[Closed] The Holy Quran Experiment.

Meanwhile, society continues to evolve, despite the resistance of the usual lame religious nonsense.

Must be god working in mysterious ways, eh?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bishops-in-house-of-lords-should-make-way-for-leaders-of-other-religions-a6762821.html

Catholics, jews, christians and even atheists haven't had to endure a decades long campaign of violent tyrannical abuse from a far superior military aggressor, raining down fire and hell from above..

Many people in countries where Muslims use the Quran to justify violence have possibly been victims of what looks remarkably similar to a holy war waged by the west for generations..

Silly little boys sat in their lovely safe warm luxurious houses, watching videos on youtube, dismissing religion and deciding that Muslims are dangerous because of a book, need their ****ing bumps read..

idiots.. Dangerous ****ing weak minded little idiots
Books don't start wars.. Violent brutal bastards start wars

SaxonRider

But if you want to raise the massacre of Jerusalem as indicative of what the Crusades were about, then you must equally realise that Latin crusaders also sacked and destroyed Constantinople, raping and pillaging fellow Christians, simply for being Greek. So not all about Christianity versus Islam then, but also about 'other' and 'difference'.

I thought they couldn't tell or didn't care to discriminate between the Christians and Muslims?

yunki - Member

Catholics haven't had to endure a decades long campaign of violent tyrannical abuse from a far superior military aggressor, raining down fire and hell from above..

See Ireland.

See Ireland.. Ireland's completely irrelevant to the discussion you prat

yunki - Member
See Ireland.. Ireland's completely irrelevant to the discussion you prat

Ok.. It's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make

yunki - Member
Ok.. It's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make

The "west's" motivation is fairly transparent. It's another battle for resources. It doesn't look anything other than that.

not to mention the continual persecution of the Jewish faith in Europe, prety much since their exodus.

This is not on theological grounds, it's because they are a different tribe. Surely this must be obvious?

As SaxonRider points out, human beings are tribal. Way back, we had actual tribes we could use to exclude people from 'us', but as these dissolved we started using other things. Religion has been used as a differentiator, but in most cases the people of different religion are quite likely of different origin too, for obvious reasons.

Sunni vs Shia is about as close as it gets to a purely religious conflict*, but I have a feeling genuine theological difference have long since been converted into simple 'them' and 'us'.

* even then not very, there's a lot of power struggle involved.

<mod>
We've just gone back in time 20 minutes. Kindly conduct yourselves a little less aggressively.
</mod>

[img] [/img]

😆

Heh! 🙂 good moderation

I'm pretty certain that you don't really have an inkling what it looks like from on the ground seosamh..

Maybe I don't either, but I think to dismiss my theory outright is a little narrow minded, and only strengthens the point I was making about perceptions

I'm more than willing to accept my view is coloured from the standpoint that religion is irrelevant largely and not where the debate should be focused in the slightest. In that, I don't think I'm wrong.

Like I said earlier on, look at ISIS, is their main focus on actually setting up a religious caliphate or just setting up a system where they can easily funnel out the oil money from the region? The scary religious caliphate part looks like a easy way to have a compliant populous while you drain the area of resources.

Take away access to the resources and the "caliphate" will collapse like a deck of cards, imo. (there in lies the source of the questions we should be asking, who's benefiting from the cheap oil that ISIS are exporting.)

Imo with every conflict ever fought the main focus should be on who's cashing in. But the focus never is.

yunki - Member

Heh! good moderation

Yes, great moderation. Removes my riposte to you calling me a prat by pointing out that catholics in Ireland were murdered in their millions by the english while their country was stripped for all of it's natural resources to supply the british military industrial machine for hundreds of years. They were enslaved before any africans, treated as sub human. Their land was stolen from them, their language and culture outlawed and how this led to numerous violent uprisings and a recent violent terrorist campaign, and how this was analogous in many ways to current problems in the middle east.

