Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

I'd be interested to hear both your thoughts on this fellow. In essence, he asserts "the Islamic scriptures in the Qur'an were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible", citing explicit instructions in the Old Testament calling for genocide while the Qur'an calls for primarily defensive war. Jenkins went on to state that Islam, Judaism and Christianity had undergone a process he refers to as "holy amnesia" in which violence in sacred texts become symbolic action against one's sins. Islam had until recently also undergone the same process, in which jihad became an internal struggle rather than war.

Christian Jihad

Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses, Philip Jenkins, HarperOne, 320 pages

By PATRICK ALLITT • January 31, 2012
Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses, Philip Jenkins, HarperOne, 320 pages

Is it true that the Bible teaches peace and the Koran war? Only if you approach the books selectively, taking the gentlest of Jesus’ teachings and setting them against the harshest of Muhammad’s. Philip Jenkins’s challenging new book Laying Down the Sword shows that the Bible contains incitements not just to violence but also to genocide. He argues that Christians and Jews should struggle to make sense of these violent texts as a central element of their tradition, rather than hurry past them or ignore them altogether.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ristian-jihad/

and

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.
"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788

[astonas]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Ya see that's just the thing. Christianity does not have that concept. You again, just don't know the subject. In fact the Catholics developed their morality around it. It developed along with the West had the concept of Malum prohibitum and Malum in se in their ethics. Some things are evil itself and cannot done so in the name of any authority.

EVERY religion that claims to absolve sin has the concept of forgiveness. And that is why EVERY such religion can be and has been twisted to serve violent ends.

Are you seriously arguing that Christianity does not have the concept of forgiveness of sin? Why then did Christ suffer and die?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

EVERY religion that claims to absolve sin has the concept of forgiveness. And that is why EVERY such religion can be and has been twisted to serve violent ends.

Well so can a socialist belief system like National Socialism. I mean does it matter what the 25 point platform said? If there were Nazi refugees , why not send them to Israel? Anything can be twisted into it so what deference does it make when people say they are Nazis, believe in the 25 points and so on? Hey some people just interprete banning Jews from public office differently.

And who am I to judge? There were some good points in that platform. I like Common law better than Roman civil code too. Lets say its a fine way for German to live. Is it compatible for the state of Israel?

Well I don't know does that really say what it says? Maybe it means Germany loved to host Jews. I think it fits right in to Israel since its such a tolerant Western democracy that should accept anything.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

I wonder why they were so militant. Where oh where could they get that from?

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

I mean recipess with arsenic or rat poison in them can just be ignored . People know not to actually put poisonous ingredients actually listed in the recipe, right? Why even read or have definitions of words? When I want to say I want to burn your house down , shoot your dog and rape you family its subject to interpretation....

Are you seriously arguing that Christianity does not have the concept of forgiveness of sin? Why then did Christ suffer and die?

1 No, where would you get that idea from anything I said?
2. Have no interest in debating theology, just what words mean. Otherwise I'd dig up the passage where Paul addresses increasing sin does not increase mercy.



Anyway sorry , no dice. Christianity does not come as a ready made anything for violence in any way comparable to Islam, Judasim( a constant source to impugn Christianity yet somehow getting the ole pass even though it is still in tact as is) , Marxism and National Socialism. The Nazis were certainly taking advantage of the somewhat fatalistic view of Christianity that the state ought not be opposed, passive to a fault in that case. I recall JS Mill making the point its full of passive virtues , but so passive it lacks active ones like bravery and ambition.Though The Cost of Discipleship by Bonhoeffer, was the Orthodox , literal interpretation that tried to oppose the regime.

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

...2. Have no interest in debating theology, just what words mean.... Anyway sorry , no dice. Christianity does not come as a ready made anything for violence in any way comparable...

Been trying to follow this argument. Gwynnedd1, it's clear where your interest are as you're a master of the language. Yet I've not been convinced that the Christian text and Islamic texts differ significantly when it comes to demands for blood. You were good to make the distinctions between OT and NT and it's an important distinction to note. Still I don't think the effort has been sufficient to make your case. Of course, your position seems to me the more difficult of the two to support.

I hope you can take a few moments to at least skim through the pieces by and about Dr. Jenkins I posted. At the very least, he does a better job of arguing against your premise than astonas. That's no slight against you, astonas. I would'd do as well myself, even if I tend to agree with you and disagree with Gwyn in this case.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Been trying to follow this argument. Gwynnedd1, it's clear where your interest are as you're a master of the language. Yet I've not been convinced that the Christian text and Islamic texts differ significantly when it comes to demands for blood. You were good to make the distinctions between OT and NT and it's an important distinction to note. Still I don't think the effort has been sufficient to make your case. Of course, your position seems to me the more difficult of the two to support.

