relgious divide

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 29 Nov 2005, 10:38

we held an interfaith conference for youths around Birmingham on saturday. We managed to get quite a few different speakers from different religeons to come and describe the key features of what they believed in and why. The people who attended then divided into mixed religeon groups to discuss what their various religeons had in common and to ask questions and so forth, basically to get people to appreciate each others religeons a bit more.

It all went great, we only got two unhappy people, both adults and both vocal campaigners for their religeons. The worst of the two felt that their religeon was not well enough represented (Sikh) and the muslim speakers got too much time. She feels interfaith communication is important but that the Muslim faith should be recognised as the cause of most evil throughout history. One of the things that was brought up was the meaning of 'Jihad', she felt the fact that it doesnt actually mean 'holy war' and is just used as such was somehow a denial by us the organisers of the haulocaust.

Essentially she is for the process but honestly doesnt realise that she herself is a prime example of why such a process doesnt work, to her it is the religeon not the people who are committing the atrocities, when the whole point of the conference was to help seperate the religeons from the acts people do in their name...

just thought Id share that as it kind of pissed me off....

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 29 Nov 2005, 11:08

but that the Muslim faith should be recognised as the cause of most evil throughout history. One of the things that was brought up was the meaning of 'Jihad', she felt the fact that it doesnt actually mean 'holy war' and is just used as such was somehow a denial by us the organisers of the haulocaust.

That is very stupid and ignorant to say. I don't understand what she thinks of what Jihad means

I wonder if she knows about the following in her religion

The Guru Granth Sahib is a sacred text considered by Sikhs to be their eleventh and final Guru. Sikhism was influenced by reform movements in Hinduism (e.g. Bhakti, monism, guru ideal, and bhajans) as well as Sufi Islam

So one part of Islam is fused within her religion.

For some reason there has alway been tension between Sikh and Muslim, when i went to college, both groups had to fight, it was soooo stupid. I had Sikh friends, but when the fighting happening it was a stretch... so stupid.

I believe that religion can co-exist together, all religion have one thing in common - peace. It just that people can distort what some scripture says and use it for their agenda

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 29 Nov 2005, 12:37

Well, she is right about one fact... Jihad is not to be translated with Holy War. It is so often mis-translated by the media in the West. There was recently a documentary on a German TV channel which tried to get rid of that translation (Jihad = Holy War) and instead kept on talking about "striving".

Here is what Wikipedia says, with which I would personally agree:

Jihad (Arabic: جهاد jihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root jhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. The meaning of "Islamic cause" is of course open to interpretation. The term is frequently translated into English as "holy war", although jihad can apply to more than just warfare. Mainstream Muslims consider jihad to be the most misunderstood aspect of their religion by non-Muslims. The Islamic religious legitimacy of the goals or methods of various Islamist movements who adopt the terminology of jihad is often brought into question, usually by moderate and liberal Muslims.

A person who engages in any form of jihad is called a "mujahid", meaning "striver" or "struggler". This term is most often used to mean a person who engages in fighting, but, for example a Muslim struggling to memorize the Qur'an is called a mujahid. The neologism jihadist is sometimes used to describe militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Islamist terrorism (c. f. Jihadist organizations and Rules of war in Islam).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

If you're interested in the topic, follow the link. There is more to read about Jihad there and also about Jihad as warfare. Although I would say I pretty much know about it, I still found it interesting to read about it, especially since it is written in a Western encyclopedia.

It's also funny to see what The United States Department of Justice defines Jihad as. LOL!

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:04

LD, you misread, we were the ones saying it doesn't mean holy war, she was arguing that the actions of muslims throughout history under the banner jihad cleary meant it did. my whole post was a post of fustration at all that was wrong about that statement

m.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:43

Oh I see, he he he! Still an interesting read at Wikipedia, though.

The wars and battles that have been fought in the history of Islam were indeed performed as an act of Jihad. Yet, you are right. They have never been holy wars.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 29 Nov 2005, 14:10

yep, tis a good link, i've actually forwarded it on. My bet is she will concentrate on the bits that suit her views, but li should not pre judge, lets just await and see

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 29 Nov 2005, 14:59

Why should religions be appreciated by those who don't believe in them? I think tolerance is more realistic aim. If you can get people to accept that different groups and cultures have different views on spiritualism then that's enough. I don't think it's necessary to take interest in or like another faith. But respect someone else's right to do so? Yes. As the only secularite so far who's posted on this thread I can honestly - and without intent to offend - say I don't respect or appreciate your religion (I'm assuming all three of you are Muslim - sorry if that's incorrect) BUT I do respect your RIGHT to carry faith and worship peacefully. I think Multiculturalism makes the mistake of trying to ram a variety of imported religions and foreign cultures down the throats of the indiginous population and that causes nothing but friction. The most recent case being the Mayor of Preston (Hindu) who cancelled a Xmas celebration in favour of an "ethnic night" in january(!) This type of scenario is begging for a backlash. The longer the road travelled... the further back to civilization we are. Britain is not a Hindu country. It's a secular society with a Christian background. But you really wouldn't know it.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 29 Nov 2005, 16:12

the thing is all the religeons have so much in common, similar messages, rules and even stories all be it with different characters and different settings. the purpose of the conference was to hihlight these as well as to dispell many prejudices they might have held towards each other that simply weren't true.