It also removed your incredibly insightful and intelligent comment that these were "cosy views" and your casual lazy racist insult.

Super moderation from your pov.

It'd have been easier to clean up in a neater fashion if you two hadn't made it such a shit tip in the first place. If I'd pared back any further I might as well have deleted the thread. So chill.

It'd have been easier to clean up in a neater fashion if you two hadn't made it such a shit tip in the first place. If I'd pared back any further I might as well have deleted the thread. So chill.

Best comment ever. 😀

I do find it somewhat ironic that the anti-religious brigade are more agressive in these debates. Its consistent with Dawson where if a religious figure was as aggressive they'd be off air pretty quickly.

In general I agree with @seaso's post that in most cases religion isn't the cause of the conflicts but the tool people abuse to manipulate the easily manipulated to extreme action. It's also true that all regions even Buddhists and including Christianity and Judaism have in their histories examples of abuse and murder in the name of religion.
This does seem to be much more of a problem with Islam than other religions today however, the scale is completely different.

I find there is a conflict between the "let them get on with it" so don't "rain bombs down on them" and the long list of of human rights abuses campaigners complain of when "they" are allowed to "get on with it" such as in Saudi or even Turkey or conflicts such as the Iran /Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. There is also the substantial and fundamental conflict between a strict traditional interpretation of Islam and the western democracies we live in.

jambalaya

It's also true that all regions even Buddhists and including Christianity and Judaism have in their histories examples of abuse and murder in the name of religion.
This does seem to be much more of a problem with Islam than other religions today however, the scale is completely different.

Where is Islam prevalent, where are the west's financial interests? where do we sell the most weapons?

There is also the substantial and fundamental conflict between a strict traditional interpretation of Islam and the western democracies we live in.

There's a conflict between a strict traditional interpretation of Christianity and the way we treat women or homosexuals, or our slaves. It's there if you want to look for it.

Our society is pretty much incompatible with the rigid interpretation of any abrahamic religion but people would like to imagine Islam is particularly problematic. It's not. It's the issues that arrise when people migrate from extremely conservative societies to extremely liberal ones and find incompatibilities. Coupled to terrorist sympathiser David Cameron's no.1 arms customer Saudi Arabia infiltrating mosques in order to spread their own radical dogma which deepens the cultural divide.

The "west's" motivation is fairly transparent. It's another battle for resources. It doesn't look anything other than that.

The media certainly help do the job of selling it to the public too.

I don't see how it's a battle for resources, since we've been happily been buying the oil from a variety of regimes anyway, and they need our market.

There is also the substantial and fundamental conflict between a strict traditional interpretation of Islam and the western democracies we live in.

Jam, you appear to know absolutely jack shit about Islam - don't you think it's a bit arrogant to be telling us all these essential truths about it?

If it is that (and I don't doubt you) why do we always let them get away with calling the conflicts "war on terror", or "lets kick assad isis daesh out of syria"?

The West has a better marketing department?

molgrips

I don't see how it's a battle for resources, since we've been happily been buying the oil from a variety of regimes anyway, and they need our market.

I could be wrong but I think the U.S buys 15% of it's oil from Saudi. I'm not sure about Britain. Over one year that might seem insignificant but obviously they are in it for the long haul.

Then consider what proportion of the UK economy is derived from the arms industry and who it's customers are. I've seen various figures and percentages bandied about but they are all substantial.

I don't want to sound like jivehoneyjive but perhaps the uk economy needs the arms industry, the arms industry needs the military to buy weapons, and the military needs the government to wage war for this to happen.

Jam, you appear to know absolutely jack shit about Islam - don't you think it's a bit arrogant to be telling us all these essential truths about it?

To be honest he is completely in line with the majority of people who post on religion on here.

molgrips - Member
I don't see how it's a battle for resources.

I think "resources" is probably a bit too strict a term tbh, although if you take a wider view of what resourses are then, possibly not.

