How badly is the US inciting Islamic hatred against itself?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stats, and I don't doubt them. But it does leave me curious why they don't publicly decry radical Muslims. Why aren't they more vocally against such practices or try and distance themselves from these radicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

How many Christian leaders are publicly decrying what terrible acts of inhumanity and aggression an admittedly Christian administration (and every previous one) has done around the world?

My guess is very few, if any, and those that do are not of enough significance to be heard.

So why the double standard?

[JussiUt]

I just want to contribute by saying that it's pointless to argue whether the Qur'an advocates killing people of other religion or if it advocates peaceful co-existance and respect. Because it does them both. The Qur'an is contradictory just like the Bible. Did that come to as a suprise to anyone? It shouldn't.

As an example Dawkins list in his book The God Delusion many citations from the Qur'an which advocate violence against non-believers. I'm sure they are valid citations (btw, Dawkins doesn't crusade against Islam particularly but against the whole concept of a personal God).

It's the old pick-and-choose story with the Qur'an like it is with the Bible.

[Lestat]

I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Bush II came awfully close when he referred to the War on Terror as a "Crusade". Even though it's obvious to us that he didn't mean it literally, the word has only one meaning to most of the world's Muslim population: Christian war against Islam.

This brings me back to what you said earlier about democracy not being for everybody and that the US shouldn't shove it down other people's throats.

The probelm isn't so much that people in other countries don't want democracy, it's that they don't trust the West (and the US in particular) to just walk into a country and set up a new political system as if they were a neutral, un-biased bystander. Most of the population assumes that the US has its own agenda and that they won't sacrifice their "national interests" for the sake of the locals' deocrativ desires. This position is perfectly understandable, even if it tends to get exaggerated out of proportion.

You can add to this the fact that the fact democracies are only as stable as their history allows them to be. For example, if your country has no history of peaceful transfers of power it would be naïve to believe that those who are first elected into power will just step down when it becomes obvious that they'll lose (or even just might lose) the next election. What I'm trying to say is that democracy needs more than just democratic institutions to thrive. It also needs a thriving democartic culture, and these don't just materialize overnight.

And this leads me back to why moderate muslim's don't tend to speak up en masse against the radicals. Most of these countries have no history of peaceful popular displays of protest. Most of the rallies you see are in support of the local government or denouncing some foreign power (with the full supposrt of their local government). The exceptions are almost universally met with violent repression.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to contribute by saying that it's pointless to argue whether the Qur'an advocates killing people of other religion or if it advocates peaceful co-existance and respect. Because it does them both. The Qur'an is contradictory just like the Bible. Did that come to as a suprise to anyone? It shouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with the situation is that this isn't nearly the case to the extant that many anti-Islamists claim. Violence against non-believers is only sanctioned when said non-believers don't want peace and are on the attack.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But there's a big difference between that and destruction in the name of God.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But there's a big difference between that and destruction in the name of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? They are both pretty despicable in my view.

[Peter666]

"Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit."

AIDS is spread by fornication, sodomy and tainted needles, not the Catholic Church. If people followed Catholic doctrine, AIDS would not be spread.

Likewise, if the US listened to the Catholic Church before it invaded Iraq, it would not be in the mess it is now, inciting Islamic hatred. And the same goes for Israel.

And if the Crusaders managed to defeat the Moslems in the middle ages, we wouldn't have the problem with them today either.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit."

AIDS is spread by fornication, sodomy and tainted needles, not the Catholic Church. If people followed Catholic doctrine, AIDS would not be spread.

Likewise, if the US listened to the Catholic Church before it invaded Iraq, it would not be in the mess it is now, inciting Islamic hatred. And the same goes for Israel.

And if the Crusaders managed to defeat the Moslems in the middle ages, we wouldn't have the problem with them today either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a member of the Catholic Church was not the complicity Phil was talking about in the second example.