Estimating Extreme Islam Numbers
One of the more stupid statements around is that extreme Islam is no different from extreme Christianity – that the religions are basically the same and both suffer from a small number of extreme adherents who give the rest a bad name.
Now this is true at a superficial level. An insane Christian who blows up an abortion clinic is just as bad as a mad Muslim who blows up a kindergarten.
But it misses the key point that the numbers of “extreme” adherents is several magnitudes higher in Islam. In Christianity the number of extreme followers who believe it is religiously justified to execute civilians is oh say a few dozen or a few hundred at the very most. And there is no doubt Christian leaders condemn any killing of innocents.
Now while the number of Muslims who are actively part of terror groups is thought to be around 10,000 the problem is that literally millions and tens of millions support them. It’s not just a few thousand.
A Pew survey in May 2005 of almost 18,000 people found the following levels of support for violence against civilian targets:
Jordan 88%
Lebanon 58%
Pakistan 44%
Indonesia 33%
Turkey 20%
Morocco 18%
Now taking into account the population in each country, this gets estimates for Extreme Islam followers of:
Jordan 5.0 million
Lebanon 2 million
Pakistan 70 million
Indonesia 80 million
Turkey 14 million
Morocco 6 million
So in just those six countries you have around 177 million people who believe suicide bombing is acceptable. They represent one third of the total Muslim population so if the percentages are the same globally (I doubt they are, so should be lower) then one could be talking up to half a billion who support suicide bombings and killing people in God’s name so to speak.
Now this is still a minority of all Muslims, but it is a pretty damn big minority and the next time some moron says oh they are more worried about extreme Christian fundamentalists than they are extreme Islamic fundamentalists then think about that massive difference in numbers.
Now again I stress the majority of Muslims do not support suicide bombings and the like. And this would be especially true in New Zealand. This article is not about whipping up hysteria against individuals who happen to be Muslim. It is about recognising that the problem is huge. It is hard to credibly claim that Islam is a religion of peace and it is only a few extremists who ruin it for the rest.
Islam is a religion which has a massive split in it. Around two-thirds or more do not support violence targeted against civilians, yet somewhere between say 20% and 33% do. That’s not a small faction but a big fraction 
And in case people think that it might just be say in Israel or Iraq that many Muslims support suicide bombings (not that I personally think that makes it in anyway more acceptable) then consider that support for the man who masterminded the plan to fly planes into the Twin Towers, Osama bin Laden, is also very high:
Jordan 60% = 3 million
Pakistan 51% = 80 million
Indonesia 35% = 80 million
Morocco 26% = 8 million
Turkey 7% = 5 million
Lebanon 2% = 70,000
So that’s 176 million or so who support the guy who dreamed up flying planes into towers, bombing tubes and nightclubs etc.
The challenge for moderate Islam, and the entire world, is how to reduce the proportion of Muslims who regard violence targeted towards civilians as sometimes acceptable from as much as a third down to 1% or so. And this won’t happen in a year or even ten years, but as the Pew survey shows there has been improvements in most countries from a couple of years ago, so progress can be made.
February 13th, 2006 at 6:07 am
It would be interesting to see what a survey in the west – particularly USA, regarding some similar (changed to be relevant) topic would say.
Maybe we could have suggestions for what such a relevant question would be – it is obviously silly to ask them if they suport osama (alsouth some would).
February 13th, 2006 at 6:13 am
Well the question on do you support targetted violence against civilians can be used in any country.
February 13th, 2006 at 6:48 am
How can people sourced from these cultures possibly be allowed to settle in NZ and become citizens. We have largely avoided this problem thanks to Winston Peters maintaining political pressure on the Government and I hope Peters maintains that pressure and it seems Dr Brash has found a more elegant way to express the same policy.
February 13th, 2006 at 6:55 am
They represent one third of the total Muslim population so if the percentages are the same globally (I doubt they are, so should be lower) then one could be talking up to half a billion who support suicide bombings and killing people in God’s name so to speak.
Not necessarily. Nations like Iran, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen are all Muslim nations with a history of intolerance towards the West in at least part of the population. In those nations alone, people might feel obliged to be anti-western and therefore believe that extremist acts like suicide bombing is acceptable. The population of just these four nations is 124 million, so the numbers of intolerant Muslims who advocate extreme violence could be higher.
I just wonder how many of these people are simply saying this because there is a threat of state sanctioned violence against them if they don’t tow the line in nations like Iran.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:01 am
> In Christianity the number of extreme followers who believe it is religiously justified to execute civilians is oh say a few dozen or a few hundred at the very most.
David, in the United States alone, tens of millions of Christians support executing civilians, and some of them even stand outside the prisons cheering as the executions take place. They base their support of such barbarity on their interpretation of the Bible. Political candidates actively seek their votes by promising to execute lots of civilians.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Dave, state sanctioned executions for people convicted of murder where they have had recourse to a defence in a trial is not the same thing as being in favour of suicide bombers who target innocent civilians. You make it sound as if the “executed civilians” in the USA were simply picked at random instead of investigated by the police, prosecuted by the state and convicted by a judge and jury of horrific crimes.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:42 am
“The challenge for moderate Islam, and the entire world, is how to reduce the proportion of Muslims who regard violence targeted towards civilians as sometimes acceptable”
There has been a sustained unwanted interference in those regions most against the West, by the West (dare I say, UK & USA?), for too long.
Why exactly are we surprised this is coming home to roost?
February 13th, 2006 at 7:47 am
I knew that someone would try and compare a country having the death penalty for convicted criminals who have generally illegally murdered one or more people, with supporting suicide bombing and the like.
The comparison is so offensive that it doesn’t even need rebutting.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:49 am
David,
What is the meaning of the constant reference to civilians?
February 13th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Because that is the question used in the Pew poll, and I regard it as a good dividing line between merely fundamentalistism and homicidal extremism.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Talking about Extremes, deleting your entire blog about Miss Tens birthday, how extreme is that.
Oh well she who must be obeyed is mightier than all of Islam who couldnt get a Mohammed cartoon removed from here.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:27 am
In Christianity the number of extreme followers who believe it is religiously justified to execute civilians is oh say a few dozen or a few hundred at the very most.