Take Iraq in fairly simplistic terms, sell them weapons (arms manufacturers cash in), destroy the infrastructure (the tax payer gets robbed to pay for this, as the arms manufactuers and various other cash in) rebuild the infrastructure (The companies awarded the contracts coin it in.) etc etc. like I say an extremely basic view for illustration purposes as there are a million gaps in the above you could fill in but there's always financial motivation for these wars.

In the end up, what do you have, tax payers robbed and the target countries are also robbed.

They really should just present war as an excel spreadsheet in cold hard numbers, then we'd know exactly the motivations for it and who are the main instigators/beneficiaries. These wars aren't just about claiming the wealth of the target country, they are designed to steal the home countries wealth aswell.

And tbh, I don't really view this as "Western" problem, too simplistic. Many hands will be in the pot. It's a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, as per..

• The Assad family belongs to the tolerant Islam of Alawid orientation.
• Syrian women have the same rights as men to study, health and education.
• Syria women are not forced to wear the burqa. The Sharia (Islamic law) is unconstitutional.
• Syria is the only Arab country with a secular constitution and does not tolerate Islamic extremist movements.
• Roughly 10% of the Syrian population belongs to one of the many Christian denominations, all fully integrated in Syrian political and social life.
• In other Arab countries the Christian population is less than 1% due to sustained hostility.
• Syria has banned genetically modified (GMO) seeds, stating his decision was made in order “to preserve human health,”
• Syria has an opening to Western society and culture like no other Arab country.
• Its media and universities openly debate the global power elite’s influence in things. This means that they fully grasp the fact that real power in the West lies not in the White House but rather with the complex and powerful grid of elite think-tanks and central banks.
• Throughout history there have been five popes of Syrian origin. Religious tolerance is unique in the area.
• Prior to the current civil war, Syria was one of the only peaceful countries in the area, having avoided major wars or internal conflicts.
• Syria was the only country that admitted Iraqi refugees without any social, political or religious discrimination
• Syria clearly and unequivocally opposes Zionism and the Israel government.
• Following a massive oil find in Syria's Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, Netanyahu recently asked Obama to recognize its annexation of the territory. To consolidate its hold, plans are afoot to quadruple Israeli settler numbers to 100,000.

And the most two important points:
• Syria is one of the only countries in the Middle East without debts to the International Monetary Fund ( Pre-invasion Libya & Iran the only others )
• Syria is the only Mediterranean country which remains the owner of its oil company, with an oil reserve of 2,500 million barrels, the operation of which has avoided privatization and is reserved exclusively for state-owned enterprises.

So now ask yourself, why are we truly attempting to overthrow yet another government? What are we hoping to fix here?

If the recent invasions and illegal assassinations of Presidents like Qaddafi and Saddam have taught us anything, it should be the understanding of the blowback effect of such lawless actions by the West and the vacuum of chaos that always supersedes it.

Debt Conquer. Invent a reason to invade and destroy, then offer $Trillions in IMF funding to rebuild... conveniently paid back by control of your oil fields...

this?

I think there's ample truth in both seosamh77 and yunki's posts above, but it's still just pieces of the puzzle, rather than the bigger picture.

Add into the mix that [url= http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204412 ]Israel has been Bombing Syrian Government forces[/url]:

Syrian state media on Friday reported that overnight the Israeli Air Force (IAF) conducted an airstrike on a regime army base just outside of Damascus, apparently striking a shipment of Scud missiles.

The Syrian sources, including those identified with Bashar al-Assad's regime, said the target on Thursday night was a convoy from the base of the Syrian Army Brigade 155 in Al-Katifa, a northern suburb of Damascus, according to Channel 2.

A convoy of four trucks loaded with ballistic missiles was hit in the strike, and according to the report, the base houses long-range Scud missiles that are shipped from there to northern Syria as part of the civil war.

