ChatterBank0 min ago
Religious Extremists Vs Religious Moderates: Part Of The Same Problem?
73 Answers
We all know the threat posed by extremists – murder, terrorism etc. Many religious moderates routinely label the criticism of religious beliefs and practices as intolerant. In doing so, do the these moderates (inadvertently?) stymie legitimate debate and therefore create a medium in which extremists can thrive and develop?
Answers
"(f) That religionists should be open to interrogatio
00:03 Sun 29th Dec 2013
SIQ - “... If you read insult into anything else I said, I don't know why, but apologise for what must be bad wording...”
We've really got our wires crossed you and I! You've not said one word that I found even slightly insulting. My reference to those who said “No” was not addressed to you – you've explained your position clearly.
We've really got our wires crossed you and I! You've not said one word that I found even slightly insulting. My reference to those who said “No” was not addressed to you – you've explained your position clearly.
Dear LazyGun,
Regarding my point (f), I think the problem there is the poor construction of my sentence. What I meant was that it is nonsense that religionists should be above interrogation as many religionists apparently believe. And it is therefore not worth discussing as they are never going to listen so why should we ab'ers waste our time agreeing with each other.
SIQ.
Regarding my point (f), I think the problem there is the poor construction of my sentence. What I meant was that it is nonsense that religionists should be above interrogation as many religionists apparently believe. And it is therefore not worth discussing as they are never going to listen so why should we ab'ers waste our time agreeing with each other.
SIQ.
@SIQ "Regarding my point (f), I think the problem there is the poor construction of my sentence. What I meant was that it is nonsense that religionists should be above interrogation as many religionists apparently believe"
I do not think you would find anyone here arguing with that, SIQ. That meaning was not obvious from your original sentence, however. Glad that is cleared up :)
I do not think you would find anyone here arguing with that, SIQ. That meaning was not obvious from your original sentence, however. Glad that is cleared up :)
As a slight aside, interesting article in the Guardian, I thought.
From the article;
"For human rights to flourish, religious rights have to come second to them. We are all human. We are not all of the same religion, or religious at all. One cannot protect religious rights if they are used as a reason to abuse human rights, human equalities, as so often they are"
http://
From the article;
"For human rights to flourish, religious rights have to come second to them. We are all human. We are not all of the same religion, or religious at all. One cannot protect religious rights if they are used as a reason to abuse human rights, human equalities, as so often they are"
http://
Dear Birdie,
Ty for your post to me. Very reassuring that we have no mutual differences involving mere insults - in the past neither of us have gone that way I believe.
We may have not have agreed regarding the actual question referring to the "feedstuff" on which so-called "terrorists" thrive - but provided we debate the matter respectfully that's O.K. by me and I hope it's O.K. by you.
With Sincere Respect,
SIQ.
P.S. I owe LG, a great ab'er, a few more responses to his reasonable queries regarding what was meant to be a "clarification" of my stance, lol.
Ty for your post to me. Very reassuring that we have no mutual differences involving mere insults - in the past neither of us have gone that way I believe.
We may have not have agreed regarding the actual question referring to the "feedstuff" on which so-called "terrorists" thrive - but provided we debate the matter respectfully that's O.K. by me and I hope it's O.K. by you.
With Sincere Respect,
SIQ.
P.S. I owe LG, a great ab'er, a few more responses to his reasonable queries regarding what was meant to be a "clarification" of my stance, lol.
Dear LazyGun,
Re my sections (d) and (e) combined to resolve this issue I hope:
My question re "anyone been approached etc.," was not meant to be a scientific survey - just an attempt to bring a minority here down to earth and consider the Muslims they have met. Some have implied via their quotes that all, including our British Muslims, believe in some way in the chopping-off of thieve's hands. No quotes about the Christian Old Testament "an-eye-for-an eye".
We all leave hand-choppping to the dictatorial House of Saud etc.
Re crazy proposals of segregation of academic students is surely beyond the quesion but answered by my term "crazy". Anyway I do not think this was an Islamic proposal.
Exclusive faith schools have existed in Britain for ages: C of E and Catholic but that's Christianity and above criticism on this thread!
The above is why I have used the term Islamophobia.
Freedom of speech including religious criticism/defence of course I would die for that but not license to utter hatred, no reference to anyone here.
Has anyone considered that truly innocent Muslims are ab'ers and reading this thread. Apart from GCHQ, the mass response in this thread would scare me off if I were Islamic.
With Sincere Respect,
SIQ.