I hope you can take a few moments to at least skim through the pieces by and about Dr. Jenkins I posted. At the very least, he does a better job of arguing against your premise than astonas. That's no slight against you, astonas. I would'd do as well myself, even if I tend to agree with you and disagree with Gwyn in this case.

Hi Woodsman,

I will look into it, but I am not using third party sources. I have read the bible, the quran, talmud, the book of mormon , what have you. The problem with the quran , and that is fundamentally what this argument is about, what's the ideology in the quaran? The bible accounts are much more contextual and historical.

One of the more scandalous passages is here:

Deuteronomy 7

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. ³ Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. ⁴ For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the Lord will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. ⁵ But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images,^[a] and burn their carved images with fire.

⁶ “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. ⁷ The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; ⁸ but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.


Galatians 3


²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.





Again this is a Christian legacy. As for Judasim well....more problematic. It is still however very contextual. The wrath was very specific.


The quran is very open ended.



The Cow

Do not eat up your wealth among yourselves wrongfully, nor proffer it to the judges in order to eat up a part of the people’s wealth sinfully, while you know [that it is immoral to do so].

They question you concerning the new moons. Say, ‘They are timekeeping signs for the people and [for the sake of] ḥajj.’ It is not piety that you come into houses from their rear; rather piety is [personified by] one who is Godwary, and come into houses from their doors, and be wary of Allah, so that you may be felicitous.
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed Allah does not like transgressors.
And kill them wherever you confront them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for faithlessness¹ is graver than killing. But do not fight them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight you therein; but if they fight you, kill them; such is the requital of the faithless.
But if they relinquish,¹ then Allah is indeed all-forgiving, all-merciful.
Fight them until faithlessness¹ is no more, and religion becomes [exclusively] for Allah. Then if they relinquish, there shall be no reprisal except against the wrongdoers.


Taking things out of context in Christianity is the root of most of the evil. It can , and has been met when this occurs. The quran really has no specific context.

I mean here we have Islamic states that exist peacefully for some time. Then with instability , all hell breaks loose. Why? Read the quran and you find out why.

Trust me , if the US goes through instability it will have Christian revival movements which will become fundamentalist. During hard time religion finds easy recruits. They will find mostly passive text if its Christian, still dangerous since it can be twisted, true. However it must be twisted. End-time Christianity is exactly the case of a manufactured form of it.

Jews tend not to proselytize their region, albeit there is that Noahide business and the Chabad-Lubavitch who do proselytize following the 7 Noahide laws. Avodah Zarah could turn into a disaster in say Christian society and India since they might be classified as idolaters( what's not to love about a region that condemns idolatry, that is itself idolatry? ) . We will not even get into the absurdity of monism without a defined essence which the Greeks argued much better the desert religions( the single essence would be the one God). But then Greeks knew how to calculate PI far betters as well. They have no definition of God's essence and then discard manifestations which must be plural. There is "wheat" , and then there are many loves of bread. Without bread, what the hell is wheat? They point to a loaf with no idea of the essence of its monism concepts. So again a bit open ended for my tastes when the penalty is a good beheading.

But when it comes down to it, anyone speaking with the authority of God is a bit frightening. However IMHO, the ones open to capital punishment for drawing a cartoon seem the worst of the bunch to me.

[DSpencer]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Wrong again. Its as if you discuss a book you never read. Now I can also agree many "Christians" don't read the book either. However those that do will find absolutely nothing to support violent resolutions to anything. "Christians" who read the NT do not cite the 10 Commandments or Leviticus. For a dim view of homosexuality the New Testament may be sourced.

So taking this sentence by sentence your argument consists of: Bare assertion. Ad hominem. No True Scotsman (implied anyway). Repetition of already refuted claim. No True Scotsman. Non Sequitur.

Your main argument is the very definition of a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. You personally believe in a particular interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who doesn't believe in your interpretation and act accordingly is not a "True Christian". You realize that huge numbers of self-identified, Bible-reading, Christians do in fact cite and support the 10 commandments so in order to escape this fact, you claim they aren't "True Christians".

The fact that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality does NOT mean that people have stopped believing in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or deemed it obsolete, or stopped using it as evidence that God condemns homosexuality.