[b]The strike would seem to indicate that even after Russian began its massive military involvement in Syria and deployed its advanced S-400 air defense system in the country, Israel continues to act freely and apparently in coordination with Moscow.[/b]

Netanyahu confirms actions

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just this Tuesday confirmed that Israel occasionally conducts airstrikes in Syria, in the most explicit acknowledgement yet of the strikes long reported in the Arab press.

Obviously this will play a part in Israel's actions...

• Syria clearly and unequivocally opposes Zionism and the Israel government.

But why doesn't Israel consider ISIS a threat?

Zoom out a touch and here is another piece of the puzzle:

Here is a map to help familiarise you with the positions of the various countries mentioned... (bearing in mind also Saudi Arabia's current bombardment of Yemen, with the support of allied forces)

[img] [/img]

We know the UK and US played a significant role in the overthrow of Gaddafi and the destabilisation of Libya:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Also that Western Intelligence Services have been actively involved in aiding Syrian Rebels to destabilize Assad's regime:

[img] [/img]

What other covert actions by the CIA, MI6 and their counterparts have been occuring behind the scenes in the other countries involved in the Arab Spring?

and why?

but there's always financial motivation for these wars.

I'm not that cynical.

I see the same people having these arguments again and again here on STW. I detect little possibility on either side that their views are going to change. So what really is the point in this discussion?

So I'll weigh in... 😉

Those on the Christian religious side seem not to understand how centuries of religious establishment entitlement, the use of religion as causus belli for wars; the religious violence in the Balkans, in Ireland, in Africa; the interference of popes in AIDS health issues and liberation theology, the profound 20th century links between Catholicism, Fascism and Organised Crime, not to mention their treatment of children and poor women; leave many of us laughing when they attempt to differentiate themselves from Islam.

Take a book of dubious origin, interpreted by men who want power and admit no uncertainties, and populations for whom uncertainty and complexity is too difficult, and you get a lot of what's going on, and the psychopathology of religion.

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don't be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug "it wasn't us"...

If you are going to write Latin, it is always best to understand it.

causus belli for wars

It should be casus and belli is the genitive of bellum which means war so you only need to say "casus belli".

spot on re casus, but if I hadn't added wars, perhaps only you would have understood it.. The tautology was necessary

Nice bit of smug condescension btw... 😉

If it's time for corrections, I'd like to make an admission...

In many respects, SaxonRider was correct in these statements:

What is a 'Vatican Knight of Malta'? Do you mean a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta? Because if so, your statement above is incorrect, as one has to be a Catholic in order to be a member, and not all US presidents have been. As for the others, aside from Blair, I have no idea if they are Catholic or not.

The Sovereign Order of Malta is for Catholics. Full Stop. Jeb Bush is Catholic afaik, but the rest of the Bush family is NOT. Nor was Bill Clinton. So I ask again: what are you talking about?

This spurred me to do further research (leading by example on the whole do your own research thing 😉 ) and it turns out, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is just one branch of the larger network of Knights of Malta:

Together with the London-based Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (of which, the British monarch is Sovereign Head), the Swedish Johanniterorden i Sverige, and the Dutch Johanniter Orde in Nederland, the Order forms the Alliance of the Orders of St. John of Jerusalem. With the Roman Catholic Sovereign Military Order of Malta (the "SMOM"), these four "Alliance orders" represent the legitimate heirs of the Knights Hospitaller. They consider other orders using the name of Saint John to be merely imitative, and the Alliance and the SMOM have jointly formed a False Orders Committee (now renamed and reorganized as the Committee on Orders of St. John), with representatives of each of the five orders, for the purpose of exposing and taking action against such imitations.[4]

The Order and its affiliate orders in the Netherlands and Sweden, which became independent of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg after the Second World War, in 1946, are Protestant. The SMOM, headquartered in Rome, admits only men and women of the Roman Catholic faith.[5] The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, a revival of the mediaeval English Langue of the Order of Saint John, was chiefly Anglican at its formation in the nineteenth century but has since opened its membership to men and women of any faith.[6]

So I was wrong to state they were all 'Vatican' Knights of Malta, as

the legitimate heirs of the Knights Hospitaller

span across the Christian Faith, though the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is the Vatican Branch.

