The Holy Quran Experiment.

It kinda needs spelled out though, plenty people do. And when people continue to waffle nonsense and frame the religious part of the argumemt as being anyway important, beyond being a simple tactic.

And yes if people can’t see through that. They are stupid.

jhj, really, please don’t act like an idiot. If you want sources for the religion of US presidents, try here. Other than Kennedy, not a Catholic on the list.

In the meantime, trust me when I say I know something about the Vatican and how it works. There is no ‘Vatican Order of Malta’ and the Vatican doesn’t ‘ordain’ anyone to it. There is a Sovereign Order of Malta, and its membership is restricted to Catholics. See here to learn more.

Your vocabulary is the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

BTW the religious aspect of the tactic isn’t just reserved for the jihadi or the extremists. It’s a tactic widely used in our own current media to get people on board with the bombing campaigns etc.. Hence the anti Muslim nonesense that dominates our TV screens and newspapers.

BTW jimjam, no need to get so defensive. My comments are aimed more at the wider discussion than just you.

wanmankylung – Member
… Maybe the Crusaders (etc) were just a couple of hundred years ahead of ISIS (etc)?

Just over 100 years ago the British Imperium was doing this to Chinese “pirates”…

In the meantime, trust me when I say I know something about the Vatican and how it works. There is no ‘Vatican Order of Malta’ and the Vatican doesn’t ‘ordain’ anyone to it.

So I take it this is an exercise in grammar and pedantry?

There is a Sovereign Order of Malta, and its membership is restricted to Catholics.

What is the more common colloquial name of the Holy See which presides over the Catholic Faith?

Who Ordains Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta?

That said, you may have a point~ I may have misunderstood and the various different branches of the Christian Faith have there own entry paths into the wider structure of the Knights of Malta

The Knights of Malta or Knights Hospitaller were a Western Christian military order during the Middle Ages.

Knights of Malta may also refer to:

Order of Malta (Freemasonry), a Masonic order closely associated with the Masonic Knights Templar

Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the Rome-based successor of the Knights Hospitaller

Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg), the Berlin-based Protestant branch of the Order, from which it separated during the Reformation

Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), an English order of chivalry, parent body of St John Ambulance

Whether or not the Freemasonry Element of Knights of Malta comes into play is questionable, the similarity of insignia and titles and the fact that all branches of the Knights of Malta date back to Jerusalem and the crusades is insufficient to categorically state they are intrinsically linked.

Most of the bits in the Bible that are insane, cruel, evil and downright stupid came before Christ did, so it’s a relatively easy move to point out that Jesus didn’t seem to be especially bothered with stoning gay people or chasing menstruating women out of the village, therefore Christians can safely ignore them in favour of asking What Would Jesus Do?

Whereas the batshit insane bits of the Koran and the reasonable, civilised bits were all divinely revealed to one guy while he was busy winning a series of wars. There is no slam-dunk theologically sound method of declaring that the insane bits aren’t canon, although of course >95% of Muslims effectively ignore much of the worst of it, most of the time.

BigDummy – Member

Most of the bits in the Bible that are insane, cruel, evil and downright stupid came before Christ did, so it’s a relatively easy move to point out that Jesus didn’t seem to be especially bothered with stoning gay people or chasing menstruating women out of the village, therefore Christians can safely ignore them in favour of asking What Would Jesus Do?

Whereas the batshit insane bits of the Koran and the reasonable, civilised bits were all divinely revealed to one guy while he was busy winning a series of wars. There is no slam-dunk theologically sound method of declaring that the insane bits aren’t canon, although of course >95% of Muslims effectively ignore much of the worst of it, most of the time.

The key word there is can. Christians “can” ignore them, or they can chose to view them as the literal word of god. If things were different geopolitically and you had something like the Westboro baptist church in a 3rd world warzone do you think they would be preaching peace and love?

I agree with you, the ratio of good to bad is more skewed in the Koran from what I know, but I’m 100% of the view that the extreme behaviour we see from radical Islamist groups is as much a product of their environment as it is their faith. I think people will adapt the faith to suit their needs. Whenever people talk about religious extremism I find it easy to look inward rather than outward. Here in NI the DUP have consistently blocked every proposal for gay rights. It’s not as extreme but I live in a place where religious extremists use the bible to justify oppressing a minority.

Consider that the middle east was the enlightened centre of the world for arts and science before the crusades and the mongols smashed it into the stone age.

OP suggesting we go back to the Crusades to find an example of “Christian tryanny” sort of makes my point, ancient history with very little real relevance today.

Or look at Jewish terrorists blowing up British soldiers and civillians in Palestine (Israel now lauds these terrorists as heroes) because Zionism gave them a justification from god

Saxonrider rider you can’t lambast jhj over factual inaccuracies, when you tried to make out the crusades weren’t about killing Muslims, when you must of known of the siege of jeruselum and its barbaric conclusion

there are instances in which faith has been used to start war, although statistically, this is small

Even if a war want started in the name of religion there plenty of example of it playing a part , no one would say ww2 was a religious war but this tnread has noted links between the Vatican , catholicism and the Nazis, not to mention the continual persecution of the Jewish faith in Europe, prety much since their exodus.

‘faith’, which you derisively put in inverted commas, is a real human phenomenon, that can be distinguished – both psychologically and philosophically – from belief in a ‘fantastical land of omnipotent supernatural beings, life after death, and miracles’

Now you are going to need some sources for that assertion

Now you are going to need some sources for that assertion

Sources? The entire sub-disciplines of the psychology or religion and the philosophy or religion. For example.

this thread has noted links between the Vatican , catholicism and the Nazis

This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. The Church was not an innocent bystander during the war, and I would be surprised if there weren’t Nazi sympathisers inside the Vatican. (It was – and is – made up of people, after all.) BUT, for all the criticism Pope Pius XII has come in for (here, for example), there have also been non-partisan attempts among historians to examine his behaviour to see if it was as passive as critics suggest. Indeed, historians have wondered, in light of what some Catholic hierarchs were doing elsewhere in terms of sheltering Jews (Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytskyy in Lviv, for example), if Pius XII’s passive front wasn’t a cover for doing more behind the scenes. In this respect, his legacy remains a topic for debate.

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. What I said was that the Crusades were not per se about killing Muslims. They commenced as a war to ‘liberate’ the holy sites from Mulsims as a result of Christian pilgrims being accosted/imprisoned/killed on their journeys. 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’.

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 **** bumps read..

idiots.. Dangerous **** 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

It’s not at all, many many people believe the bollocks that it’s just catholics and protestants wanting to kill each other.

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

It’s not really. You’re promoting the idea that the west looks like it’s having a holy war in the middle east. It doesn’t look like that at all, and I’d even say on the ground it looks even less like a holy war.

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>

😆

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.

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 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 Israel has been Bombing Syrian Government forces:

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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, the Wikipedia page regarding the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg), also has a very interesting photo:

OK, on it’s own, it just looks like some poncy costume, but considering Knight of Malta is also a high rank of the York Rite of Freemasonry, it’s some coincidence how closely the ceremonial uniforms match:

There is more, but that will do for now…