That is utter crap DPF. How about the Maronites? The Lord’s Resistance Army? The Real IRA perhaps? What about the Klan? Or perhaps you’ve forgotten Bosnia and Kosovo? There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people whose Christian beliefs are either instrumental, or in some cases central, to their support or participation in acts of violence against civilian targets.
I’m not going to claim that it places the extremes of Christianity broadly on a par with the extremes of Islam in scale, but it should at the very least recast the context of the analysis. I would contend that the true underlying problem is poverty, under-development and ignorance attached to long-standing cultural norms propped up by elites peddling self-serving interpretations of religious doctrine and demonising external forces that pose a threat to the status-quo. You seem to be trying to frame Islam as the problem here David by casting it in opposition to Christianity which you fallaciously propose is some largely incorruptible faith. But Islam is not alone as a religion in being a powerful mob motivator. It happens to be the predominant religion in a region where all the other factors I outlined above are apparent and abundant.
Do you remember Serebrenica? Do you remember Gujarat? How about the LA Riots? Islam is not alone in turning people to violence or motivating them to react to a perceived threat or slight with violence.
And before the chorus of “we’re not racist, but…”s turn up to decry the response of “moderate Muslims” to the current violence, tell me how much you have in common with Klan members who believe some people are inherently less human and should be persecuted and killed? How closely you relate to the people who entered Sabra and Shatila to kill refugees? How much your faith is ties to the Christianity of Ugandan para-militaries? How responsible do you feel for the actions of people half a world away committing crimes under the justification of a religion that may share a name with yours but which you barely recognise?
If you’re looking for demons and the roots of evil DPF you need to get more sophisticated than wrongly asserting the virtue of all Christians in the face of a guesstimated body of evil Muslims.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Read the report for yourselves, people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/global_attitudes.pdf
February 13th, 2006 at 8:30 am
What Ms marple said.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Whats surprising is the highest percentage comes from Jordan which is held up as a great example of moderation in the Middle East.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Yes, this survey is skewed in my opinion. Why? We’re in their countries that’s why.
What I mean is a bunch of predominantly Christian nations have militarily invaded a bunch of predominantly Islamic and/or Arab countries e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine etc. The West also has military presences in Saudi Arabia and I’m sure, many other spots in the Middle East.
I think if Islamic nations had invaded several predominantly Christian nations and you then took the poll again, you’d find there’d be plenty of ‘fundamentalist’ Christians who believed in suicide bombing, or whatever it took to get rid of the Islamic invaders.
The fact is we’re all sitting pretty over here, far away from any problems, theorising on other peoples violent thoughts. A few examples might illustrate this:
1) I can guarantee if a missile landed on my house tonight killing my wife and children, I’d be pretty pissed off and completely willing to die fighting the enemy. Fanatical wouldn’t even begin to describe how I felt.
2) How would it feel to have another country inside your country setting up road blocks etc. Say they stop your wife or sister or mother from getting to hospital when she’s about to deliver and she dies as a result. How would you feel?
3) Imagine if an Islamic country like Indonesia invaded NZ (they easily could, there’s 250 million of them). Wouldn’t we fight against them? Try and stop them? Set up resistance movements to bomb suitable targets? Heck I would.
And then there’s the point made that very few Christians would support suicide bombing. I totally don’t agree with this.
In the USA you have 300 million people who have voted in a guy who kills Iraqi civilians. Tens of thousands of them. They had the chance to vote him out, but liked the job he was doing and wanted him to continue.
Whether civilians are being killed by suicide bombers (low tech, only choice they have) or by the latest and greatest military tools (laser guided bombs etc.) makes no difference to me. It’s still killing innocent people (you might kill the odd baddy in amongst the piles of innocents) to further an agenda.
So then it becomes a matter of what the agenda is and whether you believe it is just. I’m sure everyone who kills believes in their agenda. Is the West’s agenda any more moral than the Middle East’s? I would say that differs depending on who you are, where you are, and who has just invaded your country!
February 13th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Southern Raider: Jordan has a large displaced Palestinian population.
http://www.dpa.gov.jo/menupalestinian.html
February 13th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Even if one concedes all of Ms Marple’s additions (which I do not because in almost none of those cases was christianity the main motivating force. They were mainly territorial battles) the numbers of extreme Islam is still at least one to two magnitudes higher.
I am no advocate for Christianity as a nice force purely for good. It’s history is bloody and nasty also. And I have done more than most people in oppossing the hardcore religious right in NZ.
The point I was making, which you won’t accept, is that comparing the once a year abortion clinic bomber with the huge numbers of extreme Islam is delusional.
You think I am saying that Islam is the problem. Well yes it is to some degree. To be frank I have a problem with almost all religions as great horros get perputrated in God’s name. But most religions have got better over time. Islam has a fundamental weakness that there is no central authority to help isolate the extreme factions. And even worse many of those in authority use it to spew hatred. How many priests of other religions do the same? A minimal comparative number.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Oh dear every apologist is out today. David Blake says there is no difference between accidential civilian casualties in a war and deliberate targetting of civilians.
The entire basis of civilisation rests actually on that distinction.
Blake also thinks this is about the Middle East. Indonesia and the Phillipines are not in the Middle East.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:25 am
“Islam has a fundamental weakness that there is no central authority to help isolate the extreme factions”
Unlike, say, Christianity, where every church falls under the authority of the pope and where radical extremists are forcibly forbidden from preaching the gospel.
Aren’t you a few centuries out of date?
February 13th, 2006 at 9:32 am
What we should remember is that many extreme Muslims are fighting amongst themselves, just look at Iraq. If thoose with extreme beliefs and attitudes were to unite then the west would have real problems.
Many of the governments that have extreme Muslims as part of their population are very oppresive and controlling and as a result a large proporation lack any real education and live in poverty. While these countrys may have a large extreme element that are prepared to blow themselves to bits at the drop of a hat that extreme element does not possess the knowledge and financial backing to seriously challenege the west. Yes flying planes into towers may be dramatic but it would take a bloody lot of planes and pilots to even dent the US alone, the same applys to atomic weapons. Yes I know its not much fun if you are the one been blown up.
