Dear Steven,

You seem to be more interested in
condemnation rather than explanation.
When I tried to explain my position
to you you called it "self-righteous
humbuggery." And again repeated this
statement to me in your last post.
I tried to explain that
while I appreciate your point of view,
I look at things from a different perspective.
However, I can see that you're reluctant
to modify your judgments, especially
accepting my right to differ from
your opinion in this matter. Unless I
see things your way - I'm a self-righteous
humbug, according to you. Perhaps you should
look in the mirror as well Steven. Humbugs
come in all shapes and sizes. When you point
fingers at people, there's usually three or
more pointing back at you.

Anyway,
with this apparent breakdown in communication
I can see no further reason for us to continue this
discussion.

Foxy, while I generally respect Steven's contributions on many topics, when it comes to Islam it is usually him who descends into "self-righteous humbuggery" rather than those who argue against him for mutual tolerance.

Of course, he is a secular Jew, so his ethnicity has nothing to do with his Islamophobia.

stevenlmeyer,
<<most Christians are not as good as their religion
and most Muslims are not as bad as their religion>>
You've summed it up very nicely. Well done.
Lots of luck convincing the Foxy's though.
They seem to think that Islamic violence is the fault of people who point out Islamic violence,
along the lines of the Islamic refrain...
"Death to those who say Islam is violent!"
Unfortunately, for all her verbiage, her mind is fixed.
<<You really need to respect the right of others
Steven, to disagree with you and learn to test
things; always check your ideas against facts,
and be ready to discard even a cherished belief
if it does not conform to them.>>
She seems blissfully unaware of the fact that, in her platitudinising,
she is essentially addressing herself.

Dear CJ,

I haven't for one moment suggested
that fundamentalism doesn't exist in all
religions. And I certainly do not condone
violence of any kind. But I thought that
I made that quite clear in all of my postings.
What I do object to is the dark side of absolutism,
which involves sweeping statements, and tarring
every one with the same brush no matter what
the religion. I think that John Hartung said it rather
well:

"The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality,
complete with instructions for genocide,
enslavement of out-groups, and world domination.
But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its
objectives or even its glorification of murder,
cruelty, and rape. Many ancient works do that -
The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of
ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the
ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is
selling The Iliad as a foundation for morality.
Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and
bought, as a guide to how people should live their
lives. And it is, be far, the world's all-time
bestseller."

As Richard Dawkins points out,"Lest it be thought
that the exclusiveness of traditional Judaism is
unique among religions, look at the following
confident verse from a hymn by Isaac Watts (1674 -
1748):

"Lord I ascribe it to Thy Grace,
And not to chance, as other do,
That I was born of Christian Race
And not a Heathen or a Jew."

What puzzles Dawkins about this verse is not the
exclusiveness per se but the logic. Since plenty
of others were born into religions other than
Christianity, how did God decide which future
people should receive such favoured birth?
Why favour Isaac Watts and those individuals
whom he visualized singing his hymn?

Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force but as Dawkins
tells us, "Religion is a 'label' of in-group/out-group
labels such as skin colour, language or preferred
football team, and often available when other labels
are not."

LOL CJ MORGAN

There we go again with the I-word as in "Islamophobe".

Actually I am a totalitarian-o-phobe. I hate and fear ALL totalitarian belief systems That automatically makes me a Nazi-phobe, a Stalinist-o-phobe and, yes, an "islamo-phobe".

EVERYONE WHO TRULY OPPOSES TOTALITARIANISM SHOULD BE AN ISLAMOPHOBE.

Why do I keep picking on Islam among all belief systems?

Well, the Tea Party notwithstanding Obama is neither a Nazi nor a Stalinist. He is merely a rather ineffectual president who is still an enormous improvement on his predecessor.

In other words, the Nazis and the Stalinists are mainly history. The most threatening totalitarian belief system today is Islam. It is not the only one. But it is the most threatening.

In the inter-war years, and as late as the 1960s, many people who should have known better were taken in by Stalinists. Among them, famously, was George Bernard Shaw. There existed a flock of "intellectuals" who were, to use Lenin's apt phrase, "useful fools".

Even today while Hitler is, rightly, much reviled, Stalin and Mao get what amounts to a free ride given the enormity of their crimes. In reality Mao, Hitler and Stalin were equal monsters.

Today Islam, like Stalinism, has its useful fools. I accept that. There's nothing I can do about it. You CJ Morgan are one of them.

But, Foxy, I EXPECTED BETTER OF YOU. I thought if there is anyone on OLO who is able to see through the pretensions of a totalitarian belief system it's Foxy.

I was wrong. Foxy, you turn out to be no better than Stalin's apologists. You ought to be ashamed of yourself

Pure sophistry, stevenlmeyer.

>>I hate and fear ALL totalitarian belief systems That automatically makes me a Nazi-phobe, a Stalinist-o-phobe and, yes, an "islamo-phobe"<<

Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. Judaism is a religion.

These may also be described as "belief systems".

Stalinism was a totalitarian political system. Nazism was a totalitarian political system. Neither of these involved belonging to a particular religious sect.

Your attempt to equate a religious belief with a totalitarian political system is both fraudulent and insulting.

If you so choose, you may invent terminology that identifies Islamic extremists in the same way as, say, Zionists are identified as Jewish extremists.

But to use the language that you do in order to describe an entire religion leaves you completely exposed to the charge of inciting fear and loathing.

Which, given the general flavour of your posts here, doesn't particularly concern you in the least, does it?