My source for this information, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_John_%28Bailiwick_of_Brandenburg%29 ]the Wikipedia page regarding the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg)[/url], also has a very interesting photo:

[img] [/img]

OK, on it's own, it just looks like some poncy costume, but considering [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_%28Freemasonry%29#The_Degree_of_Knight_of_Malta_.28Order_of_Malta.29 ]Knight of Malta is also a high rank of the York Rite of Freemasonry[/url], it's some coincidence how closely the ceremonial uniforms match:

[img] [/img]

There is more, but that will do for now...

spot on re casus, but if I hadn't added wars, perhaps only you would have understood it.. The tautology was necessary

I always think you should think the best of your audience - and failing that they seem to have pretty good google skills.

Nice bit of smug condescension btw...

A bene placito. (I looked that up)

Those on the Christian religious side seem not to understand how centuries of religious establishment entitlement, the use of religion as causus belli for wars; the religious violence in the Balkans, in Ireland, in Africa; the interference of popes in AIDS health issues and liberation theology, the profound 20th century links between Catholicism, Fascism and Organised Crime, not to mention their treatment of children and poor women; leave many of us laughing when they attempt to differentiate themselves from Islam.

Take a book of dubious origin, interpreted by men who want power and admit no uncertainties, and populations for whom uncertainty and complexity is too difficult, and you get a lot of what's going on, and the psychopathology of religion.

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don't be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug "it wasn't us"...

FFS.

In order to have written what you just have, you have to have ignored or disbelieved everything I wrote above.

When you say

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don't be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug "it wasn't us"...

It is like saying to a medieval historian

'And after hundreds of years of doing nothing but wreaking violence and death across the European continent, don't be surprised if us moderns get annoyed and rather strident about your smug defence of Medieval people.'

It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw in which, in the first panel, a woman sits down with her psychiatrist, who asks what the problem is. In the second panel, he squirts ink on her dress. In the third panel, after she explodes in anger at having had her clothes ruined, the psychiatrist writes in his notes 'Patient has anger issues'.

If you have decided, based on some sort of truth, that religion is the cause of [fill in the blank], or that the Catholic Church is responsible for [fill in the blank], then whatever is said in response, you will just be able to keep saying the same thing.

Again, I certainly don't believe that the Church or religion should be above criticism, and believe firmly that any attempt to suggest otherwise would be utterly ridiculous. What I think is necessary, though, is some accuracy, balance, and understanding in making criticism and hearing the response.

"It is like saying to a medieval historian "except for the bit where all the religious ills he pointed to were modern issues.

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don't be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug "it wasn't us"..

Er what?

What wasn't who?

And I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to differentiate themselves from Islam.

"It is like saying to a medieval historian "except for the bit where all the religious ills he pointed to were modern issues.

It's called an '[url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy ]analogy[/url]'.

I get that you think it is an analogy but it on first sight appears to be a false one.

Not a lot of balance coming from you SaxonRider. You've spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

A Lord's Resistance Army Commander says this:

Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to kill the innocent, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.

Tony Blair and George Bush both claim faith told them to invade Iraq, numerous right-wing Christian terrorists kill people in America on a regular basis, and religion was the justification for ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. There are also frequent instances of rounding up and massacring Muslims by Christians in Nigeria (and vice versa). Never mind horrific historical instances of genocide directly lead by the Catholic Church. But no, religion and more particularly Christianity has nothing to answer for.

People are happy to claim the good that religion does but when bad stuff is done in the name of religion (and more particularly Christianity) suddenly you can't attribute it to them.

