- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,931
- Reaction score
- 1,743
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Changing the subject to the behavior of Christians 200 or 1200 years ago is not understanding. It is merely an excuse. Diminishing the extent to which certain beliefs are held is not understanding. It is merely dishonest. Advancing the same rationales as Islamists to justify their actions is not understanding. It is merely useful idiocy.
THose who claim to "understand" might be better served by attempting to actually understand instead of simply deciding ahead of time that they must defend and then spending the entirety of their postings doing so no matter what.
As regards the first point, often this is not a case of changing the subject. Given that the disscussion normally focuses around whether these actions are an inherent part of Islam it is neccesary to look at other examples. Thus violence and authoritarianism are no more an inherent part of Islam then they are of Christiality, both have been varied in different situations. And we dont need to go back 200 years, we need only go back to the break-up of Yugoslavia, The Spanish Civil War and facist Croatia. And this is an important point as the myth that this extremism is inherent to the entire muslim world is part of a wider agenda of dehumanising those on the recieving end of Western foreign policy. It can be used to justify some our long standing policy of support for authoritarianism in the region, are wreakless disregard for civillan causualties in Iraq and Afganistan and our torture of innocent people in Guantanomo. The fact that someone is willing to blow themselves up about these grevences does not mean that these grevences are illegitimate, only that the action is illegitimate.
Ultimatly I dont except that these traits are inherent to Islam as I dont see the evidence. The lack of support for Islam electorally and the comparatively benine history that Islam has in tolerating other religeons (again it is necessary to make the comparison to Christiality here) convince me other wise, but im open to changing my mind on this. Thats why im here, however what normally happens is that you debate me rather then the topic.
We have a differing interpretation of why these actions occur, so the rational responce to this would be to actually come to the truth about which is correct via a rational and honest discussion. That is to say one in which both sides looks at the reasons why the other has come to this conclusion and asks themselves whether the reasons and the conclusions for them are valid. This is never the case because not only do you insist on making up my opinions for me but coming up with completely false reasons for holding opinions that I dont, in reality, hold in the first place.
Last edited: