Is it really Islam's teachings that make Musllims violent?

[DrZoidberg]

A holy text would never say "befriend witches". All cultures that have ever existed are more or less misogynistic. So it'll never happen. Killing infidels is just another way of justifying xenophobia. All cultures are more or less xenophobic. All cultures are more or less homophobic. Nearly all cultures that have ever existed have had some form of slavery. All these things are just normal things in any culture. None of these practices come from religion. Nobody can prove it, but I'd say chances are pretty good that these practices are all older than any religion.

The biblical injunction against witches had nothing to do with misogyny. The idea that a witch is necessarily (or even commonly) female is a more modern invention.

At the time the KJV was produced, far more men than women had been accused by Christians of being witches.

Accusing women (particularly midwives) of witchcraft, as protectionism for the professions of exclusively male physicians, did not become sufficiently common to cement the witch=>woman relationship in the minds of the general public until about a century after the KJV.

The injunctions against witchcraft in the Bible were aimed at (mostly male) non-Christian miracle claimants.

/derail

I'm not going to argue against you. You may be right. But the injunction against witchcraft could still be simple xenophobia. It's a carte blanche to persecute anybody weird simply for being weird. So I think it fits into my theory.

Fun fact: Words change a lot over time. At the court of King David in Jerusalem they had a prophets guild. If you wanted to practice being a prophet you needed to be part of the guild, or officially invited. What they called a prophet we might today call a soothsayer, witch doctor or even stage magician. At the time of Jesus there were thousands of prophets all over the place. It puts quite a different spin on the life of Jesus. That scene in the Life of Brian of Brian standing among a bunch of other prophets evangelising probably wasn't that far from the truth. When we read the word "prophet" in the Bible we're thinking of something a hell of a lot more profound than anything the authors of the Bible had in mind.

The difference between what a prophet did and what a witch did is that calling the witch a witch is more a value judgement, rather than any meaningful difference.

 

[DrZoidberg]

People are pretty bizarre when it comes to what foods they will or won't eat. I love weird foods. A couple of times I've had the opportunity to eat various larvae cooked in a variety of ways. Even fly larvae. It's always tasted great. Super healthy to. I've had everything from tarantula, to dog, to cockroach, to crayfish, various weird weeds, and fungi. All great. Well... not cockroach. That shit's nasty. I do think that religiously motivated rules against food is often just down to random whims people had that got propagated. And people are normally naturally averse to unfamiliar foods. So once a rule like this gets started I have no problem seeing how it can spread in a culture, and eventually be adopted by whatever religion is dominant in the area. I was raised a vegetarian. At 21 I'd had enough of the carrots. I wanted to learn what all the fuss was about. It was very hard for me to teach myself to eat meat. It took years for me to get used to it. Initially it was just weird to eat. Fun weird. But still mostly weird. Not good. But now I love it.

Religious rules against various foods could also be sensible. Like trichinia being a real problem for pork in warm climates. Likewise, shellfish is dodgy if you're not living on the sea. But sometimes religious rules against foods are just damn idiotic. Like the Greenland Vikings (probably) religiously motivated rule against eating fish. A bizarre rule considering that everything but fish was in short supply.

Yeah, sure, degustibus non es disputandum and all that.

But in the modern day there is no particularly logical reason to shun bacon. Many Jewish people I have known do not. There is not something hardwired into their tastebuds that makes bacon taste bad. But many jews do shun bacon. I think there is more than correlation there. I think there is causation.

If you're not used to something you won't like it. All foods with strong tastes are acquired tastes. I've even seen research on stuff like that. But pork isn't so much too toot ones horn at. Sure it's good. But come on. You can survive without it. I love bacon. I still don't eat it more than once a month.