Your personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation. The point remains that the Christian Bible contains plenty of violence in the Old Testament and plenty of Christians still read the Old Testament and consider it relevant.

I wonder what the point of your argument even is? A lot of liberals don't like Christianity because they view it as intolerant and judgemental. I find this fascinating to see liberals trying to be tolerant of Islam in a way that they are not of Christianity. If they don't like Christianity, then they are really going to be in for a big surprise with Islam. They are not the same. By their point of view it is quite a bit worse.

My only point is to refute the silly assertion that literate people can't find violent inspiration in the Christian Bible. Am I a liberal now? I can't keep track. More often itulip accuses me of being the opposite. I'm not pointing out the violence of the Quran because nobody here is claiming it doesn't exist (plus I was raised/baptized Methodist and went to Catholic school for 12 years so I know the Bible far better).


Revelation 19 King James Version (KJV)

¹¹ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
¹² His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
¹³ And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
¹⁴ And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
¹⁵ And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

You really don't see this as a violent resolution to anything?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

So taking this sentence by sentence your argument consists of: Bare assertion. Ad hominem. No True Scotsman (implied anyway). Repetition of already refuted claim. No True Scotsman. Non Sequitur. Your main argument is the very definition of a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy...

This type of nonsense has proliferated on the webz over the past decade.

I've made it my personal mission to not let this happen here...at least not without calling it out. Because it just gets everybody defensive and angry and is completely 100% unproductive.

Please don't try to force formal logic into casual discussion or anywhere nobody is making any sort of deductive claim. This is not high school debate class.

Calling out fallacies in deductive logic in situations where nobody is making any sort of deductive argument or logical claim is the equivalent of Sherlock Holmes screaming at Mrs. Hudson at every opportunity about her misapplications of deductive logic in baking muffins. She's the landlady. It wouldn't advance the storyline one bit. She wasn't trying to deduce anything anyways. And everyone just ends up angry and confrontational for no reason (Holmes could have simply taken the muffin with a 'thank you' and eaten it). Then everyone comes out looking like a jerk:

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

So taking this sentence by sentence your argument consists of: Bare assertion. Ad hominem. No True Scotsman (implied anyway). Repetition of already refuted claim. No True Scotsman. Non Sequitur.

That describes your approach perfectly. I 'll cite the entire New Testament before I am through and you still don't think words means what they mean. I have cited many other texts. You took some Old Testament passages which were annihilated as having any relevance to the Christian sect which is essentially a reformed Judaism. Islam is another one. That one did not take the Christian route.

Your main argument is the very definition of a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. You personally believe in a particular interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who doesn't believe in your interpretation and act accordingly is not a "True Christian". You realize that huge numbers of self-identified, Bible-reading, Christians do in fact cite and support the 10 commandments so in order to escape this fact, you claim they aren't "True Christians".

Do you perhaps have a fact somewhere? What Christians support the Ten Commandments? Cause they said so? Which reference are they referring to? Exodus 20, Exodus 34 or Deuteronomy 5?


The more detailed one is Exodus 34 :

¹⁰ And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. ¹¹ Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. ¹² Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. ¹³ But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images ¹⁴ (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), ¹⁵ lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, ¹⁶ and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

¹⁷ “You shall make no molded gods for yourselves.

¹⁸ “The Feast of Unleavened Bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, in the appointed time of the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.

¹⁹ “All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. ²⁰ But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.

“And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.

²¹ “Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.

²² “And you shall observe the Feast of Weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year’s end.

²³ “Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the Lord God of Israel. ²⁴ For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.

²⁵ “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, nor shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until morning.

²⁶ “The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

²⁷ Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” ²⁸ So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.^[a]
Do uh, these Christians follow the unabriged version of these ten commandments?

the biggest abridgement is in Matthew 19

¹⁶ Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good^[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

¹⁷ So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?^[f] No one is good but One, that is, God.^[g] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

¹⁸ He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ¹⁹ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’^[h] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”^[i]

The Jews do not do this because the Levitical priesthood was destroyed during the war with Rome. Christianity abolished it.

Hebrews 7
¹¹ Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? ¹² For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. ¹³ For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

¹⁴ For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.^{[a] 15} And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest ¹⁶ who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. ¹⁷ For He testifies:^[b]

Thus all that remains are, as I have proven with half the NT is the socially moral aspects of it.

The fact that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality does NOT mean that people have stopped believing in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or deemed it obsolete, or stopped using it as evidence that God condemns homosexuality.

