Cornellians for Obama

Colleges and Universities A-Z Cornell University
281

<p>I'm probably going to alienate my only supporter (patlees), but let me clarify my statements. I think all religions are essentially equally bad. When I say religion I mean the actual text, being the Old Testament, the New Testemant, and the Koran. If I had to specify exactly how I feel about the teachings (NOT THE PEOPLE OR HOW IT'S PRACTICED), here's how:</p>

<p>Judaism: Ethnocentric and dumb
Christianity: Just plain retarded, but has some nice morals from Jesus
Islam: Slightly more violent</p>

<p>But that's inconsequential in the argument I'm presenting here. As people have said, the important thing is how people interpret the text. Christians, currently but definitely not in history, are mostly peaceful with maybe, at most, 10% of them being gay hating, anti-evolutionist, idiots. Jews are also mostly peaceful, with about 10% being backwards crazies who can't flip a light switch on the Sabbath and want to nuke the Arabs. Muslims are far far different.</p>

<p>Islam, as it's practiced, in Muslim countries is violent, oppressive, and backwards. I'd estimate something like 90% of Muslims to be fundamentalist. There are moderates, but the vast majority of Muslims live in Middle Eastern countries that are so anti-West and run basically by crazy people. They celebrate violence, kill their own family members for honor, oppress women as less than second-class citizens, go bat**** over cartoons, etc. It's not simply a minority that react in this manner. Fatwas are issued by religious leaders who have millions of disciples against people who write books. The LEADER of Iran once stated that his country has no homosexuals! It's an entire way of life. For anyone who thinks it's a wonderful life in those Muslim country, I'd like to see you live there. None of you could honestly state that you'd feel comfortable living there.</p>

<p>I don't feel like drudging up a bunch of events that have taken place to prove my above points. But please stop blaming the media for distorting everything. Stuff happens, they report it. If anything, the media would wish to downplay Islamic fundamentalism because they're against the Iraq war.</p>

282

<p>The vast majorities of Muslims are not violent. In fact, many Muslim people in countries like Iran are becoming more and more western in their beliefs and lifestyles, but their violent governments and peers who commit stupid acts of violence are the ones we see on the news. So we develop this false sense of understanding of the Muslim world. If you want to talk about a religion rooted in violence, think Christianity.</p>

283

<p>Ummm dontno...most Muslims live in Asia, in countries in or near the Middle East and others outside of it. </p>

<p>Ditto with coolman123. If we are going to judge religions on the actions of their "practitioners" let us judge Christians. And I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, so I am definitely not going to lie and say that there are many people who claim to be killing in the name of God.</p>

<p>And do any of you go to Cornell? Because if you do and take classes there, then the professors are really not doing their job if you say that the media reports only "what happens". I going to need to talk to the admissions office about who they let into Cornell, because this is too ridiculous. </p>

<p>Suggestion: Take GOVT 181 Intro to International Relations</p>

284

<p>
[quote]
I going to need to talk to the admissions office about who they let into Cornell, because this is too ridiculous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Judging from the grammar and punctuation of just the above sentence, along with your illogical arguments put forth in this thread, I imagine I wasn't the underqualified admit. (BTW: I graduated Summa cum laude.)</p>

<p>Oh and to everyone dismissing what I said earlier: ironically, a study was just put out on this very topic (here's the link: One</a> third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam | Mail Online ). It states nearly 1/3 of BRITISH Muslim STUDENTS believe killing in the name of religion is justified. Two things of note: That's in Britain where I imagine the views to be far less fundamentalist as those of Arab Muslims. Second, these are educated people, who I imagine to be less fundamentalist than Arab Muslims. But it's gets better. For British students involved in Islamic societies, acceptance of religious killings goes up to 60%. You can read the article and even better chart for more deplorable opinions (many of which I mentioned earlier).</p>

<p>Also, I would like to agree with a statement made by TrackBabi. I was wrong for generalizing ALL Muslims. When I give my thoughts on Islam and its adherents, I am speaking about Arab Muslims or those with Arab Muslim parents. I am unsure of attitudes amongst other Muslim groups.</p>

<p>Finally, Cornell's faculty, especially it's government department with not one registered Republican, is extremely liberally biased. I wouldn't expect an unbiased appraisal of world affairs to be a hallmark of those classes. In fact, many conservative students complain about this.</p>