When it comes to Jews and bacon I do think there's an identity thing going on. Once upon a time the Jewish cultural aversion to pork worked itself into the religion. And now when Jews live in another country they refrain from the pork as a sense of identity. Point being that it's a an arbitrary rule that doesn't really hamper them much. My ex-wife is Jewish and she'd lived in Israel for years. She told me you can buy pork anywhere in Israel. it's not even hard. So... obviously... there's plenty of Jews who don't give a fuck about the rule. Same goes for a few devout Hindu Indian engineers I've worked with who cheerfully gobbled down beef. Sticking to these rules are easy if the rest of the culture does as well. But religious rules in other countries tend to soften considerably.

That doesn't explain Orthodox Jews... frankly... bizarre... kitchen rules. My theory is that these are genuinely annoying fucking cunts, and if it wouldn't be this it'd be some other shit they'd be up to in order to annoy everybody around them. I'm thinking, the same category of people are vegetarian who glare at anybody at the dinner table who eats meat without at least apologising. And being an annoying cunt I'm sure, is not unique for our modern age. It's a theory anyway.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, sure, degustibus non es disputandum and all that.

But in the modern day there is no particularly logical reason to shun bacon. Many Jewish people I have known do not. There is not something hardwired into their tastebuds that makes bacon taste bad. But many jews do shun bacon. I think there is more than correlation there. I think there is causation.

If you're not used to something you won't like it.

I agree with this point as far as it goes. But observant Jews are not shunning bacon because they don't like it.

When Catholics don't eat meat during lent (or just on Friday's during lent) it is not because they don't like meat.

Their behavior is being influenced by their religion. There is not some innate human trait that pre-existed the catholic religion that causes mankind to reject meat for the 40 days before the first Sunday following the first full moon of spring.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So, DrZoidberg, you seemed to think that your perspective is somewhat rare, and it isn't. It is common, especially in the landscape of liberal media and politics. I see it expressed after every terrorist attack by seeming Muslims. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Democratic Party leader Howard Dean went on a talk show and claimed that the terrorists were no more Muslim than himself (Howard Dean is a Christian). It may seem to be an odd assertion on the face, given that the terrorists had the lives of Muslims by every outward indication, but there is a good reason that Howard Dean made that claim, and that reason is political. Liberals tend to be repulsed by the thought that a minority religion could be more violent than a majority religion. The repulsive belief tends to aid the prejudiced perspective that all Muslims are a ticking time bomb, even though the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, anti-violent and anti-terrorist. The repulsive belief resembles racism and fits like a glove with racist beliefs. The repulsive belief is anti-thetical to the liberal perspective, even if the repulsive belief is true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you're not used to something you won't like it.

I agree with this point as far as it goes. But observant Jews are not shunning bacon because they don't like it.

When Catholics don't eat meat during lent (or just on Friday's during lent) it is not because they don't like meat.

Their behavior is being influenced by their religion. There is not some innate human trait that pre-existed the catholic religion that causes mankind to reject meat for the 40 days before the first Sunday following the first full moon of spring.

I see where you're going with this argument. My counter argument that both meatless lent and giving up pork isn't that much of a sacrifice. If the choices are pretty much arbitrary then religion can have an influence. but regarding anything of any consequence religion is irrelevant. So I've modified my argument somewhat. Just like religion can dictate which minority it's ok to pick on and have a go at. It doesn't mean that people are being nasty because of the religion. Rather that, if they were going to oppress a minority anyway, they'll go with whatever their religion justifies. For the faithful the choice is mostly arbitrary. But obviously not for the victims.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, DrZoidberg, you seemed to think that your perspective is somewhat rare, and it isn't. It is common, especially in the landscape of liberal media and politics. I see it expressed after every terrorist attack by seeming Muslims. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Democratic Party leader Howard Dean went on a talk show and claimed that the terrorists were no more Muslim than himself (Howard Dean is a Christian). It may seem to be an odd assertion on the face, given that the terrorists had the lives of Muslims by every outward indication, but there is a good reason that Howard Dean made that claim, and that reason is political. Liberals tend to be repulsed by the thought that a minority religion could be more violent than a majority religion. The repulsive belief tends to aid the prejudiced perspective that all Muslims are a ticking time bomb, even though the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, anti-violent and anti-terrorist. The repulsive belief resembles racism and fits like a glove with racist beliefs. The repulsive belief is anti-thetical to the liberal perspective, even if the repulsive belief is true.

