I am not interested in or qualified to present religious arguments and even if I were, I don't engage in religious debates ever. I posted a long list of links and texts which were condemning terrorism and which did include the components you refer to. They were broadly representative of Islamic spokespersons and groups. You dismissed it without consideration and in typical fashion by identifying one of the links that had been changed or broken and refusing to consider the others.
There is plenty of theological argument that undercuts terrorism. The flip side interpretations of those are also used to support or endorse terrorism ... the tool of extremists, bigots, heinous and brutal despots. So what's new?
The bottom line for me is and always has been reason and principles of decency. Reason tells me that any doctrine or religion founded on the principles of peace and general well being is being corruptly interpreted when used to promote a venue which is brutal and heinous treatment of others. I see no benefit, none what so ever, in dragging out dogma and doctrine to argue that such things could be ever or in any case be endorsed by a benevolent God, an obvious contradiction.
All religions seem to agree that men are corruptible, tending toward greed, lasciviousness, and injustice to acquire things of the world. Religions seem to agree that men are generally in a state of enmity with one unto another. Religions also say that man’s most beneficial path is to resist that tendency and to choose a better path of charity, kindness, consideration, and an attitude of well being from one unto another. I think those comments in religion are true, all of them.
Religions have never hurt anyone, but corrupt persons have used religions to hurt people since the beginning of recorded history. IMO
I would agree that when you have a theocracy you can attribute all the bad political civil stuff to the religiousness of the culture involved. I would argue, however, that you could strip the religiousness from the culture and the same people would find some other excuse to commit atrocity. I don't believe Islam is a cause of evil in the world, I do agree that it is a convenient excuse that corrupt people can use for committing evil, used by corrupt Muslim extremists to cause harm to innocents and corrupt individuals who use it as an excuse to cause harm to innocent Muslims. All religions have been used that way from time to time. It's not, however, the religions that are to blame but the people who use the religions to perpetrate.
I would also argue (and have argued with you) the Muslim world is no different the the rest of the world, in that it contains a huge number of people who organize themselves behind all kinds of ventures some for mutual benefit, while some are based on corruptions of the human spirit. There are differences on the surface but not in principle the world has not been changed by religions. You wont, find many drunken Muslims beating their wives but that doesn't mean Muslim men don't find other venues to abuse their wives. Nor does it mean that all American non-Muslims get drunk and beat their wives any more than it means all Muslim men use Islam as an excuse to abuse their wives.
The single factor that makes a difference is whether or not the individual human being chooses by his own free will to extend a kind and well intentioned hand toward others or a grasping and corrupt one. In all cases barriers seen to extension of humanity are artificially founded in fear.
So there is a rip in the fabric of humanity and you are a smart and informed individual with sharp eye and tongue to match. You be the needle, I'll be your thread and let's begin to mend the tear.
Be the change.
Best regards,
gem |