285

<p>
[quote]
The vast majorities of Muslims are not violent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would agree with this point, to certain extent. Look, there are many Muslims who are described as "non-practicing muslims" or "moderates". These muslims aren't going to hold on to the fundamental views that are reinforced by the core Islam. That is why I refuse to make a generalization that all the people associated with this religion are violent. But, the core leaders, the doctrine, the fundamental prechings, and the authority that shake the religion of Islam as of today is rooted within violence, oppression, and anti-West ideals. But, many of the muslims residing in U.S. or Europe, who are westernized, tend to be a bit more moderate with their beliefs and don't practice in fundamentalist Islam commonly found in the Middle East region.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If you want to talk about a religion rooted in violence, think Christianity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Last time I checked, no Chistian doctrine, no Christian leaders, no Christian authorities, and no Christian fundamental preachings encouraged its follwers to model violence or oppression.</p>

286

<p>
[quote]
I got a good/funny example lol. It's like when Bush (a religious man who made sure that his religion was well known) said that God told him in a dream to invade Iraq (I'm pretty sure that's what he said happened...wow it was years ago that I read about it in the news lol). Now do you blame Bush, the idiot, or the religion he used as a veil for his power grab? Hopefully this isn't a hard one...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Although I don't approve of Bush's foreign policies and his views, you gotta realize that he couldn't go to the war in Iraq without the approval of the Senate and Congress. Are you aware that Hilary Clinton and John Kerry voted 'yes' to invade Iraq? Although I am a democrat, I don't think it is appropriate to just target Bush with all the criticisms solely. Also, this example fails to illustrate your point. Although he is a Christian, he should not be used as a proper means to reflect what the religion stands for. The core doctrine of Bible, especially what Jesus teaches, is strictly all against violence and all about the peace. Now, there may be several Chritian leaders who are idiots and misbehave, but unlike Islam, the doctrine and the core Chistian religious leaders do not promote violence or oppression.</p>

287

<p>I think you all are missing the socioeconomic context of religious expression.</p>

<p>For starters, Patlees, there are many Christians in the United States who preach a militaristic / jihadist style of religion. Watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" and you will see leaders indoctrinating children to be warriors for Christ. The children are dressed in camouflage and doing a dance with weapons. Now, they claim it is "spiritual warriors against evil", but violence of any kind, be it psychological or physical, is rooted in the same value of "us versus them" and is ultimately divisive and destructive. That is the core value of conservative Christianity.</p>

<p>Muhammad's worldview was rooted in violence. He fought many wars, killed many people, and was elevated to the status he was because he was able to unite warring tribes. </p>

<p>Then again, the Old Testament isn't exactly a skip through Candyland. It, too, is rooted in violence, rape, pillaging, etc...</p>

<p>Since people choose whichever passages that support their worldview (people used to cite the Bible to defend slavery just as they cite it today to defend homophobia, ignoring the hundreds of passages about ending poverty), I think the current manifestation of violence in Islam is more rooted in the fact that the Middle East was once the cradle of civlization, giving us the mathematical and philosophical foundations for our entire western civilization. Its collapse has left it struggling for an identity. The same violent history has plagued Christianity, but missionaries have always traveled with pioneers, so it's a little easier being on the side of the victors and violently subjugating others into your worldview than being left behind.</p>

<p>One can look at, for example, the city of Detroit as a parallel. It was once the "Paris of the West". It had the busiest intersection in the world downtown and was the epicenter of industrial revolution that launched the United States into a global power. A few decades later, that revolution had moved on and Detroit was abandoned in the same way the Middle East has been. A lot of rage, violence, and isolation emerged in its wake in the same way. Under those circumstances, values emerge that are sometimes reflected through a religion. </p>

<p>I think if we honored Arabic culture for all it has given human civilization, and worked with them for social and economic stability, I think you would find Islam transitioning away from it violent tendencies.</p>

288

<p>
[quote]
Last time I checked, no Chistian doctrine, no Christian leaders, no Christian authorities, and no Christian fundamental preachings encouraged its follwers to model violence or oppression.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Have you ever read a history textbook?</p>

289

<p>
[quote]
Also, this example fails to illustrate your point. Although he is a Christian, he should not be used as a proper means to reflect what the religion stands for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is exactly the point bigred was trying to illustrate. Although a few lunatics are Muslim, they should not be used as a proper means to reflect what the religion stands for.</p>

290

<p>


</p>

<p>Do you know how Christianity came to be such a widespread religion?? I don't think that modern Christianity teaches or preaches violence, but note that my original post said that Christianity is rooted in violence. That's true.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>The difference between these two Democrats and Bush is that Bush came up with the idea to invade Iraq, and then supported this agenda with false information. Clinton and Kerry, as members of the Senate, had to make a choice based on the information they had (which was faulty). Also, now that they realize their initial support was based off of incorrect facts and information, and since they see the damage that the war has caused, they have changed their opinions about it. Bush still hasn't.</p>

291

<p>
[quote]
Have you ever read a history textbook?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, what is up with this kind of ad hominem attack? I am a double major in Econ and history in CAS, btw.</p>