I would even say that extreme Islam may be the wests greatest allie as extreme Islam is its own worst enemy.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Ms Marple said “Do you remember Serebrenica?” yes, and I remember that it was the evil US and Britain who came to the rescue of the Bosnian Muslims. And I remember that the Left shouted “imperialism”.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:43 am
The major Christian churches all have some sort of decision making authority. Islam does not. It is a fundamental flaw. There is no way to fix it either.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Iran is where it matters the most – it is the greatest forthcoming threat and ironically is where the local population is probably the least fundamentalist of many majority Muslim countries. Iran is governed by men who by and large don’t represent the majority.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:50 am
2 Muslim woman go into Kathmandu, whilst trying on various clothing items, they come across the back pack section, one tries on a back pack and asks the second woman “does my bomb look big in this”
I do realise that Mohammad will not look favourably on the comments above, but if he happens to have a sense of humor, he may just have a smile.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:53 am
DPF, the trends are postive – less support for Islamic terrorism, more positive view of the US amongst the young.
It’s not surprising that the Muslim world is incresingly concerned about Islamic terrorism since the mjority of the victims have alays been Mulsims. It’s an odd Western-centric view that sees it all in terms of Muslims vs Christians.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:54 am
As others have pointed out in a roundabout way, DPF, you’re using fairly bad methodology by implying that those who support extreme violence are the same as its perpetrators. If this is not what you are saying then the following statement:
“In Christianity the number of extreme followers who believe it is religiously justified to execute civilians is oh say a few dozen or a few hundred at the very most.”
is just wishful thinking. Rwanda, for example, was regarded as Africa’s most Christian nation before its humanitarian crisis. The pleas of a very few brave clegymen did not stop Christian members of every denomination committed appalling atrocities. Certain church leaders (e.g. Anglican bishop Samuel Musabyimana, Bishop Aaron Ruhumuliza, head of the Free Methodist Church, Michel Twagirayesu, the President of the Presbyterian Church of Rwanda among others) perpetrated the atrocities themselves, which would often take place within the church grounds.
While there may not be significant Christian violence in the West, you don’t have to look too far to find it elsewhere. The reason we all seem to focus on Middle East (and therefore muslim) violence is because that’s where the West’s vital stategic interests lie. It is not because Muslims are the only ones getting all agitated.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:59 am
…in almost none of those cases was christianity the main motivating force. They were mainly territorial battles…
David, are you suggesting that the underpinning of extremist Islam isn’t territorial? From centuries old tensions related to a sense of imposed cultural hegemony on the Arabian Peninsular, to generations of Christian missionaries piggy-backing colonialism in South East Asia, to the establishment of Israel and the subsequent associated humiliation of Arab armies, Islamic fundamentalism has at it’s very core a territorial battle. Rejecting the validity of a territorial claim or the reality of the perceived threat doesn’t detract from the centrality of the claim or the perceptions. The elites I talked about in my last post, aren’t leveraging Islam for the sake of Islam, they’re doing it to protect their patch. Islam is being used in similar ways to how Serbian para-militaries used Christianity, from how any number of African para-militaries use Christianity, from how the Maronites used Christianity. I’m honestly not sure your distinction stands David.
The point I was making, which you won’t accept, is that comparing the once a year abortion clinic bomber with the huge numbers of extreme Islam is delusional.
No I don’t accept it, because I think you’re placing a meaningless boundary on Christian extremism. It is at best self-serving to claim that the beginning and end of Christian extremism is the psycho who bombs abortion clinics. The point I was making is that the motivating factors for most examples of extremism are common across most religions (even Buddhist monks have turf wars). And consequently, that blaming Islam, as you seemed to be doing, is unhelpful.
You think I am saying that Islam is the problem. Well yes it is to some degree.
To make this claim David, along with the statements that follow it, I think that you need to follow that Christianity is also the problem, and Hinduism, and Buddism. And indeed any faith or movement that can be twisted to motivate mob aggression. The problem I have with your post is not that I think that Islam is a pure, peaceful religion. More that I just don’t accept that demonising Islam as the problem is accurate or constructive in dealing with the challenges facing us globally (I don’t accept that one guy writing a letter to the editor about boycotting NZ goods constitutes a challenge for us locally).
February 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Charie, I’m not sure that the comparison with Rwanda is meaningful. The violence there was along ethnic lines, not religious. Many of the perpetrators were Christian but religion was not the motivating factor. Whereas Islamic extremism is explicitly religious.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Perhaps Northern Ireland provides a comparison.
In elections Sinn Fein gets about 20% of the popular vote. This is a party that has supported and excused the killing of thousands of its fellow citizens by its military wing the PIRA over decades. These guys do things like kidnap and tie a driver to his explosive laden digger and aim it at the gates of a police station (would fit nicely in Iraq), or strap fire bombs around the outside of a hotel to limit escape and ensure maximum casualties, detonate bombs in suburban shopping malls etc
Most SF supporters are likely to be nominally Catholic, (though that doesn’t mean it is a Christian organisation). Adn that support comes despite there being a large party with similar goals but committed to achieving them through non violent means – the SDLP.
So there are some places in our western community that we should be ashamed of.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Ms Marple, all you have done in your previous entries is described human nature, cloaked in religion! It doesn’t matter what religion a person belongs to, just look at the Destiny church, there are always going to be gullible people out there that will do the bidding of some well versed salesman, thinking they will get preferential treatment when they get to Nervana.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:11 am
DPF: I was talking about the survey you linked to which mainly surveys Middle Eastern and European/Western nations. It does not mention the Phillipines. I did mention Indonesia and it’s proximity to NZ.
The fact that you think the apologists are out today just shows you’re off on this one mate.
You twist my words when you say I believe there is no difference between civilian casualties in war and those targetted.
Well you say ‘war’ (I assume it is you know who is focusing on the Middle East) – why is it when the West invades someone’s country it’s all ethical and a just ‘war’. If you use the term war, you can do anything?
When insurgents attack the West is that not war? We call it terrorism of course, but it’s just a convenient labelling scheme we have. I imagine they think of it as war, and think their actions justifiable too.
I don’t condone the killing of innocent civilians no matter who they are. DPF you seem to if it’s ‘accidental’ or necessary or unavoidable or whatever.
Again I maintain it’s so much easier to stomach when it’s insurgents a million miles away. That’s what we call collateral damage as part of some war. When they attack us, it’s horrific, cowardly terrorism.
It is of course the same thing when you KNOW you are killing innocent people.