I am very liberal, and I'm sure that I have to a greater or lesser degree been influenced by this. But I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't give minorities a free pass to behave badly because they don't know better. My liberalism has it's limits

A problem of the world is that most people are idiots. Which means that whatever political label one chooses most of what people on the same team says will be stupid. No matter the political club one belongs to. This means that whatever political label one picks they'll get ascribed idiotic beliefs they may or may not hold. So even if I'm a liberal I don't support everything liberals say.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So, DrZoidberg, you seemed to think that your perspective is somewhat rare, and it isn't. It is common, especially in the landscape of liberal media and politics. I see it expressed after every terrorist attack by seeming Muslims. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Democratic Party leader Howard Dean went on a talk show and claimed that the terrorists were no more Muslim than himself (Howard Dean is a Christian). It may seem to be an odd assertion on the face, given that the terrorists had the lives of Muslims by every outward indication, but there is a good reason that Howard Dean made that claim, and that reason is political. Liberals tend to be repulsed by the thought that a minority religion could be more violent than a majority religion. The repulsive belief tends to aid the prejudiced perspective that all Muslims are a ticking time bomb, even though the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, anti-violent and anti-terrorist. The repulsive belief resembles racism and fits like a glove with racist beliefs. The repulsive belief is anti-thetical to the liberal perspective, even if the repulsive belief is true.

I am very liberal, and I'm sure that I have to a greater or lesser degree been influenced by this. But I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't give minorities a free pass to behave badly because they don't know better. My liberalism has it's limits

A problem of the world is that most people are idiots. Which means that whatever political label one chooses most of what people on the same team says will be stupid. No matter the political club one belongs to. This means that whatever political label one picks they'll get ascribed idiotic beliefs they may or may not hold. So even if I'm a liberal I don't support everything liberals say.

I agree completely. I typically identify as liberal, as I am most sympathetic to progressive thought and science, and I have little sympathy for traditions or nationalism or religion or any of the conservative value systems. But I do often find myself at odds with beliefs common among liberals. To me, belief about objective reality should be all a matter of probability, liberal or not, conservative or not, and I think liberals too often let their beliefs about objective reality be influenced by wishful thinking and ideology, much like conservatives.

 

[Jayjay]

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

I think that the fact that the Bible lends itself to being used as an excuse already shows that it does influence people. Maybe not the crusader or conquistador who uses it for justification, but certainly it does have some meaning to the audience that the justification is for.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree with this point as far as it goes. But observant Jews are not shunning bacon because they don't like it.

When Catholics don't eat meat during lent (or just on Friday's during lent) it is not because they don't like meat.

Their behavior is being influenced by their religion. There is not some innate human trait that pre-existed the catholic religion that causes mankind to reject meat for the 40 days before the first Sunday following the first full moon of spring.

I see where you're going with this argument. My counter argument that both meatless lent and giving up pork isn't that much of a sacrifice. If the choices are pretty much arbitrary then religion can have an influence. but regarding anything of any consequence religion is irrelevant. So I've modified my argument somewhat. Just like religion can dictate which minority it's ok to pick on and have a go at. It doesn't mean that people are being nasty because of the religion. Rather that, if they were going to oppress a minority anyway, they'll go with whatever their religion justifies. For the faithful the choice is mostly arbitrary. But obviously not for the victims.

Do you believe this because it is appeals to you, and you want to believe it? Is this your form of faith? Because, while it would be nice, I don't see any evidence to support what you are saying.

