Are we doomed to repeat the Crusades?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
16 replies · 4K views
Loren Booda
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
4
How can we learn about our current world conflicts with respect to past struggles of civilization? For instance, are there any lessons to glean from the Crusades, pitting Christian against Moslem? How about the maintenance of knowledge by Islam during the European Dark Ages, or exemplary societies that practiced religious tolerance for all?
 

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
"Doomed to" would imply future tense, where as in fact we have long been engaged the process of 'concurring' Jerusalem from Arabs yet again, the progress up to September 2005 can be seen in detail on http://www.btselem.org/Download/Jerusalem_Separation_Barrier_Eng.PDF" . Granted, we aren't necessarily doomed to continue this medieval madness; but unfortunately, few Westerners seem interested in stopping it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loren Booda said:
How can we learn about our current world conflicts with respect to past struggles of civilization? For instance, are there any lessons to glean from the Crusades, pitting Christian against Moslem? How about the maintenance of knowledge by Islam during the European Dark Ages, or exemplary societies that practiced religious tolerance for all?
Hmm..get rid of the religious mentality as such, perhaps?

A very good start would be to give maximal financial and judicial support to those few brave individuals in the Muslim world who want to take their societies in a more secular direction.
Unsurprisingly, such persons are continually harassed and mistreated in their native countries.

In particular, the vast majority of Muslims need to be educated in accepting personal criticism of their prophet Mohammed, and of his supposed teachings.
Only secularly oriented persons have the personal qualities necessary to start such programmes of internal criticisms (called Enlightenment in the historical movement against Christian doctrine in Europe).
 
Last edited:
arildno said:
A very good start would be to give maximal financial and judicial support to those few brave individuals in the Muslim world who want to take their societies in a more secular direction.
So, basically, give up their identity, is what you're saying.


In the West, we define ourselves primarily by the geographic region (nation) in which we live, and only incidentally by our belief system. In the East, it matters little where you are. Your beliefs are what define you.

Frankly, if you look at it objectively, we're the ones with the kooky concept of identity.
 
DaveC426913 said:
So, basically, give up their identity, is what you're saying.
Why should you applaud the torture of individuals in the Middle East whose identity does not conform to the religious ideal prevalent there?
 
arildno said:
Why should you applaud the torture of individuals in the Middle East whose identity does not conform to the religious ideal prevalent there?
In all my time on PF I have never seen a more bizarre non sequitur.

How did you go from
'they should become more secular' and 'but their religion is their identity'
to
'applauding torture'
?

You must be pulling my leg, because I know you're no fool.
 
Last edited:
arildno said:
Hmm..get rid of the religious mentality as such, perhaps?
Do I misunderstand you here, our are you contesting that Atheism is the One True Path?
 
arildno said:
In particular, the vast majority of Muslims need to be educated in accepting personal criticism of their prophet Mohammed...
So, you believe that they are an uneducated people.

Just trying to establish your stance on the "problem".
 
DaveC426913 said:
So, you believe that they are an uneducated people.

Just trying to establish your stance on the "problem".
They certainly are. Most Muslims would be highly offended if someone told them their prophet was a criminal, a common high-way robber, but that is a matter of historical fact. The community at Medina under Mohammed terrorized the caravans passing through the country to Mecca.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Do I misunderstand you here, our are you contesting that Atheism is the One True Path?
Since most religions are based on wholly unjustified and nonsensical statements about what exists or happens in the world, they have no intellectual value, even less any moral value.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
In all my time on PF I have never seen a more bizarre non sequitur.

How did you go from
'they should become more secular' and 'but their religion is their identity'
to
'applauding torture'
?

You must be pulling my leg, because I know you're no fool.
You were the one who came with an utterly false statement about what constitutes the "identity" of people in the Eastern world.

Religion does NOT constitute the identity of persons living in the East, even though their imams are constantly hammering down that message upon their flock.
That religion is a stronger COMPONENT of the mentality of the people of the East than in the West is due to the constant and systematic brainwash they are exposed to. Brainwashing is effective!

One of the most used tools in this ongoing brainwashing process is to reveal to people what happens to non-believers:
Harassment, frequent jailings, torture and mutilation along with good ol' murder.

So, if you want to think it's fine with a culture defining itself primarily* in terms of its religious beliefs, then you must also think it is fine with torture.
You can't have the one without the other.


*I.e, by the socially dominant stratum of society
 
Last edited:
arildno said:
They certainly are. Most Muslims would be highly offended if someone told them their prophet was a criminal, a common high-way robber, but that is a matter of historical fact. The community at Medina under Mohammed terrorized the caravans passing through the country to Mecca.
Yeah, and many people would be highly offended if I said "Moses was a genocidal maniac" as well. That tends to happen when one takes such a slanted argument against a person who others hold in high regard, and Muslims aren't inhernetly any different than the rest of us on that.
arildno said:
Since most religions are based on wholly unjustified and nonsensical statements about what exists or happens in the world, they have no intellectual value, even less any moral value.
Jumping from 'since most' to dismissing all isn't rightly intellectual either.
 
kyleb said:
Yeah, and many people would be highly offended if I said "Moses was a genocidal maniac" as well. (snip)

Moses was a genocidal maniac. If one happens to believe that the individual actually existed whenever it was he is purported to have existed, the documentation supporting arguments for his existence also includes records of genocidal activities. It's not "offensive," it's not "inoffensive," it just is. Moses was a genocide, and Mohammed was a highwayman --- so what.
 
kyleb said:
Yeah, and many people would be highly offended if I said "Moses was a genocidal maniac" as well.
You'll find that virtually all of those who disagree with that statement will not engage in anything resembling the responses to much less venomous statements about Islam and its prophet - and that includes responses by non-Muslims too.
 
arildno said:
You were the one who came with an utterly false statement about what constitutes the "identity" of people in the Eastern world.

Religion does NOT constitute the identity of persons living in the East, even though their imams are constantly hammering down that message upon their flock.
That religion is a stronger COMPONENT of the mentality of the people of the East than in the West is due to the constant and systematic brainwash they are exposed to. Brainwashing is effective!

One of the most used tools in this ongoing brainwashing process is to reveal to people what happens to non-believers:
Harassment, frequent jailings, torture and mutilation along with good ol' murder.

So, if you want to think it's fine with a culture defining itself primarily* in terms of its religious beliefs, then you must also think it is fine with torture.
You can't have the one without the other.


*I.e, by the socially dominant stratum of society
This is ridiculously combative and back-and-white; you state opinions as if fact. It reads as if written by a newbie. From past posts, I'd thought you were more eloquent than this.

If this has just sunk to fist-pounding, frankly, I've lost intrerest.
 
Last edited:
And this is why we can't discuss religion even in political or historical perspectives. We've proven, once again, that people are way too sensitive when it comes to their religious beliefs.

Thread closed.