what it had nothing to do with was doing things like cancelling christmas, or forcing other peoples religeons down others throats. the most important factor here is that it was the young peoples idea to hold the conference in the first place, we merely facilitated it

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 30 Nov 2005, 10:13

I can honestly - and without intent to offend - say I don't respect or appreciate your religion (I'm assuming all three of you are Muslim - sorry if that's incorrect) BUT I do respect your RIGHT to carry faith and worship peacefully.

Hi Markgway, I think that is a harsh statement, personally speaking I have respect for all religion and even if someone does not believe in anything. To me i don't have respect for people who turn their faith into something for their own agenda, hurting other people , even if it's their own.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 30 Nov 2005, 11:23

There is a difference in not believing in another person's religion and not respecting it. Not respecting another person's religion is what caused wars like the crusades (officially), mind you. I'm sure you didn't really mean that you didn't respect other people's religions, but rather that you have no interest in them or that you don't want to believe in them. Fair enough. But in case you really mean to show no respect for other people's religions, I can only say that I'm happy that not all people think like you, Mark.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 30 Nov 2005, 12:18

I'm not a religious person, but I wouldnt say I dont respect others religions at all

They have as much right to believe in something as I choose not to IMO (if that makes sense).

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 30 Nov 2005, 13:05

grim_tales wrote:I'm not a religious person, but I wouldnt say I dont respect others religions at all They have as much right to believe in something as I choose not to IMO (if that makes sense).

so you do respect others religeons then. if you didnt then youre arguement would be that they have no legitimate right to follow their religeon... live and let live is respect!

oh, and im an active agnostic

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Nov 2005, 14:47

I think my statement was pretty clear.

But in case it wasn't... If someone wants to follow a religion that's their perogative. I wouldn't stop them from doing that. I wouldn't abuse or humiliate someone just because they belong to a religion I don't believe in. But that's not to say I agree with the concept of religion or respect any religion because I don't. I think it's caused troubled for 2.000 years and will do so for another 2,000. I'd be happy to live in an entirely secular society where religion didn't influence or matter but that's not how it is so I have to accept that. I'm amazed anyone here is surprised by my views. They're not new and I haven't changed.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 30 Nov 2005, 15:35

I think it's caused troubled for 2.000 years and will do so for another 2,000.

I think in most cases its not down to religion but down to people. Saying it down to religion means that the people who acted out wicked deed don't deserve to be punished.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 30 Nov 2005, 16:05

aha, Mark, from your last post and Grims I realise we have slightly different views on what respect means. to me what you say about not going out of your way to abuse people because of their religeon is respecting their religeon, but im thinking you mean it more in terms of approving of it??

and very true, slasher13 the moment we start blaming the religeon for the atrocities we are giving the evil bastards that commit them an excuse!!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 30 Nov 2005, 16:55

Mordib wrote:aha, Mark, from your last post and Grims I realise we have slightly different views on what respect means. to me what you say about not going out of your way to abuse people because of their religeon is respecting their religeon, but im thinking you mean it more in terms of approving of it??

and very true, slasher13 the moment we start blaming the religeon for the atrocities we are giving the evil bastards that commit them an excuse!!

No, THEY already see their religion as an excuse to commit their deeds. That's the whole problem.
Personally I'm not religious, but I have nothing against 'normal' religious people. I don't mind islamic people wearing the scarfes or praying 5 times a day or whatever. Hell, that's their own business and I dont take offence and I also cant see why anyone else would. I dont mind christian people praying or going to church. etc etc

I only get bothered when they try to convert or bother other people with THEIR beliefs of what we should believe in or do. Like spilling crap like how gays will go to hell, or should be stoned, or whatever.

I respect the freedom of people believing in a God or whatever. That's their own life and own choice etc etc, so knock yourselfs out. Personally, I don't believe in a God so I think they are kinda cuckoo for doings o, though...

....plus the thread I made a couple of weeks/months ago about the funeral of a good friend of mine, and the BS the priest spilled during the ceremony ... I think I explained my thoughts on the issue best in that thread.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 30 Nov 2005, 17:13

No, THEY already see their religion as an excuse to commit their deeds. That's the whole problem.

