Why I have a problem with Islam

[dragonlady]

Gays are being put to death in Iran directly due to Islam(or the twisting of Islam)..while Gays have civil rights in Jewish Israel. Have you read all through the thread? Did you look at the map where is shows where it is illegal to be gay or where gays face the death penalty? Do you not see a noticeable correlation between Islamic countries and barbaric laws regarding homosexuality? There are exceptions(India, Jamaica, etc.)and exceptions with Islamic countries as well... but come on!

I understand what you are saying, but I respond to that by saying that it's not the fault of Islam itself, but how people twist it or implement it. As has been said, there are many Muslims who denounce these actions and laws. As I've pointed out, Christians and Jews could just as easily decide "Hey, let's have laws killing all the gay people" or what have you just based on what's in the Bible. I'm sure there are lots of historical reasons why certain countries have implemented Islam in this way. For instance, European colonialism and influence. Once the Europeans moved out of certain areas, they left power vacuums, and the way some people filled them was to take a religion common to the area and use it to set up a government. In order to keep that government in power, the most extreme interpretations were necessary to keep people oppressed and in fear. This is just one possible explanation, but like I said before, Nazi Germany had control over most of Europe, and that was largely justified by Christianity. Jews AND gays were in those ovens. For that matter, have you looked at some of the old literature about why killing and oppressing non-Christian natives was okay for Europeans to do? The natives were heathens and thus not subject to basic human civility. Ask Native Americans, or anyone from a country that was part of the British, German, or French Empires. Ask people who justified slavery based on an obscure passage in the Bible. Who are the ones going around bombing abortion clinics? But we're not throwing Christianity out with the bathwater, are we? ANY religion can be used in this way. I have yet to see any strong evidence that suggests to me that Islam itself is the true blame for these problems. And a map of countries that kill gay people is not enough, because like I said, that's just how some people choose to interpret or misappropriate the religion. And just so you know, technically in many US states, sodomy is illegal. Sure, we're not killing gays, but it would not surprise me at all if there weren't Christians who felt that they should be. They just don't happen to be in power.

[Mira]

I think a gossip board, at least this one, IS a place where serious issues can be discussed regardless of expertise. Informed opinion is really what counts. That has happened ever since I joined this board, and on the board that morphed into this one. I certainly don't want to belong, much less mod, any board that is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

I think your last three comments are uncalled for and bordering on insulting ohmy. "You thinking types" -- what does that mean, exactly? We all think, some better than others, but I kinda resent this us against them mentality that you seem to be promoting, intentionally or otherwise.

ohmy is coming from a specific place. That doesn't mean she's doing it to show you or anybody else up. I am not offended, and I'm not a philosopher or a theologian. It takes all kinds of horses to make a race. Let's practic some tolerance here -- isn't that also what Jesus was all about?

I certainly didn't mean to offend by saying "you thinking types". If I did, then I apologize. In my profession, the MBTI is used quite a lot, and we often affectionately refer to each other as "you thinking types" or you feeling types" or "you extroverts" etc. So I was falling back on my usual m.o. rather than thinking to change the language to suit the discussion here. That's all.

I'm more than tolerant of ohmy's and others' opinions and I believe my presence on this board has always been respectful until this point. But I was starting to feel badgered because I was asking her for explanations and clarifications and wasn't getting anything in return. It was very frustrating. It felt a little manipulative because all I got back was repeated words and assertions that the meaning couldn't be explained. Frankly, it was strange.

If Person A is repeatedly asserting something, and people B are asking for clarification, Person A should explain it or leave it alone. There is so much in this thread I'm leaving alone because it's much too complex and IMO none of us has the time to adequately deal with all the issues referred to here. But we can certainly try, and it's great food for thought. I'm sorry to offend, but I think it's important to note that I also was offended because I felt badgered and at the same time ignored, which also felt like intolerance to me.

[dragonlady]

Also, consider the fact that Iran was a democracy, until the US and Britain led a covert operation to re-install the exiled dictator. This led to dissatisfaction of the Iranians, which led to the Islamic revolution that brought us where we are today, with the extremely clerical government. Look up Operation Ajax sometime. Historically the only thing shielding us from the same injustices in Christianity is separation of church and state. The Iranians had an opportunity to build a democratic government that they elected OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, no WMDs, statue topplings or GW pep talks necessary, and the West went in and undermined it. Is it then any wonder that so many Muslim countries have reacted to such an extreme?

[ohmygoodness]

My words are getting twisted around by a logical person Go figure

I never said it was inherent for Christians to accept homosexuals. Ever. I said that Jesus did not condemn them, and that many Christians do accept homosexuality. I said that many people claiming to be Christian are not accurately representing that religion. My actor scenario does work, thankyewverylittle, because it makes the point that people can say they are something but it doesn't make it so.

I'll concede one point to ya - there are several different definitions of being a Christian.

However, yours is wrong.

No the actor example does not work because like I said, one explicitly needs to have acted to be an actor. Does that not make sense? But to be Christian, one does not have to refrain from condemning homosexuality. It's not an explicit requirement to be a Christian.

If people don't care what I have to say, they're more than welcome to just ignore my replies.

And Mira, I did try to explain the reason why it was a fallacy, and I apologize if I didn't do so clearly enough. If you really do want to know, you can ask a more specific question and I can answer it for you. I guess I'm just having trouble conveying the definition well enough.

And also, thanks PB. I really appreciate your vote of confidence.

[Lobelia]

Um, yes it does work. You just don't get it. Does that not make sense? You're trying to twist my example to suit your needs, but the fact is that you don't comprehend it.

