jadewahoo wrote: 
copy the embed code. paste in comment window, preview twice.

As a non-Muslim, my top priority question is... How the hell does one go about pasting a You Tube video in a new forum post again? I forgot...

 Lazy8 wrote: 
So the first question that pops into my head is, is this innate morality genetic or learned behavior? I mean from the standpoint of how it originated when we evolved into homo sapiens. Is it something we're genetically wired to do? Or did we learn it, say, by mimicking other species?

 kurtster wrote: 
Enough said.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I give him credit for not trying to burn them alive and keeping his carbon footprint low.

 

This guy apparently only had one question...

 Lazy8 wrote:
Islam just isn't as monolithic as is commonly believed or presented. There are plenty of adherents that already do not abide by the letter of scriptures, whether they be Sufis, or others who consider themselves, much like Catholics, cultural Muslims first (immigrants, ex-Soviet Muslims, and increasingly the youth in parts of the Middle East) . They might consume alcohol/pork or skip prayer when it suits them, i.e. their observance/belief is sloppy when compared to, or viewed by, their fundamentalist brethren.

On the other hand there are still regressive elements (which can be quite dominant in some regions). However they exist in the other religions as well, and are just as eager to project/codify their views on morality, etc.

Yet as with any leadership (and it is very decentralized in Islam), some might decree/desire some practice or another (think Popes), but that doesn't mean the adherents will necessarily abide, especially if they are far enough from the centre of power.

 miamizsun wrote:
Wow, an actual relevant post!

I have my own answer to this and no rigorous way to verify it; I guess that makes me an expert.

Humans have an innate morality. There are things every culture finds wrong—murder, say. Religions coopt this innate morality and claim it as their own; they also override it when that suits a purpose. See, for example, the slaughter of the Caananites in the old testament.

Over time the doctrines of religions evolve to better reflect that innate morality. Originally the religion of Abraham demanded sacrifices; one of the supposed breaks with old testament practice in Christianity was the abandonment of this practice. But Jews no longer sacrifice either; the scriptures didn't change, but the doctrines did.

Slavery is similar. Both old and new testaments don't just condone slavery, they explicitly endorse it. Yet neither Jews nor Christians practice it any longer, and both consider it morally abhorrent. Again, the scripture is still right there, giving god's blessing to the practice, but you won't find many Christians or Jews today endorsing slavery as a moral practice.

Secular cultures do this as well. The bombing of civilian targets in WW2 was considered a legitimate tactic; today it would be considered a war crime. Capital punishment is withering away even in the most bloodthirsty cultures.

The effect this has on religion is slow but profound. Over time the obvious conflict between scripture and moral practice gets first explained away as a response to specific circumstances that are no longer relevant, then hair-split off as metaphor rather than explicit instructions, then hand-waved away as too mysterious to explain or understand, then rejected outright, either by schism or heresy—a new prophet shows up and says "Never mind all that, here are the current instructions straight from god."

Another option exists too: outright rejection of the religion. As we evolve morally and knowledge of other religions spreads, it becomes more and more obvious that religions with actual codified doctrine all share these contradictions; instead of abandoning one for another today we see a great many people abandoning organized (codified) religions for generic spirituality or roll-your-own New Age practices, which pick and choose doctrines and rituals from other religions (or make them up from scratch) to satisfy a craving for the mystical.

We also see people openly abandoning religion altogether, as the social taboos against rationality fall.

Where this connects to the topic at hand is that religions (specifically Islam) (that is both the scriptures and the adherents) get blamed for the actions of their most radical members. Those actions are justified based on the barbaric teachings of those scriptures, and sure enough, justification is right there on the page. And yet the vast majority of adherents to that religion don't do those things—don't slaughter their neighbors for any of the myriad crimes spelled out in scripture. In many cases these scriptural justifications aren't just authorization but a command: thou shalt, not thou may. God is telling them to go do something heinous. Yet they don't.

They already don't believe in the teachings of their religion, they just can't admit it yet. This is a slow process. Judaism is over five thousand years old. Christianity is over two thousand. Islam is only about 1400 years old, and the process of rounding off the rough edges hasn't been going on as long. It hasn't evolved as close to that innate morality as the other Abrahamic religions.

While there is some evidence we can shorten this process (look how quickly and how thoroughly western cultures have become secular in the last century) I don't think we can rush it by simply condemning Islam, at least not from the outside. People have to grasp the contradictions between what their religion endorses and what they find moral on their own, and go thru the process—rationalizing, hand-waving, and finally abandoning—for themselves. This has taken many generations with other religions and it won't happen overnight with Islam either.

 kurtster wrote: 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Your above questions leads me to ask this question

When will Islam have its enlightenment and non violent reformation as has Judaism and Christianity ?

Their reformations happened 100's of years ago.   

in the past how have people been motivated to temper irrational beliefs (doctrines) with reason?

what produces enlightenment?

thousands of gods and hundreds of beliefs systems have gone by the wayside

why?


or what questions should we ask?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

 kurtster wrote:
Enough said.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I have no idea what you're up to here.  I read the "transcript" and spent 20 minutes watching the video and found nothing that refers to the point of your headline.  And as someone who admits to watching Fox News, I can say that I have never seen anyone advocate violence towards Muslims on any program.  I have however seen Muslim and non Muslim guests who will not condemn much of the violence carried out by Muslim extremists and Jihadists and in fact try and justify it.

That is 20 minutes I will never get back ... 

Fear, Inc. 2.0: As Anti-Muslim Incidents Continue, Report Exposes Funders, Pundits of Islamophobia | Democracy Now!

report

Part 3

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Except that we don't see this type of sustained 'religious criticism' nearly as often when it comes to Xianity or Judaism (hiding behind Conservatism or 'family values'), let alone the gross oversimplification and stereotyping of their adherents (unless you choose to place yourself in small groups of people whose myopic focus is mainly on the evils of religion while ignoring other systemic problems). In fact, atheists (or the evil Left) that do point out the effects or bigotry on display by mainstream religion in Western countries, in some cases get a similar treatment as the Muslims do.

People such as Maher and Harris, who prompted this discussion, function exactly as described in number eight of the ten commandments of war propaganda. Unlike the obvious and overt bigots, they contribute to the 2 Minutes Hate scapegoating in a 'respectable manner'.

 cc_rider wrote: 

Yes, that was my point.

sirdroseph wrote:
Read the rest of the article. Reza Aslan wasn't defending Islamic doctrine in the appearance they critiqued, he was defending Muslims from charges that the religion was to blame for cultural practices in Muslim countries. Their point-by-point "rebuttal" is pretty fatuous.

I'm not terribly impressed with Reza Aslan as a scholar, but this kind of attack is dishonest.