What does condemning homosexuality have to do with the object of violence? No one disputes Christianity regards it as sinful, just like they do sex out of wedlock. Again, people can believe anything. However the New Testament , aka the reformed Judaism we call the Christian sect is primary to any OT source.
Acts 24:5

"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

Your personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation.

And my personal religious beliefs were what? When did I discuss them? I am an agnostic and generally not religious. I was raised in a very different way. However since I believe in basic facts I do not hold beliefs without them. I don't have anywhere near the amount of direction-less faith you apparently have . You speak authoritatively with few items presented as fact. I just keep posting what it says.

The point remains that the Christian Bible contains plenty of violence in the Old Testament and plenty of Christians still read the Old Testament and consider it relevant.

And that is because of a will to have it so, not from the text itself. That is why fundamental interpretations will pacify it, quite the opposite with the Quran.

My only point is to refute the silly assertion that literate people can't find violent inspiration in the Christian Bible. Am I a liberal now? I can't keep track. More often itulip accuses me of being the opposite. I'm not pointing out the violence of the Quran because nobody here is claiming it doesn't exist (plus I was raised/baptized Methodist and went to Catholic school for 12 years so I know the Bible far better).

You seem to know almost nothing about it. However I find that the case with many practising Christians. However at some point , once the cathedrals of centrally managed interpretations fail, the basic texts will prevail again. Bomb a Christian country and Christian fundamentalism will appear because humans have always tired to appease the Gods in times of trouble. "What did we do wrong? Hey lets start from the beginning. "

Christian : stop sinning, and pray
Islam: make everyone submit to Allah

Revelation 19 King James Version (KJV)

¹¹ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
¹² His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
¹³ And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
¹⁴ And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
¹⁵ And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

You really don't see this as a violent resolution to anything?

Oh yeah....which horse do you plan on riding? No one disputes Christianity does not have divine judgement and retribution. It is however absolutely clear that its not a man's job.

Romans 12 :19

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Would you like the umpteen other places?


Yeah go ahead and import some Islam into the US . I guess that will be the only way to show the difference between take it of leave it Christianity and Islamic submission by force. You should also take note that "the people of the Book"., are allowed to live. So if you are not a Christan or a Jew...well then you are a pagan. Good luck with all that.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...city-mountains

[astonas]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

Please don't try to force formal logic into casual discussion or anywhere nobody is making any sort of deductive claim. This is not high school debate class.

Calling out fallacies in deductive logic in situations where nobody is making any sort of deductive argument or logical claim is the equivalent of Sherlock Holmes screaming at Mrs. Hudson at every opportunity about her misapplications of deductive logic in baking muffins. She's the landlady. It wouldn't advance the storyline one bit. She wasn't trying to deduce anything anyways. And everyone just ends up angry and confrontational for no reason (Holmes could have simply taken the muffin with a 'thank you' and eaten it). Then everyone comes out looking like a jerk:

With respect, dcarrigg, the claim that Christianity is somehow immune to incitement to terrorism, and the associated implication that it should therefore be given different weight in admitting Syrian refugees is not only a deductive claim, but a very large one, which demands substantiation. It also has considerable real-world policy consequences, potentially determining the very life or death of the refugees in question. In this context, I suggest to you that it is the singular claim of religious superiority, not its refutation with logic, that is poisonous to civil discussion.


When people are content to leave their religion at the door in policy discussions, they are free to believe whatever they wish, fallacious or not. And I think you and I probably agree that all people, regardless of beliefs, are to be treated with respect as people. For this reason, we employ the common courtesy of not antagonizing others unnecessarily by mocking deeply-held beliefs. It is in this sense that your objection in the name of friendly public discourse is unassailable. It makes sense to treat all people with respect, and converse in that manner.

But in the present context, when the national and iTulip discussions concerning the acceptance or rejection of refugees appears to turn on theological questions, private fallacies risk being turned into poor public policy. THAT is when pointing out fallacious reasoning is not only proper, but entirely necessary. A claim has been made in this thread about the inherent superiority of one religion, with barely-veiled allusions to keeping adherents of a different but (from my atheistic vantage) entirely interchangeable, religion out.

A person who holds to incorrect theological ideas - even the most ridiculous - is free to hold them. As Jefferson wrote in his Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

That's why, when people's private beliefs make claims on public policy, even to the extent of letting refugees die, it is not only justified but thoroughly necessary to subject them to logical scrutiny, and preferably before they are implemented in law. The fact that many common theological arguments contain demonstrable fallacies when subjected to rigorous logical examination does not point to a problem with the discourse, but to a problem with insisting that a field of study which accepts difficult-to-support concepts axiomatically (theology) should be taken into account when making policy suggestions.