[Mira]

Mira, I did try to explain the reason why it was a fallacy, and I apologize if I didn't do so clearly enough. If you really do want to know, you can ask a more specific question and I can answer it for you.

I believe I was clear. You believe you were clear. It didn't work.

I have an idea. Why don't you ask the question for me, and then answer it yourself. Because I have no idea how I can phrase a question so that you will comprehend what I'm asking.

I think the above suggestion is creative and may lead to a breakthrough.

[ohmygoodness]

Um, yes it does work. You just don't get it. Does that not make sense? You're trying to twist my example to suit your needs, but the fact is that you don't comprehend it.

No, no it doesn't if you're trying to disprove my assertion of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Saying someone can say they're an actor but they'll never be an actor is entirely true, because being an actor is implicit on having acted. But being a Christian is not implicit on not comdemning homosexuals. Maybe you could explain to me where I'm wrong? I'm getting confused now.

I believe I was clear. You believe you were clear. It didn't work.

I have an idea. Why don't you ask the question for me, and then answer it yourself. Because I have no idea how I can phrase a question so that you will comprehend what I'm asking.

I think the above suggestion is creative and may lead to a breakthrough.

There's no need to be so rude.

[Mira]

There's no need to be so rude.

Wait just a minute, ohmy. That is a very, very fair suggestion. It is done all the time in college classrooms. Especially in communication classes having to do with effective listening and comprehension. How on earth can you possibly construe that suggestion as rude?

This has become ridiculous.

[pacific breeze]

Wait just a minute, ohmy. That is a very, very fair suggestion. It is done all the time in college classrooms. Especially in communication classes having to do with effective listening and comprehension. How on earth can you possibly construe that suggestion as rude?

This has become ridiculous.

I think it was a little bit rude.

[Lobelia]

Anybody can say they're a Christian, but it doesn't make it so. I could say I'm a movie star, but it doesn't make it so. Applying a label to oneself does not mean that one possesses the qualifications of that label.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

You keep bringing up the homosexual factor into it, and it's not applicable to what I was saying. Forget that part- erase it out of your mind.

My example was in reference to people representing the religion of Christianity. A true representative of a religion will believe & live by the doctrine. A false one will claim to be of that religion, but actually go against the doctrine.

Now, obviously nobody's perfect, and therefore nobody is a perfect Christian. But IMO, and it's MY opinion that I'm concerned with here, the true Christians treat others like they want to be treated.

I don't know anybody who wants to be persecuted, so "Christians" who persecute homosexuals are false representatives of that religion.

And no, I wouldn't have to have acted at all for my example to be valid. Do you not realize how many so-called Christians do not give a hoot about anything to do with Jesus? Yet they call themselves Christian because of their own personal agendas.

I don't know or care what a No True Scotsman Fallacy is. I do not converse or argue or bake cookies to those rules. You can keep parroting the phrase all you like, but it's silly.

If you persist in dragging in your undergraduate learnin' into this discussion to apply to me, I might have to drag my own specialized learning in here & apply it to YOU. I don't think you'd care for the result.

There is a big world beyond your college classroom. There are different ways to approach a give & take of information with people. Slinging around the jargon of your major just annoys people.

[Mira]

I think it was a little bit rude.

Wait just a dog-gone minute! Just because it's only words without a normal or smiling face does not make it rude. It was a fair suggestion. What is going on here?

I am done with this thread.

[pacific breeze]

What's going on is that someone objective is coming into this discussion and seeing that your "suggestion" of asking and answering her own question is by any standards rude. I'm not taking sides here, but you don't have to be to call a spade a spade.

I just showed this to my husband who knows nothing about this thread and he thought it was a hostile suggestion. Maybe it's a Canadian thing, but saying something like that is considered rude. It's obviously not a suggestion that has any value as how would it facilitate understanding or further discussion?

If you're going to be rude, at least have the courage to admit it. We've all been there.

[Mira]

What's going on is that someone objective is coming into this discussion and seeing that your "suggestion" of asking and answering her own question is by any standards rude. I'm not taking sides here, but you don't have to be to call a spade a spade.

I just showed this to my husband who knows nothing about this thread and he thought it was a hostile suggestion. Maybe it's a Canadian thing, but saying something like that is considered rude. It's obviously not a suggestion that has any value as how would it facilitate understanding or further discussion?

If you're going to be rude, at least have the courage to admit it. We've all been there.

Pacificibreeze, I beg to differ with you. It is an extremely common practice to invite someone to ask the question themselves (thereby clarifying it) and then answer it. It's a technique. I can't help it if you and ohmygoodness aren't familiar with it. But you could at the very least respect my explanation of it, which I did in post #143 above.

[Lobelia]

PB, it really is a classroom technique.

ETA: I've actually used it myself in counseling, especially with teenagers.

[ohmygoodness]

I didn't learn these fallacies in university, so I'm not "dragging [my] undergraduate learnin'" into it. I've been debating since I was in like Grade 8, because I find it entertaining although I know not everybody does. Clearly, not everybody does. You shouldn't assume so much about my motives because you do not know them, and so far have gotten them entirely wrong anyway.

What I'm saying Lobelia, is that these people have every right to apply the label of Christian to them. There are different and all pretty much equally valid interpretations of what it means to be Christian. That is why there are so many different sects, all claiming to be the one true one. What I am saying is that it's misleading to say /true/ Christian, because there are many different definitions as to what a /true/ Christian is and none can be definitively proven as true.