Carry over from CB to Archaea...
 

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1741459

I'd rather have this conversation here...

I wont disagree with you that we have one of the highest standards of decency in the world.

However, despite our high standards we too have been guilty of the exact kind of hate and bloodlust that we claim to be the "evil" in our enemy.

What I was seeing on CB today really made me sick. The way many of the posters over there portray "all" Muslims as the modern version of the Lamanites is flat out racism. It honestly reminds me of the type of propaganda the Nazis used to portray the Jews as sub human.

Am I so far out on a limb here?

Is it so impossible to see how we could be reasonably thought of as evil by those who look at us as oppressors?

I haven't been following the conversation on cougarboard....

but I will say that there seem to be two camps:

1) we are fighting an illegitimate branch of extremists among Muslims

2) we are engaged in a clash of cultures and beliefs, that in the most extememe fashion, is manifest in terrorism and war.

THe PC answer is #1.

The more disconcerting answer is #2. I think it would be a mistake to disregard #2.

We do need to moderate our views of Muslims as evil, because that's overly simplistic, inaccurate and doesn't contribute much to political discourse.

However, to ignore the cultural hatred brewed within those societies would be unwise.

Frankly, the Muslim world is so much a puzzle, I only possess questions, not answers.

There is no centralized authority, no mechanism to molify the radical elements.

The only answer I see is secularization.

It is definately a war of cultures... Many of them are taught that we are the reason for their troubles (so they hate us) and we don't like it when they throw things at us. If it weren't for the fact that we all have to co-exist on the same globe and that they happen to sit on the part of that globe where all of the oil is, I don't think this would be such a problem.

My only reason for pointing out some of the "evils" in US history is to illustrate that it is possible that a reasonable person might be able to make a legitimate argument that the US is a "blood thirsty" nation.

Honestly, I have no idea how some people can be so blinded by their own sense of what is "right."

Self-criticism.

It is a learned trait.

Introspection.

Difficult to do.

This is not meant as a representation of magnitude of the problem, but I think it follows the same kind of Idea.

A few years back one of the protesters at General Conference had some Garments and was swinging them around his head and throwing them on the ground and showing them off to everyone. Finally one person had enough and took the garments from the protester and was later arrested for it.

The man who took the garments from the protester was wrong to do it, but I can understand his anger. This may be a similar feeling that Muslims have for the protesters. They know they are wrong but deep down they almost wish they are protesting to. I wish people would stand up a little more for what they believe, but would rather have people be more empathetic for others beliefs and feelings.

I’m not going to go blow up any building, but then I wasn’t taught that, that was an option.

You can argue all of us become angry.

True enough, but true religion teaches man to tame himself. Taken as a whole, Islam, which is termed as submitting oneself to God, does not seem to tame itself.

It doesn calm a person but enrages him.

Therefore it is false religion.

I've been taught that satan copies everything that God does but he puts his own little twists in it. That is how I see Islam, it has a lot of good things in it but I believe that satan is the father of it.

I understand that may be a very extreme view but its mine and I'll except it. I also think the same thing of Church of Scientology, but thats a whole different issue that I have.

Here's my response to all of that:

What religion:

1.) Teaches that only followers of their religion are true followers of God and will go to heaven?

2.) Teaches that those who do not believe in their religion will ultimately be removed from the earth, both by bloodshed and by divine intervention?

3.) Teaches that it's better for a non-believer to die if it results in other nations believing?

4.) Is responsible for a violent attack against innocents on September 11?

And again, I'm not referring to Islam.

A gross mischaracterization of the Church's teachings, at least in context.

!. Highest degree of heaven, after a full teaching in this and an in the next life.

2. The removal by bloodshed is due to lack of protection, not my Divine Intervention.

3. ONE instance in all of our existence, and the prophet was reluctant, not happy in doing it.

4. The religion was NOT responsible for 1857, a singular episode, otherwise repugnant to its core teachings.

Islam has the tenet of the greater and lesser jihad as part of its core tenets.

Mohammed was a warrior prophet who wedded an 8 year old. He only became a successful missionary after he went to war.

You're absolutely right-- it IS a gross misrepresentation.

The point is, I'd be awfully careful about how we are representing other religions when our own religion can be represented in just as awful of terms. Islam may or may not be as passive as Mormonism, but we of all people should know how beneficial it is to point fingers.

I think this a fairly accurate expression of how I feel.

If for some reason there was a big uprising of fundamentalist Mormons who felt that the rest of the US was oppressing them, I could see some wack job going out and setting up a ranch a-la-Waco. If this happened often enough many people would have an easy time going along with All-American's misrepresentation.

