefs doesn't necessarily mean terrorism. It includes the other things like stoning gays or nonbelievers simply for existing "because god said so".
They worship his benevolent side, and ignore/hide from his evil side.
If I say "I LOVE HITLER WITH ALL MY HEART!!! Nononono... he's not just some evil guy who kills Jews and opposers, even though that was completely justified and entirely necessary, but I love the part of him that loves Germany and gets all warm and fuzzy about his people", is it not still Hitler?
Acting on their beliefs doesn't necessarily mean terrorism. It includes the other things like stoning gays or nonbelievers simply for existing "because god said so".
And how many actually stone people? Not even Iran carries out stoning anymore; but for some ragtag groups of Islamic fundamentalists, stoning is largely a dead practice.
If I say "I LOVE HITLER WITH ALL MY HEART!!! Nononono... he's not just some evil guy who kills Jews and opposers, even though that was completely justified and entirely necessary, but I love the part of him that loves Germany and gets all warm and fuzzy about his people", is it not still Hitler?
This is different. They worship his benevolent side and shun His ghoulish one. It would be more apt to say that people support Hitler's economic policies of supporting labour unions, yet decrying his hideous social policy. There's no wrong in that.
Fine, stoning's a low minority and declining. But the death penalty is still enforced in some countries for the same reasons.
They worship his benevolent side and shun His ghoulish one.
Many defend the "bad side" tooth and nail because "God can't ever be bad", so if we think it's evil, "You must be interpreting it wrong", "He's on a higher level of morality", "His ways are mysterious but always correct and justified", "Might makes right" etc. But they shun man following the "bad side" because "that's a selfish person trying to emulate that which is most-high, and vengeance belongs to Him".
Fine, stoning's a low minority and declining. But the death penalty is still enforced in some countries for the same reasons.
Death penalties for adultery are extremely uncommon in many of such countries. Adultery must also be proven by four eye witnesses, a rather difficult task.
Many defend the "bad side" tooth and nail because "God can't ever be bad", so if we think it's evil, "You must be interpreting it wrong", "He's on a higher level of morality", "His ways are mysterious but always correct and justified", "Might makes right" etc. But they shun man following the "bad side" because "that's a selfish person trying to emulate that which is most-high, and vengeance belongs to Him".
That paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not particularly concerned if they defend God's evil side, so long as it does not lead to negative, real life consequences. Even if they defend His actions with a maddening zeal and circular beating of the bush, but carry out no violence on part of a religion, then why hate them? Hatred is an irrational abhorrence that is equally as bad as the fanatics that one is against, because it solves nothing, but inflames the situation further.
Death penalties for adultery are extremely uncommon
I wasn't talking about adultery, but nonbelief and homosexuality. Both are punishable by death in Afghanistan and other regions.
I'm not particularly concerned if they defend God's evil side, so long as it does not lead to negative, real life consequences.
I'm concerned with defending acts done on behalf of God's 'erfect' commands/laws during his 'harsh stage', because those things often do lead to negative, real life consequences.
but carry out no violence on part of a religion
Oppression doesn't always require violence.
an irrational abhorrence
Find me a tangible, observable, testable benefit of religion that cannot be obtained through secular means. If I had time, I could literally find hundreds of tragic things that are unique to religion, such as the 'faith healer' parents and brutally killing nonbelievers just for being nonbelievers.
I wasn't talking about adultery, but nonbelief and homosexuality. Both are punishable by death in Afghanistan and other regions.
And yet, only war torn Afghanistan does so. The Afghan judicial system is not even united, but split amongst three organs; with recent appointments becoming more and more liberal. Yet non-belief is not punished, nor even opposed in many other Muslim nations.
What's odd is that the max punishment in the Quran is 100 floggings, which means the death penalty is something they added.
No it's not odd for Muslims. The death penalty bit came from a Hadith, which is considered a vital component of their judicial system and for understanding their Quran.
I'm concerned with defending acts done on behalf of God's 'erfect' commands/laws during his 'harsh stage', because those things often do lead to negative, real life consequences.
Yes, but only in the minority.
Oppression doesn't always require violence.
This statement, without explaining itself, is wholly useless in an argument.
Find me a tangible, observable, testable benefit of religion that cannot be obtained through secular means. If I had time, I could literally find hundreds of tragic things that are unique to religion, such as the 'faith healer' parents and brutally killing nonbelievers just for being nonbelievers.
An immense cultural history of tradition, art, poetry, literature. If everything is weighed in the form of benefit and non-benefit, such a cold world of logic is not for me. Again, these things are perpetuated by the minority. I live with Muslims and I see nothing ill with them, nothing that warrants hate. In fact, they're nicer than most other people from other ethnicity/races/religions. I don't actually care whether in theory they're going to be bloodthirsty fanatics due to a Holy text, I care about their actions in real life, which are influenced by things far more than just that Holy text, contrary to the view of people who believe that Muslims only operate based on the Holy text, because the Holy text is ''divine law'' and ''infallible''.
Muslims only operate based on the Holy text, because the Holy text is ''divine law'' and ''infallible''.
Holy text is divine and infallible and Islam is religion of peace. All the verses about violence only premit violence in self defense if not taken out of context. What's that talk about killing non believers? Non Believersare called Dimmah and are required to pay a tax with which there safety isstatesresponsibility and theyare not neededto serve in army, if they serve inarmy, they donot have to pay the taxcalled juziyah.