 

[arkirk]

I see where you're going with this argument. My counter argument that both meatless lent and giving up pork isn't that much of a sacrifice. If the choices are pretty much arbitrary then religion can have an influence. but regarding anything of any consequence religion is irrelevant. So I've modified my argument somewhat. Just like religion can dictate which minority it's ok to pick on and have a go at. It doesn't mean that people are being nasty because of the religion. Rather that, if they were going to oppress a minority anyway, they'll go with whatever their religion justifies. For the faithful the choice is mostly arbitrary. But obviously not for the victims.

Do you believe this because it is appeals to you, and you want to believe it? Is this your form of faith? Because, while it would be nice, I don't see any evidence to support what you are saying.

I believe Dr. Zoidberg could be right on this matter just on the basis of observation. I believe his logic is only an extension of what he has witnessed. For you to accuse him of being seduced by belief may be going too far. Perhaps you don't see these things because it has not be in the scope of YOUR EXPERIENCE. That makes what he says no less true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am very liberal, and I'm sure that I have to a greater or lesser degree been influenced by this. But I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't give minorities a free pass to behave badly because they don't know better. My liberalism has it's limits

A problem of the world is that most people are idiots. Which means that whatever political label one chooses most of what people on the same team says will be stupid. No matter the political club one belongs to. This means that whatever political label one picks they'll get ascribed idiotic beliefs they may or may not hold. So even if I'm a liberal I don't support everything liberals say.

I agree completely. I typically identify as liberal, as I am most sympathetic to progressive thought and science, and I have little sympathy for traditions or nationalism or religion or any of the conservative value systems. But I do often find myself at odds with beliefs common among liberals. To me, belief about objective reality should be all a matter of probability, liberal or not, conservative or not, and I think liberals too often let their beliefs about objective reality be influenced by wishful thinking and ideology, much like conservatives.

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anybody using the Bible as an excuse to do something wanted to do it anyway. Blaming it on the Bible is just a way to avoid having to take responsibility for it.

I think that the fact that the Bible lends itself to being used as an excuse already shows that it does influence people. Maybe not the crusader or conquistador who uses it for justification, but certainly it does have some meaning to the audience that the justification is for.

I think history had demonstrated that you can justify any behaviour, no matter how amoral or vile with the help of the Bible... or any religious text. They're all vague enough. And even when they're not vague it doesn't seem to matter. There's bits in the Sharia that are exactly opposite of what the Koran tells Muslims to do. I'm thinking about stoning women for adultery. The Koran says not to stone. The Sharia says stone them. So these books aren't even guides. It's like none of the faithful care what the texts actually read.

I once attended an on-line Bible study group organised by Jehova's witnesses. I've always been an atheist. I was just curious. Jehava's witnesses have a companion to the Bible which reinterprets the Bible in pretty bizarre ways. Pretty quickly I got kicked out of the group for repeatedly saying that their interpretations make no sense, and I questioned their motivations for using the Bible at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I see where you're going with this argument. My counter argument that both meatless lent and giving up pork isn't that much of a sacrifice. If the choices are pretty much arbitrary then religion can have an influence. but regarding anything of any consequence religion is irrelevant. So I've modified my argument somewhat. Just like religion can dictate which minority it's ok to pick on and have a go at. It doesn't mean that people are being nasty because of the religion. Rather that, if they were going to oppress a minority anyway, they'll go with whatever their religion justifies. For the faithful the choice is mostly arbitrary. But obviously not for the victims.

Do you believe this because it is appeals to you, and you want to believe it? Is this your form of faith? Because, while it would be nice, I don't see any evidence to support what you are saying.

My argument is a variant of Socrates Euthyphro dilemma. It's the same logic behind my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree completely. I typically identify as liberal, as I am most sympathetic to progressive thought and science, and I have little sympathy for traditions or nationalism or religion or any of the conservative value systems. But I do often find myself at odds with beliefs common among liberals. To me, belief about objective reality should be all a matter of probability, liberal or not, conservative or not, and I think liberals too often let their beliefs about objective reality be influenced by wishful thinking and ideology, much like conservatives.