However, 20th and 21st Century Christianity is one of the few ameliorative influences of the world.

One can read Buddhist teachings and find passivism. Christian teachings for charity, same for Judaism, even Hinduism (which is somewhat racist).

However, if you read the whole of Islam, it is easily misdirected for violence.

At the same time, in the whole of its history, Christianity has been the root of a whole lot of bloodshed-- probably more so than any other religious movement. I'm not so sure I'd argue that Christianity isn't easily misdirected for violence.

And no fair using big words like ameliorative.

The Dark Ages version of Christianity was the source of much bloodshed. The political versions of colonial Christianity. Yes, however, once Christianity began returning to its roots, it turned contemplative.

If Islam returns to its roots, it will remain violent.

True, but only until all of us infidels are dead... Then they'll be peaceful!

Perhaps I am not reading this correctly but it sounds like you are saying that we shouldn't point fingers at Islam because Mormonism can be represented just as badly.

I am very hesitant to blame a particular religion for the problems in the world but, on the other hand, many of the current terrorism acts in the world are commited by folks claiming the backing of Allah. When 9/11 oocurred, almost all(if not all) the countries in the world, including the Islam theocracies officially condemned the action even while those in their governemts silently(and not so silently) sympathized with the actions of the hijackers. The attitude around the proverbial islamic water cooler seemed to be, 'They shouldn't really have done that but America REALLY had it coming.' As others acts have been commited since(Spain, London), the same routine has been repeated. And still no fatwah has been issued by islam leaders(the religious leaders) to launch a concerted effort to bring all the violence to a stop.

While many, many muslims are peaceful and just want to be left alone to live their lives, the religion that they belong to does not appear to regard the stopping of the bloodshead as a priority. When it does, THAT is when Islam will become truely a great religion.

Good post realtall.

No concerted effort for peaceful resolution by Arab and Muslim moderates. That's a major problem in taking the religion seriously.

My argument is not that we should avoid pointing fingers because we can look bad at times to.

My point is, be careful about what you say/hear/believe. If the true church of Jesus Christ can be easily portrayed as being a sinister evil, then a religion that is not can be so portrayed even more easily. My point is a plea to avoid falling into the trap of the propoganda machine that inevitably occurs during times of war. We stand to gain nothing by demonizing those on the other side of the line.

I recognize that many honest evaluations of the available evidence show that there is much that is evil at the root of Islam. I don't think that the struggle with Islam will end, however, if we keep bringing it up. If we can separate militant extremism from all traces of the religion of Islam in our own perception, and show peace-loving muslims that there is a place in the world for them, we will have won the most important battle of the war.

I just don't know how we can avoid bringing up the current violence tied directly to Islam. That's tantamount to pretending that its not there because 'we have problems too.' I also don't deny that Mormonism has had its problems but whatever evil was done in the church's name was dwarfed by far by the single act of September 11th.

And lastly, I have no idea how we can seperate Islam from the miltant extremeism within when Islam itself is unwilling to do so. I could accept it more if Islam was struggling terribly to seperate itself from this virus but it isn't. Its inaction in these regards is nothing less than criminal.


I am not condeming Islam and everyone in it. I am just condeming those leaders in control who are perpetuating violence even as we speak towards the west in general and America specifically.

And anyone else who may offend them.

Maybe I should expound a tad more.

Your point is well taken about not lumping them all in the same category.

I do not reject muslims as a nation. I can appreciate their talents and goodness just like I can of people of any other religion. I am just very, very wary of the powers that be in the middle east who are pulling all the strings. They do not have our best interests at heart.

If it were an easy question, somebody would have answered it by now.

The book of Mormon happens to have a lot of details regarding what to do when an entire people seems genetically predisposed to kill you. By and large the solution has been to accept them with open arms, rather than defeat them in battle (which really will only perpetuate the feud). The thing that really ended the Amalikiah war was not just the fact that Captain Moroni et all were soundly defeating the Lamanites, but that the Lamanites stopped wanting to fight. This is at least in part attributable to the VERY generous terms of surrender Captain Moroni granted to them-- something which we modern day Americans would never concede to. Can you imagine us saying to Osama Bin Laden that we'd stop trying to post his head on a pike if he promised not to hurt us anymore?

The ones who got the war finished were the ones that insisted that the Lamanites were brethren who had their rights, notwithstanding whatever faulty leadership they had. And sure enough, it worked. In order to extend that right, however, Nephites had to be willing to lay their lives on the line to protect their new-found brethren. Which leads to another really good question: if we are so willing to go to war to defend ourselves, are we willing to go to war to protect Muslims?

