- This topic has 4 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
In America (and elsewhere) there are Fundamentalist Christians who believe in the Bible and take most of it literally. What about Islam? There are "Fundamentalist" Muslims who take the Q'uran seriously and literally. Are those the terrorists? My guess is Yes because the Q'uran teaches (if taken literally) that all unbelievers are to be killed.
I haven't read the Koran, but I have heard such references to it. Religion has believers who will stop at nothing – even death – to follow its commands. This is why the religious man can be the best citizen of the world….or the most dangerous.
I'm never read the Koran either. But Phid makes a good point. There are people in this world who can take a good thing and turn it into a nightmare for the rest of us.
I do agree that some use religion to (literally) get away with murder. There are those “Christians” who use the Bible to try and justify their blowing up abortion clinics. That, IMO, is wrong.Many of the Left think the "Religious Right" has hijacked the government. (whatever they mean by that??). But, fundamentalist Islam, those who follow the Koran literally, are, for the most part, the religious leaders of Islam. Aren't many of them also terrorist leaders?My point or questioning of this here was not to judge others' religion, but to say those who follow Islam to the letter are the terrorists or terrorist leaders. From what I know of the Koran (which isn't much), they are justified to do what they do according to what's written.
Islam is not a religion of peace. Many could say that Christianity is not as well. But at least the argument could be made hat those who murder in the name of God are not following Christs example or his teaching. Again I don't know much about Islam or the Koran but if it does say that all unbelievers should be killed then an argument could be made that the true believers (those who take it literally) promote terrorism.
I think with any religion, movement, or sect you have to allow for the “crazies” (for lack of a better word) – that is, people who are so extreme or mentally imbalanced that they can't be said to be representative in thought and deed as the larger group. I don't think that a person with mental problems can rightfully be said to represent the group – or even a sane person who acts with 100% more extremism than others in the group. The problem occurs when enough extreme actions by people begin to represent the thoughts or actions of the larger group that the individual actions cannot be clearly distinguished from the aims or desires of the larger group. I can say that the bombing of abortion clinics has been done far and few between so that it doesn't have any bearing on Christianity at large. I'm not sure the same can be true of Muslim terrorism since the 1970s - or at least this is precisely the question that is raised.
The problem comes when religion and government intermingle. Now the US government was formed on the foundation of Christian principles but allow for freedom of practice of ANY religion (as long as it doesn't infringe on me) That is the extent of tollerance IMO. Religion or faith is for the individual soul, government is for the masses. We (the US) allow the masses input to the government. Not much mass input on religion.