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

Certainly. But there are things we can bank on. Concerning Muslims and violence, or any group and violence, if their religion incorporates violence it certainly didn't just drop from the sky one day. It can only be fact that cultural violence was incorporated into the religion. I don't see how it can be any other way. Aspects of religion are reflections of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices.

 

[dismal]

This is epistemology. When it comes to things like sociology and economy I think it's impossible to sort out wishful thinking. I think it's better to accept that we're all victims of having rose tinted spectacles and a faulty fact filter, and do one's best to be humble about our opinions.

Certainly. But there are things we can bank on. Concerning Muslims and violence, or any group and violence, if their religion incorporates violence it certainly didn't just drop from the sky one day. It can only be fact that cultural violence was incorporated into the religion. I don't see how it can be any other way. Aspects of religion are reflections of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices.

And aspects of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices are reflections of religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Certainly. But there are things we can bank on. Concerning Muslims and violence, or any group and violence, if their religion incorporates violence it certainly didn't just drop from the sky one day. It can only be fact that cultural violence was incorporated into the religion. I don't see how it can be any other way. Aspects of religion are reflections of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices.

And aspects of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices are reflections of religion.

Religions are violent because followers approve of violence. To honestly believe that the religion comes first and that this leads to violence is juvenile at best.

 

[dismal]

And aspects of the greater culture, its tendencies and practices are reflections of religion.

Religions are violent because followers approve of violence. To honestly believe that the religion comes first and that this leads to violence is juvenile at best.

The statement that religion influences culture would normally enjoy a "well, duh, captain obvious" level of acceptance.

 

[fromderinside]

Religions are violent because followers approve of violence. To honestly believe that the religion comes first and that this leads to violence is juvenile at best.

The statement that religion influences culture would normally enjoy a "well, duh, captain obvious" level of acceptance.

Thanks bubba. Moving on Rick Steves presented a show on PBS last week on western Turkey where he mentioned the  Dirvish which actually gets to the main thread of Muslim faith, love. Apparently some of our experts failed to get the memo. I'm sure we can get from love to enforced membership and hate in a flash by just picking a few of Mohamed's cherries ......

 

[arkirk]

Religions are violent because followers approve of violence. To honestly believe that the religion comes first and that this leads to violence is juvenile at best.

The statement that religion influences culture would normally enjoy a "well, duh, captain obvious" level of acceptance.

We already know the ancient texts bear little or no relationship to reality....ie god separating the light from the darkness and all that tripe. Every one of these religons are full of this kind of vague alleged analogy...a perfect vehicle for "interpretation." Knowing people have always accepted that these religions are vehicles for controlling people. It is possible they may have been crafted by leaders to get people to stop doing terribly uncivil things, but as time passed those with less altruistic motives reinterpreted this pile of ancient anecdotes for their own purposes...and we have what we have today.

It is really kind of odd if you think about it. We have people who very strongly value their RIGHT to BELIEVE and they equate "truth" to some interpretation of beliefs.....this in an age of scientific exploration with a deep backlog of accumulated experimental data. The RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT IS NOT TRUE AND ACT ON IT.....that is apt to give us a lot of meaningless and socially arbitrary actions that are harmful, along with a few cases where it matches human need.

 

[Underseer]

Religions are violent because followers approve of violence. To honestly believe that the religion comes first and that this leads to violence is juvenile at best.

The statement that religion influences culture would normally enjoy a "well, duh, captain obvious" level of acceptance.

Yeah, religion is culture, and culture is a medium through which religion seeps into the minds of people.

Before the white man came, native American women enjoyed a higher status in society than what Middle Eastern or European women had, but after a certain middle eastern religion called Christianity swept through this continent, indigenous men started treating women badly. I always wondered if something similar happened when Christianity swept through Europe. What part of our indigenous European heritage did we lose? Was it something good? Something bad? Did our ancestors treat women better? Worse? We will never know.