Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495071)

She also starts talking about an inherently interesting theological issue, which is, how do you or do you even attempt to apply a document written in the 7th century to today's morality. It's an argument I've had repeatedly with fellow Catholics, where the traditional view is that the Church itself is eternal and immutable, and that plays a very significant role in why we don't have women priests yet. It's particularly difficult in a religion where the word itself is what is divine, and the prophet was only a vehicle for transmission of the word of God.

Others attempt to dig the document out from its historical context: maybe all that sexist shit was overlaid on it by subsequent generations (fans of Arabic poetry are especially fond of this approach, since there was a real flowering of Arabic poetry written by women at the time of the Prophet, probably one of the greatest set of original documents relating to ancient world proto-feminism you'll find). This is probably easier to do with the Qur'an than the Old Testament if you really parse through the two documents.

I don't know if she still considers herself Islamic or not, and whether she's arguing about how to interpret Islam or against Islam, but figuring this one out is essential for every ancient religion trying to adapt in the world, of course, but Islam, like every other religion, has to do it in a particular context.

It's an interesting debate, though I suspect it's not the debate you're focused on in looking at that clip. You're probably more focused on whether she is pointing out something intrinsically bad or different in Islam itself that leads to bad things.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495071)

As to that, I'd say this: if tomorrow you miraculously converted every member of ISIS to Catholicism, I don't think you'd materially change the way ISIS operates.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 495072)

It's somewhat annoying that you think that my focus is solely limited to the areas in which we disagree. I have said repeatedly that I find a lot of what is in your posts relating to this topic, interesting and informative. I found much of what she (and Stewart) said to be interesting and informative. Your assumption seems like a stupid one.

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 495073)

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 495074)

That may be true, but it surely doesn't make it any more ridiculous in this modern day and age that they are acting like assholes from 600 years ago.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 495072)

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 495073)

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 495072)

It's somewhat annoying that you think that my focus is solely limited to the areas in which we disagree. I have said repeatedly that I find a lot of what is in your posts relating to this topic, interesting and informative. I found much of what she (and Stewart) said to be interesting and informative. Your assumption seems like a stupid one.

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 495073)

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 495077)

So you are saying Islam is intrinsically 600 years behind?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495079)

600 years ago?

Come on, Christians get all of 19th and 20th century western imperialism to their name, to say nothing of fascism.

Even if you just glance around the Middle East over the last couple decades, Christians get to lay claim to Sabra and Shatila.

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence; our use of the Qur'an in various torture techniques really doesn't help here.

The Horror. The Horror.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 495082)

So then what you're saying is that, like any situation, our perception of events will change with our perception of the person involved? Or is it that more people have been killed in God's name than have been saved by it?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495079)

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence;

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495078)

On the mob, of course, there have been any number of Catholic mobs out for murder and mayhem over the years. Let's not get too cocky about the fact that things are generally better today after all the years of killing in the Church's name. I can think of lots of places, from Ireland to Central America, where there has been religiously linked or motivated rioting and violence in my lifetime. Is it over the burning of texts? No, but is that really what this was over? Again, I'm just not certain.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 495084)

Do you agree with any of them, that the purpose of invading Iraq was to attack Islam?