Hi Yi-Long, But again that down to the individual, not the religion. That's who to blame, not religion, if you blame religion, then it like saying, if you watch horror movies, you will go out a kill some, bloody hell, you will even being saying that the Daily Mail is right, we should ban a game called ManHunt because that what killed the little kid, not those two boys

I only get bothered when they try to convert or bother other people with THEIR beliefs of what we should believe in or do. Like spilling crap like how gays will go to hell, or should be stoned, or whateve

Similar thinking to myself, if someone ask me a question about my religion of course i will talk to him/her about it. However i would not try and convert people

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Nov 2005, 17:36

slasher13 wrote:I think in most cases its not down to religion but down to people. Saying it down to religion means that the people who acted out wicked deed don't deserve to be punished.

People IS religion. It's a man-made concept. Of course I'm blaming the followers. Not every follower obviously, but enough of them to keep war and hate on the agenda for centuries. There's a vast difference between what religion SHOULD be and what it actually IS. But that aside, even in terms of an idealism, I don't buy it as a concept. I don't believe life can be pre-determined by a book or the words of an ancient. We live. We die. That's it.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Nov 2005, 17:40

Mordib wrote:aha, Mark, from your last post and Grims I realise we have slightly different views on what respect means. to me what you say about not going out of your way to abuse people because of their religeon is respecting their religeon, but im thinking you mean it more in terms of approving of it??

Yeah, I think you're getting what I mean now. Because I don't respect religion doesn't mean I would disrespect someone of faith. Many wonderful people are religious. But I can't approve of their religion or beliefs. But I accept their right to have them....

...I'm probably just confusing you more!! lol

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Nov 2005, 17:42

slasher13 wrote:[However i would not try and convert people

Aw, I was looking forward to your sales pitch. 8)

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 30 Nov 2005, 18:11

slasher13 wrote:
No, THEY already see their religion as an excuse to commit their deeds. That's the whole problem.
Hi Yi-Long, But again that down to the individual, not the religion. That's who to blame, not religion, if you blame religion, then it like saying, if you watch horror movies, you will go out a kill some, bloody hell, you will even being saying that the Daily Mail is right, we should ban a game called ManHunt because that what killed the little kid, not those two boys

No no no no no...
What i mean is that the problem is those people (those that commit crimes 'in name of their religion', not ALL religious people) MISINTERPRET their religion. Religion isnt about hurting/killing others. However, if some religious IDIOT gets offended, he/she often hides behind the Bible/God, to perform a crime or say something offensive.

I don't think Bin Laden is 'evil' because he's a muslim, cause I don't think of him as a 'muslim'. Cause there's nothing íslamic about what he's doing. However, I'm absolutely sure he himselfs thinks of himself as a decent muslim. I think he would have commited the same crimes if he would have had any other religion, and he felt his people were being attacked.
Bush isn't evil because he's a born-again christian, but because he's a fucking spoiled, evil, dumb, egoistical asshole. However, he does think what he's doing is right, that god told him to do it, and he hides behind the name of god (notice how in pretty much every speech he always mentions god?)

It's kinda amazing that satanists havent done much damage yet. Sure, on a small scale level there have been incidents ... but certainly not on the scale 'christians' have commited crimes ... or 'muslims'...

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 01 Dec 2005, 09:18

@ Yi-Long
Ahh i see, yes totally agree with you

@Markgway

People IS religion. It's a man-made concept.

This is where we differ, but enough said, each to their view

I don't believe life can be pre-determined by a book or the words of an ancient. We live. We die. That's it.

I don't know, as human we have free will to do whatever we want. But when we die, i believe it is not the end. You have to admit, there are still some things in this world, that we haven't even begun to understand. Maybe there is more to this world than meet the eye

Aw, I was looking forward to your sales pitch. 8)

I have you know, that i had a job in sales, only lasted for 5 hours, then got dismissed

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 01 Dec 2005, 11:09

Mark, read John Gray's 'Heresies against progress and other illusions', its the nearest thing to a religeon I believe in (to the extent that I already believed the things written in the book before I read the book). It supports your human is religeon theory

my sales pitch is humans are horribly flawed and simple creatures, religeon is just one of our in built coping mechanisms to avoid the reality that we are not special. but then thats just my sales pitch

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 01 Dec 2005, 15:03

slasher13 wrote:This is where we differ, but enough said, each to their view

Yeah, this is a fundamental point that we're not gonna change on.

I don't know, as human we have free will to do whatever we want.

Right.

But when we die, i believe it is not the end. You have to admit, there are still some things in this world, that we haven't even begun to understand. Maybe there is more to this world than meet the eye

Maybe? Unlike religious types I don't claim to know. You can say you THINK there's "more" after death but no one knows -- and even if and when we find out we can't tell anyone. Personally I don't believe it as there's no reason to (or proof) but that doesn't make me right.

I have you know, that i had a job in sales, only lasted for 5 hours, then got dismissed

You're fired!!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 01 Dec 2005, 15:05

Mordib wrote:my sales pitch is humans are horribly flawed and simple creatures, religeon is just one of our in built coping mechanisms to avoid the reality that we are not special. but then thats just my sales pitch

Hmm... that's not bad. You can have Slasher's old job.

Bullets 'n' Babes

relgious divide

relgious divide

Re: relgious divide