Evil Muslim conspiracy...

First, Zionism was a secular movement.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll accept that assertion with plenty of condition and hesitation.

Please Don't accept it, check it out.Never just accept something without support that YOU yourself verify.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I have at least some background knowledge about it. It would be rooted in the historical religious tradition that links the Jewish people with the land of Israel. It gained secular support after the Holocaust, because Jews thought they needed a land and a government that they could control, instead of being subject to the governments where the historical diaspora sent them. You must know more about this than I do, and I would be happy to be educated further on it. I can fact check your claims in the process of that. That is how I go through my own education.

Okay, that is a good beginning.Next step, are you aware that within the Jewish community there was a lot of opposition to Zionism BECAUSE it was a secular movement designed to establish a Nationality as opposed to being a religious designation; that they feared losing the religious protections found in many areas?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I had no idea.

Next step.At the time there were also no Arab states in the area. What today is Syria and Lebanon were French Protectorates and what became Jordan and the areas known as Palestine were British Protectorates.(hang in and we will get back to Islamic Terrorism, I promise).

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Go on.

Around the time of WWI Great Britain committed that the area that is now Palestine (as well as some other territories) would become an Arab state. They were pretty lax in defining the lines involved.At the same time, Great Britain also committed to establishment of a Jewish state in the same areas, and again, without specifying little things like borders.For a generation that was the status quo, Palestine remained a British mandate promised to two different groups.Still with me?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes, I am still with you.

In most of the area during that intervening generation, Muslims and Jews lived side by side with few conflicts, just as they had for hundreds of years. This was true in the area called Palestine as well in what became Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How important, do you think, is the specific religious instruction as opposed to a distinction separating two or more groups in causing conflict we usually blame on religion?For instance, do you think that Muslims hate non-Muslims because the Koran tells them to, or do you think that distinct groups of people (whether the distinction is race, nation, religion, or favorite football team) tend towards conflict, and the specific teaching of any religion or the words of political leaders tend to just be a convenient excuse?Personally, I think human behavior is too complicated to really be able to point at a single factor and say, "that's why."Plenty of studies and examples in history have shown that human beings will divide themselves up and tend towards conflict naturally. Further studies have shown that human beings are capable of unexpectedly evil acts when under the influence of authority. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that, when randomly selected groups are made to play the roles of prison guard and prisoner, the guards (without prompting) adopted an authoritarian stance and even inflicted torture on some of the prisoners. The prisoners, when instructed to by guards, would also inflict violence on other prisoners. The Milgram Experiment is perhaps more directly appropriate, however. THe Milgram experiment was set up to study why Germans went along with the Holocaust in WWII. Multiple reasons for the slaughter of Jews, gays, and other "undesireables" have been suggested. Hitler drew much of his antisemitism directly from Martin Luther, father of the Protestant split with Catholicism, and continually made Biblical references. But the Milgram experiment showed that what really seems to matter is simply authority, regardless of how the authority is recognized.The experiment involved one participant and one plant, as well as the "authority," the conductor of the experiment. The participant and plant took part in a rigged "random" selection; the plant would be strapped to an electrified chair, and the actual participant would be seated at a control console in a separate room with an intercom. The control console had a series of switches, labeled from a few volts, to over a hundred volts, with the last two switches labeled only "XX." The participant was told that the experiment would study the effectiveness of punishing electric shocks on memory. Whenever the plant got an answer wrong, he would get a progressively worse shock.The real experiment was to see how the participant would respond when the plant started screaming to stop. The authority figure would respond to reluctance by saying four pre-scripted responses, after which the experiment would end:1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.Most of the people setting up the experiment expected around 1-3% to continue to the end.64% of the subjects obeyed the authority all the way to the end, when the plant, who had mentioned having a heart condition, would stop screaming and simply remain silent as if dead.I think the human response to authority, our tendency to self-divide, and our tendency to dehumanize and seek conflict with the "other" is what causes terrorism. Holy books sometimes act as an authority, and people obey that authority and do evil. Preachers and politicians sometimes act as an authority, and people obey that authority and do evil. Religion is one of many lines we use to distinguish ourselves into separate tribes, but we've also used skin color and nationality and language. Soccer hooligans only need to favor different teams to spark violence.Blaming religion, especially a specific religion, seems to me to miss the point. Terrorism is a symptom of the disease, and religion is but one possible contributing factor of many, easily replaced with any other convenient substitute authority and/or tribalistic distinction. Religion's only "advantage" in such cases is that they can typically occupy both of those roles at once.Remember, we live in a world where 64% of the people you see on the street will go right along with shocking you to death if repeatedly encouraged to do so by an authority figure. Where other human beings will divide themselves into "us" and "them" at the slightest provocation, and where people will enter violent and deadly conflict over a favored sports team.I don't think it's fair or accurate to say "Islam causes Muslims to be violent." Far, far too many Muslims are not violent for that to be the case, and far, far too many NON-Muslims are violent.