And indeed if the basis of civilisation depends on this distinction then we had better be very careful because I think we’re not making that distinction at all.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I think you’ll find that the church in Rwanda played a greater role than you think, Neil. Representatives of the Catholic church, for example, patroned the idea that Hutus were superior to Tutsis, which allowed Hutus to massacre Tutsis as early as 1959. The violence may have been based on “ethnic” lines, but how can you say it wasn’t religious when the doctrine of ethnic superiority was, in this case, based on and supported by a certain denomination.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Breaking News Vice president Cheney has accidently shot a man on a quail hunting trip.It was an accident he had no resemblence to Dan at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4707354.stm
February 13th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I remember that it was the evil US and Britain who came to the rescue of the Bosnian Muslims. And I remember that the Left shouted “imperialism”
Wow, neil there are so many things wrong with the statement. The West was fairly united across the spectrum behind the Bosnian Federation, with the exception of some on the far right who saw the idea of Christians supporting Muslims as a betrayal of cultural and religious heritage. The differences between left and right, if you can classify them in those terms at all, revolved around the method for assistance. “Imperialism” was never a catch cry. “Try not to kill more people” may have been one, or perhaps “We are squeemish about the history of intervention in this region”. But facts aside, your comment misses the point of the discourse and the point of Serebrenica as an example.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:34 am
The obvious point omitted in every boaf is that whilst the founder of Islam encouraged and used violence to achieve his ends (supported by the author of his revelations, said to be God) Jesus did neither.The real question is what is the spirit behind a religion and what are its fruits? A violent Christian is a hypocrite and fails to obey Jesus. A violent Muslim can find support from his religion
February 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am
I remember that it was the evil US and Britain who came to the rescue of the Bosnian Muslims. And I remember that the Left shouted “imperialism”
Wow, neil there are so many things wrong with the statement. The West was fairly united across the spectrum behind the Bosnian Federation, with the exception of some on the far right who saw the idea of Christians supporting Muslims as a betrayal of cultural and religious heritage. The differences between left and right, if you can classify them in those terms at all, revolved around the method for assistance. “Imperialism” was never a catch cry. “Try not to kill more people” may have been one, or perhaps “We are squeemish about the history of intervention in this region”. But facts aside, your comment misses the point of the discourse and the point of Serebrenica as an example.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Another ‘apologist’ here. These figures do not take into account the fact that the Great Powers don’t need to use suicide bombing to get a political effect. *Of course* there is little support in the West for a technique that proves itself utterly useless militarily.
Why bother with blowing yourself up when well armed GIs can throw grenades or use concentrated assault rifle fire, mortars, rocket launchers, flame throwers, backed up by many other troops, move in with air backup, get wounded evacuated, hide in tanks which have their own extreme firepower, call in aerial bombing, missile strikes. And that’s just the warmup. If things get hot they can use bigger bombs, chemical weapons like white phosporus, artilliary, etc. Or just bail out and drop nukes.
With all this at hand it is not surprising that western people are not particularly behind the idea of soldiers blowing themselves up in a crowd. Why bother when you can drop a bomb from 10,000 metres up?
Suicide bombing is the weapon of the weak, of groups who are hiding out and don’t have a large military. They know that they have jack shit chance of doing any real damage to military installations, and are very likely to be caught doing it. Then they face interrogation and torture, with ramifications for others in their cause. So the suicide option is actually quite compelling.
The choice of targets leaves a lot to be desired. I guess they attack civilians because military targets are just too hard. Much depends on the definition of civilian – many attacks in Iraq are directed at the police.
But suicide bombers are not responsible in Iraq for anywhere near the majority of violent civilian deaths. That would be from aerial bombing. It splits hairs to say that aerial bombing doesn’t *target* civilians. Yeah, sure, but it kills them all the same. This is well known, and we kid ourselves if we think we have some moral highground on this civilians issue. The obvious ramifications of aerial bombing are *well known*. You can invent any number of fancy bombs, but the fact remains that it kills massive numbers of civilians. That is a FACT of the approach, every bit as much as blowing yourself up in a crowd has the factual ramification of being likely to kill a lot of civilians.
What number of americans supported a war that everyone knew would kill thousands upon thousands of civilians? 60%? More? Over a hundred million people in the US alone. Are they less violent and extreme because they can say ‘well the bombs aren’t *targetting* civilians’? I don’t think so. Their support was very much responsible for all those deaths. They can’t hide behind their gigantic war machine and disclaim responsibility any more than the pilot who pushed the bomb toggle over a densely populated city.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Ms Marplew, Michael Moore and co. were saying exactly the same things about Clinton and Bosnia that they now say about Bush and Iraq. I distinclty recall many a conversation at Grey Lynn parties in the mid 90′s where liberals would talk of US “imperialism” in Bosnia. Check out what Keith Locke had to say.
You brought up Bosnia as an example of Christian violence, all I have done is point out that the other half of that story is that it was Christian America and Britain that stopped the slaugher of Muslims.
And as this discourse has in the backgound recent US and Britain military actions then it is relevant.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Reason technically all Jordanians could be classified as “Palestians”. Jordan was only created early last century and was orginally part of biblical Israel. Even up to the 1930′s it was known as Trans Jordan because it was the part of Israel on the other side of the Jordan river.
Funny how the Palestians are supposedly displaced in Jordan when they could actually claim that this was part of the original British territory. They don’t seem to be making any claims on Jordan. Why because it is already a Muslim country. In the 48 war if Leb, Egypt, Syria and Jordan had have exterminated Israel as they planned to do, do you think they would have handed over the territory they won to the Palestians? I don’t think so. And therefore we wouldn’t have any palestian uprising. No because they would have assimilated into the other countries. The only reason the “Palestine” authority exists is for political gain for the other Middle East countries.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am
“The obvious point omitted in every boaf is that whilst the founder of Islam encouraged and used violence to achieve his ends (supported by the author of his revelations, said to be God) Jesus did neither.”
I’d say that threatening everybody with eternal damnation is a case of ‘using violence to acheive his ends.’ In any case, it is a little high and mighty to presume that your interpretation of Jesus’ words is the correct one. Check out his advice on what to do about homosexuals (Romans 1:31-32) for example. Also Jesus’ references to the Old Testament and his description of some of its more violent characters as ‘merciful’ (Acts 13:34 also 2 Sam 12:31, 1Cr.20:3) can be read to show us he condones the behaviour in the earlier part of the bible. Also, constant references that non-Christians ‘shall be destroyed from among the people’ don’t leave much to the imagination.