So I fully support an iTulip standard to "play nice" with adherents of any religion (which is what you seem to be saying in trying to steer us clear of pointing out fallacies) so long as they keep their religion out of the sphere of public policy, where it has no legitimate standing. But if someone suggests that only their own co-religionists should be admitted to this country, then they should expect to have their theological claims supporting that argument dissected, and each of its many risible hidden fallacies exposed and ridiculed. That is what should happen to any POLICY arguments that are flawed, when evaluated through public discourse.

So one can either make the request "play nice on religion" or tacitly embrace "religion should affect government decisions". But both together just isn't possible. You can decide which of those mutually exclusive positions you'd like to support here on iTulip. The first is certainly going to be much more peaceful, but I also know that the second is going to produce the more impassioned debate. For myself, I don't really care that much which way we go, to be honest, so make a suggestion, and I'll probably follow it as long as others do as well.

But you certainly can't reasonably expect those of us whose logical analysis leads us to the conclusion that Christianity is deeply and irreconcilably immoral to quietly and respectfully go along with thinking that puts Christian religious tests on refugees, either in this nation, or here on iTulip.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

This type of nonsense has proliferated on the webz over the past decade.

I've made it my personal mission to not let this happen here...at least not without calling it out. Because it just gets everybody defensive and angry and is completely 100% unproductive.

Please don't try to force formal logic into casual discussion or anywhere nobody is making any sort of deductive claim. This is not high school debate class.

Calling out fallacies in deductive logic in situations where nobody is making any sort of deductive argument or logical claim is the equivalent of Sherlock Holmes screaming at Mrs. Hudson at every opportunity about her misapplications of deductive logic in baking muffins. She's the landlady. It wouldn't advance the storyline one bit. She wasn't trying to deduce anything anyways. And everyone just ends up angry and confrontational for no reason (Holmes could have simply taken the muffin with a 'thank you' and eaten it). Then everyone comes out looking like a jerk:

An in fact "no true scotsman" isn't even a formal fallacy because its nothing but an inductive or practical judgement. The debate is over non falsifiable beliefs based nothing but induction even from source texts. Some "Christians" don't agree on all the authoritative texts, even down to source texts of Alexandrian or Majority text , let alone the actual canon. Socialism , Feminism and the like all suffer from this because there is no authoritative source. Marxism is much closer because it does have such a source. If Marx said blue is best, then I have no idea how a true Marxist can think yellow is best. The bible as of now, is considered an authoritative source from the most part. Unless someone comes up with and canonizes the lost Gospel of Nicodemus, this is what we deal with. If so, then only interpretations that do not have contradictions can be valid. There is of course the problem with the apparent contradiction and failing to distinguish. That and emphasis on flavour like praise God or help the poor result in the different sects.

The irony is much of what I see is "ISIS is not true Islam" . See any fallacy of this nature in that? If the authoritative scriptures of a faith isn't enough to evade this informal fallacy, then we have the religious like order of denial which seems to be modern liberalism of ultra tolerance not seemingly aware that the Constitution that created it uses the word "shall" in it. Speaking of formal logic , tolerance of intolerance computes to intolerance. European secular Enlightenment is intolerant of anything against it basic edicts , defaulting to tolerance to what has not been specifically denied. Hence its not purely tolerant of all things.

All we can hope for is tame interpretations , or secular cultural Islam much like the secular atheist Jew. And that is the other point. Christendom is largely gone in the West. We are a secular society trying to absorb very rigid forms of religious conservatism, far less giving Conservatism and Christianity. To come full circle the Quran is no true Ideology of Scottish enlightenment. They are not compatible ideologies.

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

...But you certainly can't reasonably expect those of us whose logical analysis leads us to the conclusion that Christianity is deeply and irreconcilably immoral to quietly and respectfully go along with thinking that puts Christian religious tests on refugees, either in this nation, or here on iTulip.

The Abrahamic religions are fundamentally immoral, in my opinion. The late, great Chris Hitchens said it best.

When a man decides to murder his son in cold blood because the voices in his head tell him so, we rightfully call him mad and seek to segregate him from society as a clear and present danger. Yet almost 90% of Americans declare their eternal fidelity to a triumvirate of faiths founded on a "covenant" made by a similar madman. Well, guys and dolls, there's nothing going to penetrate that sort of mass delusion. And consequently, any attempts to come to some "don't ask don't tell policy" at iTulip is bound to fail and probably cause more harm than good.