292

<p>
[quote]
The difference between these two Democrats and Bush is that Bush came up with the idea to invade Iraq, and then supported this agenda with false information. Clinton and Kerry, as members of the Senate, had to make a choice based on the information they had (which was faulty). Also, now that they realize their initial support was based off of incorrect facts and information, and since they see the damage that the war has caused, they have changed their opinions about it. Bush still hasn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bush had access to that faulty information to begin with, as well. His dad was the formal director of CIA intelligence, and I would argue that Bush had access to numerous intelligences that were the most advanced at that time. The bottom line is that Bush and his party believed that there was a nuclear weapon in Iraq and Iraq wasn't cooperative with the U.S. when Bush demanded that U.S. let be into Iraq to investigate and destroy the nuclear weapons, if present. I am not urging to favor Bush's foreign policies since I am not a fan of it, but, come on. Hilary and Kerry basically turned their backs on and began blaming Bush in order to help their campaing for Presidential bid. Of course they are going to change their opinions about the war, because it is not going well and not popular with the U.S. citizens. If this war was going well and was somewhat supported by many citizens, I doubt they change their opinions. And, Bush just can't change his opinions entirely on this. He invaded, costing lives and money. He can't just pull out at random times. This is more complicated than what some people think. Then again, this comes down to the original question I posed. Why only blame Bush?</p>

293

<p>
[quote]
This is exactly the point bigred was trying to illustrate. Although a few lunatics are Muslim, they should not be used as a proper means to reflect what the religion stands for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How many times do I need repeat? There is a fundamental and subtle difference between Bush and the Muslim leaders. The doctrine of Christianity does NOT promote violence or oppression or whatever. I haven't encountered any prominent churches, pastors, or popes of modern times who sincerely hold on to the belief that killing others and using oppression is a way to go to solve the problem. What the hardcore Muslim leaders, the religious leaders, do is that they promote their hardcore followers to seek and destroy non-muslims. I am not talking about the political leaders associated with the religion. I am talking about what the hardcore, fundabmental religion preaches and the core philosophy of the religion at its founding. I view Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Hinduism all to be relatively peaceful religions. But Islam on the other hand is clearly a bit over the top. </p>

<p>To put this easier way, Christianity teaches that when a man murders or hurts others, he is bound to condemnation from God. </p>

<p>Buddhism teaches that the life revolves around your action. This religion encourages its followers to model good morality and peace.</p>

<p>Hinduism believes that one's life circulates, when a man dies, he may be born as a beast next life cycle. If your deeds were evil, you may be punished to be born in the next life cycle as an insect or a beast, not human. Thus, it encourages its followers to be careful to save violence towards others, even including the animals.</p>

<p>Islam preaches that the one who is righteous is one who shows absolute dedication in Alah, by fighting the holy war for their god and killing, oppressing other tribes who don't belong to this core religion. </p>

<p>There is a fundamental, CLEAR difference between these religions in regards to philosophy and preachings.</p>

294

<p>What Muslim religious leaders do you see promoting violence and oppression? </p>

<p>With regards to my "history textbook" comment- if you are a history major, I am sure you have heard about many incidents of Christian violence in the past. The crusades (weren't these launched by the Pope?) were a prime example of Christians killing others in the name of god. Additionally Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain led the Spanish Inquisition, a violent attempt to make sure that all non-Christians living in Spain would be exiled or killed, in the name of the Christian God. Furthermore, many Native Americans were forcefully converted to Christianity, because many Christians believe (and I think even Christian doctrine states this) that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. The history of Christianity is grounded in violence as well and Christianity isn't as peaceful as you make it out to be, although Christian violence has died down within the last century. I don't think you are correct in saying Christian doctrine or Christian leaders haven't encouraged violence and oppression. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Islam preaches that the one who is righteous is one who shows absolute dedication in Alah, by fighting the holy war for their god and killing, oppressing other tribes who don't belong to this core religion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As somebody above said, how do you think Christianity gained 2.6 billion followers? Peacefully, and not forcefully? Of course not. </p>

<p>What does Christianity preach about "heathens" and proselytizing? Arguably, Christians look down upon others who don't belong to their religion as well, and Christians in the past have most definitely killed and oppressed others who didn't belong to their core religion as well. You claim that there is some fundamental doctrinal difference between the two but use no textual evidence to back up your claims. Could it just be that you are misinformed about the Koran? How deeply have you studied the Koran to draw such conclusions?</p>

<p>The bottom line is, throughout history a few lunatics do bad in the name of their religion- religions should not be judged based on the actions of a few lunatics.</p>

295

<p>"As somebody above said, how do you think Christianity gained 2.6 billion followers? Peacefully, and not forcefully? Of course not."</p>