Anyway, to summarize, I truly feel that as long as we perpetuate Muslim antagonism, the struggle will never end. You can say the same thing for their side, but what is the shame of making the first step in providing a peaceful solution, even if you do so alone?

Just posted this on CB. Kinda long. Sorry.

Yesterday I was asked about the persecution complex of French Muslims. I also noted some discussion on what constituted persecution and what did not. I suspect that depends a lot upon where one stands. I’m not Muslim and can’t speak for them, but I have observed things here and want to present some thoughts to consider:

Muslims probably feel that the things they hold sacred are trivialized or even denigrated by European political and cultural elites. The headscarf issue is perfect example of this. For whatever reason, Muslim custom and practice dictate that modest dress for teenage girls and women include wearing a headscarf or other covering. We’re not talking about something that covers the face, just something that covers the hair. The French, applying a strict version of Church/State separation, decided that teenage girls are not allowed to wear these headscarves to public schools. When I discussed this with my French colleagues, they became oddly exercised and emotional. They were totally inflexible. The underlying sentiment was that when people immigrate to France, they should assimilate and become French. I suspect Muslims look at this reaction and feel that their culture and religion are under attack, especially when it comes to their teenage daughters, having immodesty forced upon them. That’s the inane and trivial. The more serious denigration comes with the publishing of the cartoons. This is where Muslims get really exercised. Not only was their prophet intentionally shown in an image, but unflatteringly in some cases. I just don’t think any analogy we can come up with can help us understand how degrading this was and I doubt any explanation of the virtues of the freedom of the press can bridge this gap. If you’re a Muslim, you feel persecuted.

French police are unhampered by profiling laws. Non-whites in certain neighborhoods are watched and stopped on a regular basis. The two kids, whose deaths led to last year’s riots, ended up in the electrical substation where they were electrocuted because they were trying to avoid a random police checkpoint. The riots escalated and became a release point for a population tired of police abuse. Additionally, Paris was in an uproar over a year ago at reports that young Muslim tuffs on a major train line harassed and mugged a young mother and child they thought were Jewish. President Chirac publicly lamented the direction in which French society was heading. Problem was, it was a lie; perpetrated by the woman to explain why she couldn’t pay her bills. But it was certainly believed by the majority. Facing ongoing police harassment and racial profiling by society, if you’re Muslim, you feel persecuted.

Due to widespread discrimination, Muslims (as well as other non-whites) have limited professional options in France. It’s as if they are invisible (on TV, in politics, in the government, in the boardroom). One reason for this is that France prides itself for its merit-based system. The French believe that the smartest should rule. Hence the best and brightest filter up through the education system to the Grande Ecoles (for lack of a better analogy, the Harvards, Yales, Stanfords, etc. of France) where, upon graduation, they are slotted for powerful positions in French government and industry. The rest of society filters down to the appropriate levels. The problem for Muslims (and other non-whites) is that the schools in their neighborhoods, much like inner city U.S. schools, are far from equal to those attended by white kids. They start out behind and never catch up. Not surprisingly, the Grande Ecoles pump out white graduate after white graduate. The discrimination doesn’t stop there. A group recently sent out two sets of identical resumes to potential French employers, one set with traditional French names, the other with Arab names. Want to guess the difference in call back rate? Now, one might say that discrimination goes on everywhere, and that is correct. However, the French Government does not acknowledge the discrimination, and hence, does nothing to prevent or address it. Hence, Muslims and other non-whites feel they have very little investment in this society. Under these circumstances, if you’re Muslim (or non-white), you feel persecuted

All this said, I doubt most Muslims in France are really all that religious. The riots last year were not about religion. They were about people being fed up with a system that offered them little or not hope of progressing beyond their squalid circumstances. But prime that pump with a little religious bigotry and one could have problems. In other words, “All this yewt, and now this?!?!?!?”

I hope this, as long as it is, helps.

Re: Carry over from CB to Archaea...
 

You weren't the only one who was disgusted, Hippie. I stopped reading posts in that thread because I was getting queasy.

I detest discrimination in all its forms. I think that's unfair(from the human side) and illogical(from the business side). Its just stupid.

As far as your description of descrimination against muslims in france goes, I can't help but wonder how a white french citizen would be treated if he were to emigrate to Iran with his family and live there. Not that those muslims living in france would be somehow reponsible for that - I'm just guessing that the muslim theocracies go even farther with the concept then the french.

Not that any of it is right, of course, but its a door that swings both ways.


Its a nasty problem to be sure. As AA stated above, if it were easy it would be solved by now.