I know that it is supposed to be God doing all the destroying in the sensible mainstream Christian order of the world, but it doesn’t take much for extremists to pick this sort of thing up and run with it. They may be hypocrites, but they can claim justification to some extent.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:19 am
What limits the extreme Christian fundamentalists is the culture around them. Put them in a society where they dominate and see wha thtey do. When they dominated the South (and the Klan) they routinely killed people. US secularism and liberal traditions keep things in check somewhat. But as the fundamentalists gain power their calls for tyranny grow more strident.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Check out his advice on what to do about homosexuals (Romans 1:31-32) for example. Also Jesus’ references to the Old Testament and his description of some of its more violent characters as ‘merciful’ (Acts 13:34 also 2 Sam 12:31, 1Cr.20:3)”
charlie; you confuse the words of paul with those of Jesus, and you references are not relevant to your point.Eternal damnation is separation from God, but the point is people will go there because they don
February 13th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
*poor taste warning*
Leigh, are you sure it’s not Jesus nailed to the door and the Church holding the handle? But you make the choice between Heaven and eternal damnation in fires of Hell sound like Pepsi or Coke.
I choose neither then, thx God. Just to fizzle out like a burned out candle doesn’t sound too bad. Immortality of any kind sounds pretty hard out, you’d want to have some good books, and a massive MP3 collection, and no annoying neighbors. Even then I reckon by a billion years I’d even be sick of reading LOTR.
February 13th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated development . . .
February 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
And to think National/ACT wanted us to be involved in the conquest of Iraq!
We are lucky common sense prevailed otherwise we could have been on the receiving end of a terrorist campaign. Lets face it the West have no answer to the Christain/Muslim situation. All I can say is lets just be thankfull we are living in NZ, under a common sense govt.
February 13th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
“charlie; you confuse the words of paul with those of Jesus, and you references are not relevant to your point”
Oh, of course I do. Then the whole new testament would therefore not be representative of the words of Christ as it was written down by his disciples and edited some 400 years later. But if hell is so non-threatening, why does Jesus threaten us with it? Is it one big hero parade?
In any case, before any other people would like to have a go at misconstruing my post, what I’m NOT saying here is that Christianity is any more or less violent than Islam. I think such issues are irrelevant. What I’m saying is that if you believe that universal order is dictated by a ghost in the clouds, you don’t have to listen to reason or entertain any basis for morality that doesn’t quite gell with your own. Now, most moderate adherents of religion are not so cut and dry, but in the hands of extremists ANY religion can be shaped into justification for violence, whether it is hypocritical or not. Muslims do it. Christians do it. Even Shintoists have done it, and their ‘Gods’ are furry little creatures. It makes no sense to go after the religion itself, but to condemn the violence. In fact, the religion can be used as a tool to quell the violence. In fact emphasising the peaceful elements of Islam (and just like the New Testament, they do exist) to criticise acts of violence and hatred could serve as a very effective ‘internal critique’ of ‘Islamic’ violence.
What doesn’t help is merely stating: ‘Islam bad, Christianity good.’
February 13th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
“charlie; you confuse the words of paul with those of Jesus, and you references are not relevant to your point”
Oh, of course I do. Then the whole new testament would therefore not be representative of the words of Christ as it was written down by his disciples and edited some 400 years later. But if hell is so non-threatening, why does Jesus threaten us with it? Is it one big hero parade?
In any case, before any other people would like to have a go at misconstruing my post, what I’m NOT saying here is that Christianity is any more or less violent than Islam. I think such issues are irrelevant. What I’m saying is that if you believe that universal order is dictated by a ghost in the clouds, you don’t have to listen to reason or entertain any basis for morality that doesn’t quite gell with your own. Now, most moderate adherents of religion are not so cut and dry, but in the hands of extremists ANY religion can be shaped into justification for violence, whether it is hypocritical or not. Muslims do it. Christians do it. Even Shintoists have done it, and their ‘Gods’ are furry little creatures. It makes no sense to go after the religion itself, but to condemn the violence. In fact the religion can be used as a tool to quell the violence. Emphasising the peaceful elements of Islam (and just like the New Testament, they do exist) to criticise acts of violence and hatred could actually serve as a very effective ‘internal critique’ of ‘Islamic’ violence.
What doesn’t help is merely stating: ‘Islam bad, Christianity good.’
February 13th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
leigh, before you start, yes yes, I know, Paul was not a disciple.
I meant to say followers.
February 13th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
DPF,
Extremism tends to decline as societies become wealthy and democratic. The happy middle-class busy with the bourgeous activities of paying the mortgage (um, like me) tends towards democracy, free press, and all that convenient stuff that makes life easy. We’re usually too busy keeping up with the Jones’s to worry about bombing someone.
To give a simple example: you surveyed NZ’s muslims (or even NZ’s Pakistani community) you sure wouldn’t find the same average attitudes as you see in poor rural Pakistan.
The way forward is to trade, to train students, to encourage immigration and travel. Change won’t happen overnight, it’ll take decades. But changing the world does take decades.
February 13th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Icehawk, I wish you were right, but in fact the diaspora of communities can be as extreme, if not more so than their ethnic/religious group back in their former home country. The reason for this is because they don’t have to live with the consequences of hostile/aggressive actions like their former communities. By way of example, I recall back in 1997/1998 when India and Pakistan declared their atomic weapons capabilities, the NZ based Pakistani community celebrated with “Bomb Parties”, which I think was viewed with abhorrence by the general NZ community. This could be contrasted to Pakistanis living in Pakistan who were genuinely concerned about the escalation in tension associated with India and Pakistan now being nuclear capable. IIRC, there were also genuine concerns about Pakistani chain of command associated with nuclear weapons deployment.
Another example is how Croatian and Serbian communities in NZ continued to agitate and provoke hostility long after the Serbs and Croats recognised the need for peace and getting on with their lives in their home nations. It could also be suggested that American Jews are more belligerent and less compromising regarding peace solutions for Israel and its neighbours compared to the Israeli Labour and kadimah parties.
However, you are right in that middle class people of any ethnic/religious persuasion tend to want a society that promotes peace, affluence and improvements/maintenance of their comfortable lifestyle. But this doesn’t mean that they all forget about the petty squabbles and ancient hostilies of their old country.
