Death,
>Coach, you missed my point, your post, clearly insinuated that
>the west had no right to tell those violent muslims that
>their actions were unnacceptable, simply because they are
>guilty of not allowing freedom of speech. My response was
>simply that it's irrelevant, as their hypocrisy has no
>bearing on the fact that the violent reactions by muslims was
>wrong and unnacceptable PERIOD!!!
Well, you assumed wrong! My post was intended to show that there are double standards. I don't know where how you understood it to support the violent actions of others. I was adressing the issue of the CARICATURES and how some supported their publication claiming that in Europe people were free to express themselves; my post (the sentencing of the hisotian Irving) proved the contrary. If you are seeing other things then you need to re-read several times until you comprehend things as they really are in front of you instead of trying to figure what you presume I "insinuated".
It is NOT acceptable to have
>a physical/violent reaction to a non violent action.
>And though I generally don't like making blanket statements, I
>have to say that I agree with a prior post about there seeming
>to be something inherently wrong with Islam.
This rather explains why you had difficulty comprehending the post - your presumptions and prejuduces are fogging your thought.
>Now don't get me wrong, I've read and understand your posts
>that show that the actions of these renegade muslims run
>contrary to Islamic doctrine and the teachings of the Quaran,
>but my point is that while this may be in fact the teaching in
>theory, there definitley seems to be something wrong in
>practice, as Islam seems to be a religion that continually and
>consistantly produces individuals (though they are by no means
>the majority) that are all too ready to turn to violence in
>the name of their God, and this is obviously a problem.
I don't know how you can understand that it is not Islamic, not done by a majority, but still find it in your heart to contradict this by saying Islam is the problem.
It is indeed a problem when people kill innocent people or destroy property in the 'name of God', but you have to look deeper to understand the root causes of their behaviour.
>Another thing I was thinking about, is the fact that when I
>think about it, all the modern day violent religous conflicts
>that come to mind, seem to have Muslims as a common factor.
>Whether they be fighting with Indians, Jews, Christians, or
>some random african religion.
So does this make you come to the conclusion that the problem really lies with the faith itself? Or are you smarter (as you seem to be) and can analyze things further - i.e....
- That the British gave Palestinian land to European Jews after Hitler killed them and that caused the current conflict between Jews and Muslims
- That the US and GB support despotic regimes that supress the people in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries for their own monetary interests (e.g. Saddam for over two decades, Mubarak, Musharraf of Pakistan, the Saud family of Arabia, the Sabah of Kuwait etc)
- That the French, the US and GB helped overturn a legitimate government in Algeria after the Islamic party won the elections democratically in 1992 which threw the whole country in turmoil, a cicil war followed which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands
- That the Chechen Muslims have been butchered and their women reaped by the Russians for over two decades because of the potential of natural resources in teh Caucasus
- That the US funded militia in Afghanistan in order to defeat the communist USSR and left them to rule the country, only to come back two decades later and call them Al-Qaeda
...and so on. Do you see what is actually hapenning in the world or do you just sit back on your sofa watching the news and decided the common denominator was Islam and that had to be the problem?
>I've noticed that Islam is a religion that greatly lacks the
>ability to coexist with different faiths or the lack thereof.
>Part of coexisting with other religions, is realizing that
>other people will NOT have the same reverence or respect for
>your religion (or its figures) that you have! This seems to be
>unnaceptable to muslims. They seem to want everyone to share
>their respect, when they gain in numbers, they want Sheria law
>to be implemented etc. As I said earlier, it seems to be a
>religion that simply cannot coexist.
Here you show your lack of knowledge when it comes to Islamic or European history. The Islamic Spain was one of the best examples of religions co-exitsing with each other. Sharia Law was applied and the Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully side by side; the spanish call it LA CONVIVENCIA! Google the word and you'll find lots to read.
During this period, the Muslim scholars of Spain translated the works of the Greek scholars from Greek to Arabic to Latin and Spain was flourishing with knowledge and scientific innovation (during this time, Europe was in the 'Dark Ages'). This knowledge was then passed on to Eorprean scholars who first came to study and learn from the Muslims of Spain and after the 'Reconquest', the Muslims were perscuted by the forces of Isabella and Ferdinand (the Sapnish Inquisition among others) and eventually the work done by the Muslim scholars found its way to the rest of Europe and it was one of the main factors that led to The Enlightenment.
>Now granted, in the past, Christians have been responsible for
>the same crimes, but giving credit where it's due, they have
>evolved much as a religion, and generally we don't see the
>same reaction Christians under similar circumstances. Take for
>instance the example of Piss Christ:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
>That is an image of not a prohet, but their God, dipped in
>someones Urine and blood!!!!!! and yet there were no buildings
>being burnt down and no people being murdered. I can only
>imagine the reaction if it was a depiction of some Islamic
>figure!
Christians have not "evolved" as a religion, the powers of the Church were taken away and the church has become somewhere where most people in the west visit when they get married or when they die. This took a long time and the reasons that led to this were the rise of Protestant Christianity with Martin Luther and John Calvin and most importantly The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Most of the people in the west today regard themselves as atheists and not Christians so theri actions cannot be judged in the same light as Muslims.
Do you remember when the Anglican church in USA brought in a gay priest? It was the Africans who made the most noise, notably the Kenyans and Nigerians. They still don't recognise that priest and see his appointment as a perversion of their faith, this shows you the role (or lack of) that religion has in the west. Also, in case you have missed the online discussion here and the tones of articles discussing the cartoons, depicting God or the Prophet Muhammad is totally forbidden - such a view is not found among Christians who depict Jesus and have statues of him in Catholic Churches where some have a blond Jesus, some brunette and some even a black Jesus. People in the west have also been mocking Jesus and Christianity for centuries and Christians all overt he world have pretty much grown accustomed to it.