Not a lot of balance coming from you SaxonRider. You've spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

Really? I thought I was saying that, while religion (and more particularly Christianity)'s responsibility for evil and suffering in the world should always be acknowledged, to cast it as any sort of sole cause, and to attribute to it characteristics and behaviours which go beyond its reach and responsibilities, is unhelpful and inaccurate.

How is this tantamount to saying that religion, and more particularly Christianity, has 'pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history'?

To be clear, I am perfectly happy that religion should accept responsibility for its failures; I just don't think that, when suggestions and accusations are made against religion, they are always well-informed.

You've spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

He hasn't in the least - here's a quote:

"Finally, I don't deny in any way, shape, or form the appalling, despicable, and utterly tragic abuses and massacres undertaken at times during the crusades."

Tony Blair and George Bush both claim faith told them to invade Iraq

I don't think that's accurate either. My memory suggests that Blair was quoted as saying he 'asked' God which was the right thing to do. That's pretty different.

Religion had very little, if anything, to, do with Blair and Bush's decisons. They where driven by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Sadam's attempt to blow up Bush senior with a car bomb and 9/11

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/04/labour.uk2 ]God will judge me, PM tells Parkinson[/url]

Tony Blair is reconciled to the prospect that God and history will eventually judge his decision to go to war with Iraq, and says his decision, like much of his policymaking, was underpinned by his Christian faith.

Mr Blair made the remarks in an appearance on Parkinson to be broadcast tonight, in which he spoke of the struggle with his conscience to do the right thing because people's lives are at stake.

Asked about Iraq, the prime minister said: "Well, I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that judgment is made by other people."

Questioned further, he added: "If you believe in God, [the judgment] is made by God as well."

Michael Parkinson asked: "So will you pray to God when you make a decision like that?" Mr Blair said merely: "Well, I don't want to get into something like that."

Unlike George Bush, who said God told him to launch the Iraq campaign, Mr Blair has taken care to keep his faith away from political discourse. He once bridled visibly when asked by Jeremy Paxman if he and Mr Bush prayed together. But he confirmed the thesis put forward by more than one biographer that it was his rediscovery of religion while at Oxford University which led him into politics.

[url= https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/2307/god-and-tony-blair ]God and Tony Blair

Does faith have a role in policy? The prime minister says yes.[/url]

The Yale seminar -- the first of three Blair will teach -- follows the unveiling last summer of his main project: the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which seeks to foster greater understanding among people of various religions by involving them in collaborative projects, such as development efforts and dialogue. The U.S. operations of the foundation will be headquartered at Yale.

Blair's goal is one of those simply stated yet vast undertakings: to make religion a force for good as globalization mixes together people of different cultures and faiths. Some people of faith have welcomed Blair's entrance into this arena; others have questioned whether, with his controversial past, he's the right man for the job. But in his classes at Yale and in a recent interview, Blair has begun to give voice to a belief that faith can, and perhaps should, have a role in public decisions.

Thanks JHJ I think that backs up my point re Blair.

[quote=jambalaya opined]Religion had very little, if anything, to, do with Blair and Bush's decisons. They where driven by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Sadam's attempt to blow up Bush senior with a car bomb and 9/11

Yes forum pay attention only the Muslims do bad things due to their religion as it says so in their book

Dont mention the Catholics and the holocaust, the Lords resistance Army Jews creating a homeland from the hands of terrorists then honouring them or christians discriminating against gay people as only Muslims do bad things at the behest of their God and Bush and Blair praying together and agreeing before any vote is a mere coincidence

Jambolloks innit.

jambalaya

Religion had very little, if anything, to, do with Blair and Bush's decisons. They where driven by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Sadam's attempt to blow up Bush senior with a car bomb and 9/11

Not that it'll bother you, but you've just gone down in my estimation jambalaya. I had you pegged as some kind of right wing, Britain First/EDL light nutter who loves trolling the lefties who very well might be on Israel's payroll to just .....troll. I iz disappoint.