February 13th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
“How can people sourced from these cultures possibly be allowed to settle in NZ and become citizens.” – tim barclay
Tim,
Greetings, xenophobe.
Welcome to NZ in the 21st century. It isn’t the 1950s any more. We are a multi-cultural society.
To pick one of “these cultures” at random: I haven’t noticed a tendency of Pakistanis in NZ to blow up things and shoot people. The stereotype that comes to mind is of hard workers who run small businesses. And while I try to avoid stereotypes, local to my area there are lot of dairies run by pakistani immigrants working much longer hours than I’d wish to. Good on’em.
Of course, those damn Europeans aren’t so nice. European terrorists blew up a Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbour. But oddly I don’t see you campaigning against the French moving here.
The nastiest I’ve seen a NZ Pakistani do is bowl me out consistently in indoor cricket. An embarrassingly negative score, but hardly a hanging offence.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Aaron,
I think we agree more than we disagree.
My experience of living abroad was that it can make you more fervently nationalistic as your identity gets wrapped up in your origin and you begin to self-identify as “a New Zealander in the US”. I can see the same with “a Croat in NZ”, or “a Jew in Atlanta”.
But DPF’s point is about religious and social extremism: about moderating the views of religious zealots. He’s explicit that he’s not talking about nationalistic or territorial disputes. Immigration doesn’t automagically make you mind-meld with the society you join. But it does make you a part of that society, and start a process of integration that’s as inevitable as entropy. And it creates links between nations that last, and has long-lasting effects on those who remain behind as well. Yes, the process takes decades.
I don’t know what percentage of all the crimes of violence in NZ last year were crimes by immigrants because of religious or nationalistic disputes: but based on what I read in the newspaper I’d be shocked and stunned if I found that it was more than a tiny percentage.
That’s why Winston Peters and Tim Barclay seem to me to be engaged in the very traditional exercise of peddling irrational xenophobia. There may be countries that have major problems with violence amongst immigrant groups which they could best solve by limiting immigration by certain ethnic groups. But I can’t see any evidence that NZ is one of those countries.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
“automagically” – great word, especially when talking about religion and identity etc. Not sure if planned or a typo…
February 13th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Ms Marple
the argument you seem to use is one that is fundimentally wrong.
David says somthign equivilent to “X is bad – X is worse than Y” (according to some scale) then you say “you cant say that because Y is bad also.
that is equivilent to hinm saying 2 is bigger number than one and you disputing that because “one is a number”.
Even if both christianity and islam have similar reasons for extreemism it is still valid to comment that one tends to result in more extreemism than the other and surely that is the case. I expect most would acept that on most scales we would say budhism results in less than christianity so it is hardly just a xenophobic criteria.
> More that I just don’t accept that demonising Islam as the problem is accurate or constructive
If Islam IS the problem but at the same time it is not constructive to talk about it as the problem then what do we do? lie to ourselves?
This is the same sort of argument you could have for opposing freedom.
Personally I give that argument little credit – I want to determine the truth THEN decide what to do about it.
D Blake,
> When insurgents attack the West is that not war?
War must have clear objectives for victory and make reasonable attempts to achieve those aims and not kill civilians. terrorism has unclear aims and focuses on civilians.
Ben wilson
> Why bother with blowing yourself up when well armed GIs can throw grenades
This is to an extent my point. But I think you need to ask the next question for your argument to matter and that is WAHT IS the support forthe comparable action – for example is it “how many people support the bombing of aljazeera?”
(just a suggestion)
Your question
“What number of americans supported a war that everyone knew would kill thousands upon thousands of civilians? 60%? More?”
Is a wrong question because that is more like
“how many iraqi’s support resisting occupation despite the fact that they know it will result in thousands of civilian deaths” those two numbers might be (and should be) comparable.
> ” Are they less violent and extreme because they can say ‘well the bombs aren’t *targetting* civilians’? I don’t think so.”
you must be wrong here because you talk about “less”. You remove all meaning from the words that you use if you make the statement above.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Put the Numbers in Perspective!
Some salient points from
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
[QUOTE]
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years.
[/QUOTE]
Muslim extremism is vastly more widespread and dangerous the “Christian extremism”. Christian extremism is a myth perpetuated by leftists, as part of their usual tactic of smearing the opposition to shut down debate.
This serves as a useful distraction from their efforts to outlaw corporal punishment, bring in universal ID cards (in the UK), and hide their egregious failures such as Prostitution law reform, NCEA, or Wananga largesse.
February 13th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
David says somthign equivilent to “X is bad – X is worse than Y” (according to some scale) then you say “you cant say that because Y is bad also.
ge, you’ve misunderstood the argument.My problem with David’s argument is that he is supporting his argument that X is the problem because X is bad by offering a comparison between X and Y, where he was incorrectly asserting that Y was good. My whole point was that X and Y can both be shown to be bad through examples that tend to illustrate X and Y are tools within the problem, rather than the problem themselves.
that is equivilent to hinm saying 2 is bigger number than one and you disputing that because “one is a number”.
No it is not. I think if you actually read it, you’ll find it is actually more like talking about whether a specific religion can be held responsible for the excesses of extremism.
Even if both christianity and islam have similar reasons for extreemism it is still valid to comment that one tends to result in more extreemism than the other and surely that is the case. I expect most would acept that on most scales we would say budhism results in less than christianity so it is hardly just a xenophobic criteria.
Sure, this is the first half sensible thing you’ve said. But it is only half sensible. Essentially, my problem with DPF’s post, as I have quite clearly stated already, is that he uses a false assumption about Christian extremism to promote the role of Islam in extremism generally. Rejecting DPF’s assertions demonstrates that there are demonstrable common strands running between extremist events across religions. My contention remains that these strands offer a much more useful basis for analysing the problems posed by extremism than what DPF was doing.
If Islam IS the problem but at the same time it is not constructive to talk about it as the problem then what do we do? lie to ourselves?
If you’ll go back and read what I’ve written, I was in actual fact suggesting that Islam IS NOT the problem. If you want to argue that it is be my guest, I’m happy to debate you on the point, but please read my comments properly before launching into a smug sophistic commentary on how you’re actually looking for truth in the face of freedom-haters when all you have really done is misread everything I’ve written.
terrorism has unclear aims and focuses on civilians.