Re my sections (d) and (e) combined to resolve this issue I hope:
My question re "anyone been approached etc.," was not meant to be a scientific survey - just an attempt to bring a minority here down to earth and consider the Muslims they have met. Some have implied via their quotes that all, including our British Muslims, believe in some way in the chopping-off of thieve's hands. No quotes about the Christian Old Testament "an-eye-for-an eye".
We all leave hand-choppping to the dictatorial House of Saud etc.
Re crazy proposals of segregation of academic students is surely beyond the quesion but answered by my term "crazy". Anyway I do not think this was an Islamic proposal.
Exclusive faith schools have existed in Britain for ages: C of E and Catholic but that's Christianity and above criticism on this thread!
The above is why I have used the term Islamophobia.
Freedom of speech including religious criticism/defence of course I would die for that but not license to utter hatred, no reference to anyone here.
Has anyone considered that truly innocent Muslims are ab'ers and reading this thread. Apart from GCHQ, the mass response in this thread would scare me off if I were Islamic.
With Sincere Respect,
SIQ.
solvitquick //Has anyone considered that truly innocent Muslims are ab'ers and reading this thread. Apart from GCHQ, the mass response in this thread would scare me off if I were Islamic. //
There are no truly innocent moslems. Every moslem by definition exalts the Quran. In dong so they explicitly support the profound sexism and violence it contains.
Same for anyone who stands up to back the Bible.
The blood of those killed in the name of Abraham's gods is on the hands of every believer.
There are no truly innocent moslems. Every moslem by definition exalts the Quran. In dong so they explicitly support the profound sexism and violence it contains.
Same for anyone who stands up to back the Bible.
The blood of those killed in the name of Abraham's gods is on the hands of every believer.
Dear beso,
It's a bit late for anyone to join the thread as I have had my say and I think so have most.
However out of respect I'll define what I mean by "innocent" religionists. I refer to those indoctrinated from birth with false "truths" and have these falsities reinforced by vicars, priests, imams or whoever. However even the latter to an extremely great extent preach peace.
As an atheist I believe in allowing peace-abiding religionists freedom to worship as they wish and have no wish to harass them or convert them to my view. If we had a written constitution I am sure that would be in it - indeed it is there in spirit via the "Establishment of the Church of England Headed by the Monarch"
If you have any criticisms of the above then I suggest you complain to our dear Queen Elizabeth and the Home Secretary.
In other words: don't post me. I'll post you (if necessary, lol).
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
It's a bit late for anyone to join the thread as I have had my say and I think so have most.
However out of respect I'll define what I mean by "innocent" religionists. I refer to those indoctrinated from birth with false "truths" and have these falsities reinforced by vicars, priests, imams or whoever. However even the latter to an extremely great extent preach peace.
As an atheist I believe in allowing peace-abiding religionists freedom to worship as they wish and have no wish to harass them or convert them to my view. If we had a written constitution I am sure that would be in it - indeed it is there in spirit via the "Establishment of the Church of England Headed by the Monarch"
If you have any criticisms of the above then I suggest you complain to our dear Queen Elizabeth and the Home Secretary.
In other words: don't post me. I'll post you (if necessary, lol).
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Regardless of how they came to their faith it should not exempt them from being subjected to criticisms.
The "They were brought up that way" doesn't cut it. Each person should be conscious of and responsible for what they endorse.
Believers endorse books that exalt murder, even genocide as signs of the divinity of their deity. Such acceptance of objective immorality should be loudly criticised.
The "They were brought up that way" doesn't cut it. Each person should be conscious of and responsible for what they endorse.
Believers endorse books that exalt murder, even genocide as signs of the divinity of their deity. Such acceptance of objective immorality should be loudly criticised.
Dear seadogg,
I agree re nationalism but would also add: aiming at power, aiming at wealth, aiming at dictatatorship. I suppose it all adds up to money in the end apart from the loonies who think they are acting on behalf of their religion.
But the loonies will lose, as their religious leaders (i.e. money-rich "religious" businessmen) begin to loose their "flock" who fund their business because the "flock" just want peace and to get on with their lives.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
I agree re nationalism but would also add: aiming at power, aiming at wealth, aiming at dictatatorship. I suppose it all adds up to money in the end apart from the loonies who think they are acting on behalf of their religion.
But the loonies will lose, as their religious leaders (i.e. money-rich "religious" businessmen) begin to loose their "flock" who fund their business because the "flock" just want peace and to get on with their lives.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
beso,
You have clearly not read all the previous posts as evidenced by your own words.
So my "claim to be an atheist" appears in doubt to you - well that's your problem not mine.
I am an apologist for none except for myself for poor sentencing or misreading the question/answers earlier - but you haven't read the whole thread.