quote:

---

For instance, do you think that Muslims hate non-Muslims because the Koran tells them to, or do you think that distinct groups of people (whether the distinction is race, nation, religion, or favorite football team) tend towards conflict, and the specific teaching of any religion or the words of political leaders tend to just be a convenient excuse?

---

Please let us note that this exact same fight happened in Turkey in the days when it was Zeus and Apollo rather than Jesus and Allah.Your analysis of the Milgram and Stanford Experiments is spot on in my opinion. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that "religion" is actually just a cultural trait. It is cultures that go to war. When the crusaders sacked Byzantium, both sides were nominally "Christian". Nevertheless, West met East around Turkey, the way they always do, and Turkey is who loses. -- Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything

Rahvin:1) Very many Muslims are not violent.
2) Very many non-Muslims are violent.
3) Therefore, Islam does not cause Muslims to be violent.Do you think that is a valid argument? If not, would you like to restate the argument?

"For instance, do you think that Muslims hate non-Muslims because the Koran tells them to, or do you think that distinct groups of people (whether the distinction is race, nation, religion, or favorite football team) tend towards conflict, and the specific teaching of any religion or the words of political leaders tend to just be a convenient excuse?"I have not subscribed to the fallacy that there is one and only one motivational cause for acts of violence among anyone. People do tend toward conflict, and we see it in the playgrounds, where children who are different get isolated and abused.To say, then, that all it takes is differences among people to fuel the violent hatred we see among many Muslims is, I think, delusional. I will fully restate my argument so you know my vantage. I came out of the Christian religion, and I see very many of the same forces within Islam.Islam became the 2nd-most powerful religion in the world, not by accident. It borrowed the most powerful elements of control and persuasion heavily from Christianity, including:1) Promise of eternal reward in heaven. Everyone wants to live a long time, they will do whatever they can to prolong their lives, and they lust after pleasure. Islam promises their adherents an eternity of such reward.
2) Threat of eternal punishment in hell. Everyone wants to avoid pain, and they will do whatever they can do to keep avoiding such pain. Moreover, they will go to extremes to keep the people they love out of such pain. Islam threatens everyone who does not adhere to the religion with maximum pain in hell.
3) Ultimate purpose to living. Islam promises adherents that their lives have transcendent meaning and purpose, well above and beyond the relative trivialities of day-to-day living.
4) Authoritarianism. Islam has a single perfect almighty loving God who is always right and serves as the perfect leader, the best father figure you can possibly imagine. To follow God is the definition of right, and to disobey God is the definition of wrong.
5) Scripturalism. The authority of God is found in scriptures, and the authority of these scriptures rests in the facts that they are beautifully written, have an air of authoritarian truth and are 1500 years old.
6) Social persuasion. Islam uses family, friends, and social authority figures to help persuade everyone that there is no doubt that Islam is the true path. Anyone who disbelieves is cut off from society.The combination of these forces means that Islam is easily at the top of the most powerful ideologies in existence.Should it be unexpected, then, that the passages in the Kuran that seem capable of being either twisted or directly interpreted for the cause of violence contributes strongly to that end? Is it more plausible that the people who are violent in the name of Islam are really only putting up their religion as a front, that their religion really is not so persuasive after all, that the seemingly violent Kuranic scriptures really contribute nothing? Is Islam really that ineffective at persuasion?