So are you claiming that Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, IRA and ETA have unclear aims? I’m pretty sure your definition here is inadequate.
you must be wrong here because you talk about “less”. You remove all meaning from the words that you use if you make the statement above.
Are you proposing that there are no degrees to violence and extremism? To use your rationale, isn’t that like arguing we couldn’t claim that one is fewer than 2 because it makes ones and twos meaningless when all we need to know is that they’re numbers?
February 13th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Muslim extremism is vastly more widespread and dangerous the “Christian extremism”. Christian extremism is a myth perpetuated by leftists, as part of their usual tactic of smearing the opposition to shut down debate.
This serves as a useful distraction from their efforts to outlaw corporal punishment, bring in universal ID cards (in the UK), and hide their egregious failures such as Prostitution law reform, NCEA, or Wananga largesse.
Here’s fun! How has prostitution law reform been ‘an egregious failure’?
February 13th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Peasant, more people were killed in a week in Srebrenica than died in the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.
The Lord’s Resistance Army have killed more people in 18 years in Uganda than Muslim extremists have in 60 years in the Middle East.
Phalangists killed more refugees in Sabra and Shatila in 36 hours than Muslim extremists have ever managed in 36 hours.
And in just seconds in 1945, 11 Christian men killed up to 40 times as many Japanese civilians as were killed on September 11.
We can argue Hiroshima if you like, but I’d suggest that all these civilian deaths are regrettable. It is pointless trying to frame violence with statistics to show that your side is better than the other side, or that the other side is inherently flawed or is somehow evil incarnate. The thing about statistics is that they’re all horse shit without decent analysis. Crying about “leftist myths” is not decent analysis nor constructive to the debate that you claim “leftists” want to shut down.
February 13th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Ms Marple,
> I was in actual fact suggesting that Islam IS NOT the problem.
This is the conclusion you came to and the argument I was addressing. By the way – what did you think i was adressing?
Your whole argument focuses around Christianity not being pure and then moves towards that conclusion.
I dont think you have suported that argument and therefore you havent rejectd the substantive part of DF’s argument. (although I’ll accept that more than a few hundred christians are crazy, but it is a straw man to argue that various peopel can be crazy).
> So are you claiming that Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, IRA and ETA have unclear aims?
Maybe I didn
February 13th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
And in just seconds in 1945, 11 Christian men killed up to 40 times as many Japanese civilians as were killed on September 11.
Nagasaki, btw, was a city with a large Christian population – they thought that was why the US wasn’t bombing them despite all the shipyards.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Hi dim,
I’m not particularly in favour of the proliferation of underage street hookers. It’s NZ’s worst legislation in years.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
I’m not particularly in favour of the proliferation of underage street hookers.
Hi Peasant – I think you’re confused. Prostitution law reform didn’t change the age of consent. It’s still illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of consent. Besides which, I highly doubt you can present me with any credible proof that the law has increased the number of underage sex-workers.
It’s NZ’s worst legislation in years.
What you’re saying is that you don’t like the law – but that doesn’t make it a failure.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Well Dave it’s clear from your resident screaming trolls that Islamic terrorism is a myth.
Don’t you feel safer already?
February 14th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Well done Murray for characterising generally atypical well-thought-out and noise-free discussion and rebuttal of DPF’s claims as “trolls”, as well as misrepresenting their core premises. Nowhere on this page does *anyone* suggest that Islamic terrorism and extremism is a myth; to do so would be nothing short of disrespectful to those affected by it. Your over-simplification is worthy of being labelled a troll itself; however, I’ll leave that to others less patient than myself.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:39 am
The Pew survey answers the Christian vs Islamic extremism issue. The two countries with the greatest concern about Islamic extremism are in fact Muslim countries. I’m inclined to think that if they see it as a problem then it probably is. And however much one might think that the problem has other root causes, Islamic terrorists do in fact self-identify as Muslim and they couch their objectives in terms of religion. It’s probably worth taking them at their word. Afterall, abortion clinic bombers are indeed religious extremists, do we really think that we need to look for their “root” causes?
February 14th, 2006 at 10:47 am
neil, I assume you’re talking about Morocco and Pakistan who topped the list of Muslim nations concerned about Islamic extremism. The problem with using this as an example in support of DPF’s initial proposition, that Islam is the problem, is that in Pakistan 6% expressed an opinion that Islam was the most violent religion and in Morocco it was only only 3%. So concern about extremism in these nations cannot be directly correlated to a concern about Islam, just a concern about extremism.
And can someone please deal with Christian extremism other than abortion clinic bombers. I’ve given you some examples to start you off, but I guess they don’t fit into your established world view as it applies to this debate and you’d rather sit back with your talking points, prejudices and preconceptions and agree with each other about the great evil that is Islam. Wake up.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Ms Marple said “So concern about extremism in these nations cannot be directly correlated to a concern about Islam, just a concern about extremism.”
Not so, the question explicitly asks about Islamic extremism: “How much of a threat, if any, does Islamic extremism pose to your country these days…”. Can’t get more straight forwardd than that. Since many Muslims feel this to be a threat I’m inclined to believe them. And the question is about Islamic extremism not whether Islam as a religion is violent, so one would expect Muslims to say that their religion is not violent.
You’re off on a tangent with the “the great evil that is Islam” bit. The discusion is on the nature of terrorism that is done in the name of Islam.
Why not deal with abortion clinic bombers – they are Christian terrorists in one of the most Christian countries most involved with all of this? Do you consider it necessary to consider their root causes?
February 14th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Ben: I never mentioned the fires of hell: they are a metaphorical description as Jesus also spoke of those being cast into the outer darkness (fire equals light from my schooldays learning). I simply made the point choices have consequences. If Jesus was a great moral teacher then he also says if you reject him publicly then he will reject you before the Father. Your beef is with Jesus not me. Incidentally CS Lewis said people couldn
February 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Leigh,
I was kind of kidding about Pepsi and Coke. You were talking down what Jesus said happens to people that don’t choose Christianity, as though it was really not a major choice. But it is a major choice to be a christian, actually, and Jesus seems to make that quite plain, if you believe his witnesses. I make no judgements (at this time) about the good sense of that choice other than to say it is not my choice.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
http://last-straw.net/2006/02/211/
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve run into right-wingers who seem to have an unwavering belief that the crimes of their foes are be loudly proclaimed and harshly punished while their own crimes are to be wholly justified in the pursuit of…
February 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Have you read the Quoran Leigh???