This is very tiresome but as I stand by my belief and code of conduct all alone, I suppose I have to answer your late entries.
So here goes:
beso, what do you suggest we do about these religionists whom you hate? I mean what action(s)? "Don't be an apologist" is so obviously your reply, I wonder whether I should have replied at all. So what actions - beso? By defining the actions we should take, you may be the saviour of mankind.
Please try to avoid demeaning yourself further with nonsensical or insulting replies.
SIQ.
You have clearly not read all the previous posts as evidenced by your own words.
So my "claim to be an atheist" appears in doubt to you - well that's your problem not mine.
I am an apologist for none except for myself for poor sentencing or misreading the question/answers earlier - but you haven't read the whole thread.
This is very tiresome but as I stand by my belief and code of conduct all alone, I suppose I have to answer your late entries.
So here goes:
beso, what do you suggest we do about these religionists whom you hate? I mean what action(s)? "Don't be an apologist" is so obviously your reply, I wonder whether I should have replied at all. So what actions - beso? By defining the actions we should take, you may be the saviour of mankind.
Please try to avoid demeaning yourself further with nonsensical or insulting replies.
SIQ.
SIQ // what do you suggest we do about these religionists whom you hate? I mean what action(s)? "Don't be an apologist" is so obviously your reply, I wonder whether I should have replied at all. //
As a society we need to be change from the long standing cultural norm and able to stand up and say that religious beliefs are ridiculous and have no place in the definition of the laws of our societies.
I get tired of apologists who think we should respect a person for what is nothing more than adhering to irrational dogma.
As a society we need to be change from the long standing cultural norm and able to stand up and say that religious beliefs are ridiculous and have no place in the definition of the laws of our societies.
I get tired of apologists who think we should respect a person for what is nothing more than adhering to irrational dogma.
Seadogg, //Much of what we call religious extremism is sheer Nationalism. //
And much of it isn't.
Beso, //As a society we need to be change from the long standing cultural norm and able to stand up and say that religious beliefs are ridiculous and have no place in the definition of the laws of our societies. //
I agree.
And much of it isn't.
Beso, //As a society we need to be change from the long standing cultural norm and able to stand up and say that religious beliefs are ridiculous and have no place in the definition of the laws of our societies. //
I agree.
beso,
I refer your ranting against every religionist on earth as, among other things "having blood on their hands". How ironic, I don't suppose you realise that this is equivalent to the nonsensical religious teachings of "original sin" for different but similar nonsensical reasoning.
You do not even understand atheism! This is a logical scientific deduction from the evolutionary evidence and total absence of evidence of a supreme creator. However it has nothing to do with a crusade against poor deluded religionists or agnostics (who often subscribe to religion).
You and your colleague, Naomi, are dangerous extremist atheists.
People like you two are simply laying down the "feedstuff" of those who would chose to pip-off the religions one-by-one. I do not think it is OTT to liken your sort to those who attempted to annihilate the jews in the Nazi reign of terror. But I suppose we are already started on that track via Guantanimo Bay and the rendition of suspects to torturing regimes.
I had hoped that birdie would protest against your gross abuse of the original question. But, again, having read and subsribed to the "feeling humble" thread it appears you are three of a kind.
Of course I also believe in disestablishment of church and state - but that solves nothing.
In the company of you lot, I am proud to be a voice crying in the wilderness!
SIQ.
I refer your ranting against every religionist on earth as, among other things "having blood on their hands". How ironic, I don't suppose you realise that this is equivalent to the nonsensical religious teachings of "original sin" for different but similar nonsensical reasoning.
You do not even understand atheism! This is a logical scientific deduction from the evolutionary evidence and total absence of evidence of a supreme creator. However it has nothing to do with a crusade against poor deluded religionists or agnostics (who often subscribe to religion).
You and your colleague, Naomi, are dangerous extremist atheists.
People like you two are simply laying down the "feedstuff" of those who would chose to pip-off the religions one-by-one. I do not think it is OTT to liken your sort to those who attempted to annihilate the jews in the Nazi reign of terror. But I suppose we are already started on that track via Guantanimo Bay and the rendition of suspects to torturing regimes.
I had hoped that birdie would protest against your gross abuse of the original question. But, again, having read and subsribed to the "feeling humble" thread it appears you are three of a kind.
Of course I also believe in disestablishment of church and state - but that solves nothing.
In the company of you lot, I am proud to be a voice crying in the wilderness!
SIQ.
Latest Posts
How Many Onn Here Thinkthis Is...
News6 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Has Sunak Already Made Plans To Leave...
News28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.