<p>Exactly, Christianity used to be very violent and was used as an excuse to oppress people. Also you say the bible isn't violent? That's a joke...look up sites counting how many people God murdered b/c of reasons such as not believing in him properly. First one I clicked on has the murder total at 33,041,220 [whereas it says Satan killed 10]. Non-violent my ass. Christianity is now the religion of many priviledged and modernized countries. These relatively well off people in modern countries happen to be believers in Christ, whereas many people in suffering countries are Muslims. These people in suffering countries go to desperate measures to do things they are taught to see as right. They happen to believe in Islam. You have to look at the time, location, and people who are the believers. If Americans were Muslim do u think we would be making suicide bombings? During WW2 many of the Japanese used Shinto in a way that motivated themselves to do things such as become kamikaze bombers. They were in desperate times so they used desperate measures in the framework of religion in order to protect their people. Many Muslims follow Islam in a very peaceful way. People choose the way they follow doctrine. A Christian could easily be like "it's right to kill nonbelievers because God did it all the time". People do what they believe is necessary to hold or gain power and if that means manipulating religion to suite themselves, then that is what they do. When we were attacked my terrorists Bush used God as one of his attacking points (saying God told him he should attack the Middle East). Do we now say God is violent? We say Bush is violent and used God in his plan to attack Iraq. (By the way it was later discovered that people in Bush's administration knew there weren't WMD's in Iraq but still pressed for the invasion).</p>

<p>Citing European Muslims isn't a very good measure. There have been many riots around Europe, especially France, because the immigrant population (many of who are Muslims from places such as North Africa) are oppressed and poor because they are treated horribly.</p>

296

<p>
[quote]
With regards to my "history textbook" comment- if you are a history major, I am sure you have heard about many incidents of Christian violence in the past. The crusades (weren't these launched by the Pope?) were a prime example of Christians killing others in the name of god.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes I have. And, many of these actions were political, not religious. Hell, many of the popes of that era were corrupt and not religious at all. There were popes who sought political advantage all the time, but these men were clearly against the bible. Let me make this clear. The bible itself doesn't preach violence. There are, however, many corrupt PEOPLE who may be associated with this religion. This DOESN"T MEAN that Christianity itself is modeled upon violence. </p>

<p>To be honest, as a Christian, I know many friends who call themselves Christian and have no business of being Christian in actuality. Some of my friends don't even go to church and even among those who go to church, many do bad things like doing drugs, being part of the wrong crowd, etc, that are against the bible. These subsets of people, I repeat, have no business with the religion itself.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Islam ITSELF teaches and encourages its followers to 'seek and destroy' non muslims.</p>

297

<p>Wow this post has been one giant insane argument: first politics, then race, now religion... wonder what's next.</p>

<p>If you don't believe that Christianity has/could be/is used as a cause for violence, check out the Old Testament. There are manyyy the stories of God commanding them to fight and kill pagans. </p>

<p>Whatever parts of the Quran extremists are using to support their views, there could be parallel ones taken from the Bible to support violence too. People can also be followers of Islam peacefully and most are. Any religion can be twisted to justify violence, given the right political/social environment.</p>

298

<p>My neighbors' whole family is convinced that "Barack Hussein Obama is a plant by Al-Qaeda" (their own words) to infiltrate America. Granted, they supported Hillary, but still, they're Democrats.</p>

<p>I mean come on, we're Republicans and we don't even think that! :)</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - Barack Obama: The Child - The Messiah - The Obamessiah</p>

299

<p>
[quote]
If you don't believe that Christianity has/could be/is used as a cause for violence, check out the Old Testament. There are manyyy the stories of God commanding them to fight and kill pagans.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Violence was very common thousands of years ago. The defnition of violence was differnet back then. It was a mean of survivial to maintain your territory. But, nowadays, violence is very unncessary as we all live within defined territories and we have well organized political and social structures.</p>

<p>If Islam is truly a peaceful religion as you claim, perhaps you haven't seen many Muslim wives, who were caught cheating, being shot on the head in streets. And, in the Arab world, these kind of 'honor' killings are rightfully justified. How about the fundamentalist groups of Islam who are anti-West? Pro-violence? Those hundreds of thousands of terrrorists? Taliban? Saudi Royal family? Koran doctrine?</p>

300

<p>my POINT was that passages exist about killing and fighting people of other religions exists in the Bible. As do they in the Quran which was also written in similarly violent times.</p>

<p>The things you write about are the EXTREME and not what defines Islam.</p>

<p>These extremists are a SMALL percentage of muslims. And it is not Islam that CAUSES this horrible phenomenon of violence, but the situation of poverty and violence.</p>