I think it not as your characterisation that the prophet was violent and that the quoran is violent till the end is quite incorrect. The majority of the violence in the teachings of the prophet are around defense of one’s self and lands when attacked.
No different to the eye for an eye principle mentioned in the Bible. Reading a Muslim Biography on the prophet is not substitute for reading the book itself. If you feel compelled to comment on such things then it might do you well to have at least read the fundamental document that underpins the religion your criticising. It would be exactly the same if I was to base my criticisms of the catholic church based on having read the Da Vinci code, without having read the bible.
Boy there are some scarily ignorant people on this board! (I’m not referring to you specifically here Leigh). but seriously some of you need to really check your facts before you gratuitously spout off. Not of course that I am perfect but I do like to check my facts from several angles before I comment on this.
But then the reason I choose to remain agnostic is that I prefer not to allow the moral judgements created by men who profess to serve whatever omnipotent beings they believe in, to act as blinkers from seeking the truth. The way men organise and corrupt religions has not only been at the root cause of much of conflicts, oppression and outright human stupidity since religions began to be organised.
Not only that but most ought to be an embarrassment to any deity worshipped by them given that the vast majority of faiths proclaim peace and love, yet show themselves to be mostly intolerant, narrow minded and mostly a mechanism of social control. It amazes me the number of people who believe that god is an omnipotent being, yet feel that the only way to commune with god by means of regular meetings on certain days…
Sorry to offend some people but generally organised religions have done as much harm as good (and they have also done a lot of good to be fair), but Human spirituality and social evolution are now being held back, by beliefs systems that are still fundamentally rooted in their origins as forms of social control. We’ve witnessed the most phenomenal century of technological advancement where we’ve advanced further in the last 100 years than almost the rest of history combined and yet our social systems have not really evolved from those developed in the latter half of the 19th century and ealry 20th…
BTW for what its worth I’ve read both the bible and the quoran, but not the talmud (hence I wont comment on the jewish religion!)
February 15th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Have you read the Quoran Leigh???
I think it not as your characterisation that the prophet was violent and that the quoran is violent till the end is quite incorrect. The majority of the violence in the teachings of the prophet are around defense of one’s self and lands when attacked.
No different to the eye for an eye principle mentioned in the Bible. Reading a Muslim Biography on the prophet is not substitute for reading the book itself. If you feel compelled to comment on such things then it might do you well to have at least read the fundamental document that underpins the religion your criticising. It would be exactly the same if I was to base my criticisms of the catholic church based on having read the Da Vinci code, without having read the bible.
Boy there are some scarily ignorant people on this board! (I’m not referring to you specifically here Leigh). but seriously some of you need to really check your facts before you gratuitously spout off. Not of course that I am perfect but I do like to check my facts from several angles before I comment on this.
But then the reason I choose to remain agnostic is that I prefer not to allow the moral judgements created by men who profess to serve whatever omnipotent beings they believe in, to act as blinkers from seeking the truth. The way men organise and corrupt religions has not only been at the root cause of much of conflicts, oppression and outright human stupidity since religions began to be organised.
Not only that but most ought to be an embarrassment to any deity worshipped by them given that the vast majority of faiths proclaim peace and love, yet show themselves to be mostly intolerant, narrow minded and mostly a mechanism of social control. It amazes me the number of people who believe that god is an omnipotent being, yet feel that the only way to commune with god by means of regular meetings on certain days…
Sorry to offend some people but generally organised religions have done as much harm as good (and they have also done a lot of good to be fair), but Human spirituality and social evolution are now being held back, by beliefs systems that are still fundamentally rooted in their origins as forms of social control. We’ve witnessed the most phenomenal century of technological advancement where we’ve advanced further in the last 100 years than almost the rest of history combined and yet our social systems have not really evolved from those developed in the latter half of the 19th century and ealry 20th…
BTW for what its worth I’ve read both the bible and the quoran, but not the talmud (hence I wont comment on the jewish religion!)
February 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
“It amazes me the number of people who believe that god is an omnipotent being, yet feel that the only way to commune with god by means of regular meetings on certain days…”
you forgot the “omnipresent” bit (ie Holy Spirit), as well as “omniscient”. Because of these your amazement is not required. If you want to talk to him, he’ll hear you.
In christianity one is ‘joined’ with christ -having identified with his death & resurrection, one ‘receives’ the presence of the Holy Spirit. So regular meetings are not necessary in order to “commune with god” as you put it.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Hi Max,
Yes I understand that – I was referring to the organisations that have sprung up around these spiritual beleifs that seem to insist on a great deal of order and control (including regular “meetings”), and rely on indoctrinating people into a very narrow set of behavioural practices. My personal belief is that whatever you wish to call the omnipotent being, and whatever beleif system you may follow, you know in your heart what is right and wrong.
It seems to me that the vast majority of spiritual “leaders” seem unable or unwilling to look at life from a larger perspective and instead want to enforce moral codes that are not always workable or realistic of human nature… Love thy neighbour seems to be an increasingly fragile concept these days.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Can you be a good Muslim and not beleive in Sharia Law? Islam is an idiology that permits no other idioligies but itself. It is time to decide if we are prepared to defend our freedoms and values. It is not about race or culture but our right to exist as people. Adolf Hitler said any country taht is not prepared to defend itself does not deserve to exist. It is time to decide if we want our culture to exist.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
“Adolf Hitler said any country taht is not prepared to defend itself does not deserve to exist. It is time to decide if we want our culture to exist.”
Dang, well, you got me there. You’re appealing to authority using… Hitler? Isn’t that a kind of odd approach to argument?
April 13th, 2006 at 9:04 am
I surfed here by chance as I was looking for some debate over a question that has been bugging my simple mind. In the mind of an Islamic extremist – How far is too far in the war against the infidel? They will blow up themselves and innocents to get to the infidel so would total anhialation of the world be out of the question? Theres always the option of wrapping a single nuke in cobalt60, setting it off and poisoning all life on the planet.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Theres always the option of wrapping a single nuke in cobalt60, setting it off and poisoning all life on the planet.
“I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy atthe bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.”
“How long would you have to stay down there?”
“I would think that uh possibly one hundred years.”
“You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?”
“It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh… I’m sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess… that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.”
“Well I… I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.”
“Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.”
“Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
“Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature”