Case in Point...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> 1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well. </font>

I can't believe what I've been reading here from several posters, not just this, so no offense. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. With all due respect...

What do you MEAN you don't have an opinion on this?!! You don't have an opinion on whether or not women should be oppressed by men?!?!?!?! Do you honestly think that it's ok for men to OWN the women in their families?!?!?!?!! That a woman is the property of her family or husband?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> 1) I don’t have an opinion on this. If one wants to believe in this (if that is what a correct interpretation of Islam says) then, oh well. </font>

I can't believe what I've been reading here from several posters, not just this, so no offense. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. With all due respect...

What do you MEAN you don't have an opinion on this?!! You don't have an opinion on whether or not women should be oppressed by men?!?!?!?! Do you honestly think that it's ok for men to OWN the women in their families?!?!?!?!! That a woman is the property of her family or husband?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have an opinion sure. I mean, I am nor going to express that opinion here because it is moot. We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. At least I am not. So, I am not going to give my opinion because I am too lazy to do anything about it – e.g. write a letter to some Muslim cleric asking for clarification if this is what Islam says or is it a governmental thing. Or organize some protest in front of the Saudi Embassy in D. C.

Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

I see a fine line too even for our government. Ok for George to try to free this woman, but not to free all the people in Iraq? (Btw, I was against the war from the git go – so don’t get me wrong.)

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. </font>

I feel I'm doing something (albeit all to little), by merely trying to bring attention to this atrocity and be outspoken about it. I am also a contributor to the support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has a fatwa out on her for the outrageous crime of trying to gain her individual freedom from Islam. I urge others to do the same.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">We posters aren’t going to do anything about this. </font>

I feel I'm doing something (albeit all to little), by merely trying to bring attention to this atrocity and be outspoken about it. I am also a contributor to the support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has a fatwa out on her for the outrageous crime of trying to gain her individual freedom from Islam. I urge others to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, Stat. Dang, I already wrote in Borodog's thread I want to be chez when I grow up. You are giving him a run for the money in my book with this. Good job.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, to have an opinion on how another Religion should interpret its text is beyond my knowledge. So, really I’d rather not give an opinion on Islam tradition/laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Glass House dilemma that moderates are caught in. It's one of the targets of some of the neo-atheists.

People who claim their moral are derived from private messages or coded ancient texts can't very well deny the other guy the right to do the same. So they can't enter into the "is this a moral action" discussion because the answer is "what does his book say". If it says it ok it's ok, same argument they'd use for a action based on their book or private sourced info.

People like me don't give a [censored] what book some cult is claiming moral authority from. There are actions taken against people that are immoral by any meaning of humanity worth wanting. Moderates ARE one of the worlds problems precisely because of this running cover for the extremists that their approach to morality provides.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s why I like the rules of my religion – love your neighbor. We can’t “own women”. What are the rules of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure muslims of various stripes like theirs, perhaps even more for some of them since they seem more willing to die for them.

My point is you can't say to him "hey, that's wrong you azzhole" since you must honor his claim to knowing it's right since the premise is the same as yours. "It's in da book."

luckyme

[RJT]

Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if it is ... then it's moral, right?
And who is the judge of what the correct one is? It's no different than any interpreted work, there is virtually no position that can't be supported.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. But, if one is knowledgeable of Islam, one can give an opinion whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter. When a book actually says, "if she refuses to have sex with you, stone her to death," it's irrelevant that most worshippers think it really means this or that.

The clearest, most direct interpretation says you must commit atrocities. That's enough to indict the text and any religion it's based on.

If the meaning is actually compassionate, then torture and brutality shouldn't be used to couch that meaning. The idea of a God planting these words, knowing that some people will take them at face value, torturing, killing, and raping their neighbors, is sick. It's absurd, but it's also twisted and evil.

As long as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on these texts, they will be sick, pathological religions regardless of the specific actions of their followers. An instruction manual on doing horrible things is an instruction manual on doing horrible things, even if people like to interpret it nonliterally.

Those publishing the message "commit atrocities" shouldn't be let off the hook just because they intend that message to be taken with a heavy dose of special nuance. Certainly the readers can't be relied upon to apply such nuanced readings, and extremism is only intellectual honesty among those who don't understand the various technicalities that make this rule or that rule inapplicable. As long as you say that the command is God's word, it stands to reason some people will obey it at face value. The seed of the violence and hate is the text itself, even if it's a stupid interpretation of the text that results in such behavior.

One thing that skeptics (if not all atheists) do believe is that everything - everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing is absolute, nothing is the ultimate reference or the ultimate authority, and therefore a single misinterpretation can't result in awful behavior.