But certainly, employ all the intellectual tools at our command to keep religion and religious tests from becoming a part of public policy no matter whose sensibilities it might offend.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

With respect, dcarrigg, the claim that Christianity is somehow immune to incitement to terrorism, a
Who made that claim?

So But if someone suggests that only their own co-religionists should be admitted to this country, then they should expect to have their theological claims supporting that argument dissected, and each of its many risible hidden fallacies exposed and ridiculed. That is what should happen to any POLICY arguments that are flawed, when evaluated through public discourse.

And who would that be? I am not a practising Christan. I am a practising secularist. I am not interested in importing religions or ideologies that conflict with it.

[astonas]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

And who would that be? I am not a practising Christan. I am a practising secularist. I am not interested in importing religions or ideologies that conflict with it.

If this is the case, I can only express bewilderment concerning your line of argument. It just seems to me (and it's always possible that I've misread your tone!) that you may have selected the wrong target for invective, if your intent was to connect the end of your argument to the final goal of advancing secularism. Perhaps you can help clarify my misunderstanding?

I do not see how a mere 10,000 starving Syrian refugees (lacking the right to vote, and extremely grateful for a chance to escape Syria) could be expected to wield anywhere near as much political influence on undermining the long-standing tradition of a secular state in this nation as the currently dominant christian population, which is already extremely successful at squeezing unconstitutional religious influence into policy.

(In case the answer is the usual canard of "terrorism!", remember that refugee candidates are screened vastly more carefully than anyone just getting a tourist visa. This is not an EASIER way into the US, but a HARDER path than existing methods for potential terrorists. One might legitimately make the terrorism argument fly in Europe, where the screening system really is overwhelmed. But 10,000 isn't a number that risks overwhelming the far larger and more practiced US system.)

By far the greatest threat to US secularism is not muslims inserting their ideology into laws (not nearly enough votes in that), but christian overreaction to the presence of muslims, which IS ALREADY motivating the insertion of religious ideology into law.

It is religious pluralism, not unity, that both protects and is protected by a secular state.

But as I've said, I have mis-read tone before, and please correct me if I have misunderstood.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

The Abrahamic religions are fundamentally immoral, in my opinion. The late, great Chris Hitchens said it best.

I would say they are all fundamentally intolerant , morals give or take. They were not much worse than their peers, sometimes better. Human sacrifice is not too cool. However being intolerant they remain as they are. However the original Abrahamic religion was Judaism as being the source of it. Now when one speaks of reform...Well that is what Christianity is , reformed. The Israelites stoned for adultly and Jesus called anyone doing so a hypocrite. Islam did not reform in this way.

However again this is a secular society. I don't think I'd want several million prohibitionists turning my country dry. Would I want to import those people? Why the hell would I dilute my vote and subject myself the tyranny of a hostile majority and go back to the 6th century? Just gotta be stupid in the plural I guess.... By my view "good Christians" hacked the scriptures , said wine was grape juice,and thereafter created the mob, FBI and the income tax....I don't want those people. Europe freed itself from antisemitism( not that I care for Judaism much) and , and we repealed prohibition . Now Europe wants to import antisemitism and we want to import more martinets?

When a man decides to murder his son in cold blood because the voices in his head tell him so, we rightfully call him mad and seek to segregate him from society as a clear and present danger. Yet almost 90% of Americans declare their eternal fidelity to a triumvirate of faiths founded on a "covenant" made by a similar madman. Well, guys and dolls, there's nothing going to penetrate that sort of mass delusion. And consequently, any attempts to come to some "don't ask don't tell policy" at iTulip is bound to fail and probably cause more harm than good.

But certainly, employ all the intellectual tools at our command to keep religion and religious tests from becoming a part of public policy no matter whose sensibilities it might offend.

Unless you think its true, isn't it mass delusion? Is that the kind of citizen I need next to me?

[Woodsman]

Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?

...Unless you think its true, isn't it mass delusion? Is that the kind of citizen I need next to me?

Point taken. And I agree that an open door policy would be a mistake at this point. I'd rather see an end to the conditions that create refugees. And nobody seems interested in the fact that those folks are displaced because our bombings, invasion and incitement of civil war displaced them. The one who should be fleeing their country and forced to wander the world in bare feet should be the war criminals in the Bush administration and their congressional accomplices on the Republican and Democratic parties, along with the stenographers and amen chorus in the media. Fat chance of that.