Is Islam bad?

[trap15]

The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

[Bananamatic]

I wonder when, or if, the death and black metal communities are going to give up beating up on Christianity and start going after Islam.

I assume it's because churches burn more easily than mosques do

[Eno]

I wonder when, or if, the death and black metal communities are going to give up beating up on Christianity and start going after Islam. Where's the disemboweled Mohammed album art and the songs about riding in to Mecca and slaughtering the believers? Talking shit about Jesus is kind of old hat at this point, especially with all the crazy shit Islamic fundies have been up to, killing people over cartoons and shit. I guess I'll have to stick with Ayat for when I want to hear some anti-Islam jams. All hail Allah the swine!

I'm no BM specialist but AFAIK there's a thriving anti-islamic BM underground scene in the middle-east, see this. Other sources also point out to european BM musicians calling for attacks in mosques and temples for other religions besides christianism too, though I haven't heard of those actually being carried out.

It is 'Islamabad' (not 'Islam is bad', dummies).

Damn you, I had my fingers twitching to make that joke.

[louisg]

Jewish dude speaking here. The answer is: No. Go be a jerk someplace else.

[President_Obama]

Is Bill Maher a cunt?

[mastermx]

Jewish dude speaking here. The answer is: No. Go be a jerk someplace else.

Agreed with louisg.

I was raised in an Islamic background. And whilst I classify myself as more of a deist than anything else, I've actually found the answer to be: as much as you want it to be. If you are an asshole, your mind will twist things to your sick way of seeing things. If you are good, you will do that too.

My university was heavy on philosophy and interfaith exchanges. So I got to talk and debate with Christians Jews Muslims and most other people of different beliefs. People are people, there are idiots no matter where you go.

From some of the responses seen here, it seems that some people haven't gone out much and met others. Generalising a group of people is just insane. Do you have any idea how many different sects and ideologies are within Islam, and sects within sects, and within those sects different schools of thought. How far do you want to go down the rabbit hole?

I'm not a big fan of religion, but if some people feel it helps them, I'm not going to go around pointing fingers. What I do try to do though is battle old archaic mind sets and encourage progressivism.

[BryanM]

Really the kind of sentiment that belongs on Stormfront or the homepage of that couple that tried to overthrow Obama by murdering some people at a CiCi's pizzeria and a Wally World.

Islam isn't bad or good; religion is like a knife. It has no moral dimension. Give it to a surgeon and a criminal, and they'll do different things with it.

It's the "conservatism" that's bad. Just because our Overton Window abstracts away the murders we perform, or that we have a bunch of holidays celebrating the many conservative defeats (and one triumph, vis-a-vis Capitalism Day), well... I'm just saying the very American need to be better than other people is an urge we all have to keep an eye on lest we go too deep into the Delusion abyss on the Delusion<->Depression axis.

[Krooze L-Roy]

Fewer Christians and Jews these days are taking radical stances because their populations' lives have, by and large, substantially improved over the last few centuries; to a large extent the same cannot be said for Muslims worldwide. When you're living in poverty (or something close to it) and feel (often with at least some justification) that you're being oppressed without any viable "secular" way out of it, you abandon hope for this life and put all your stock in the next, which translates to a willingness to do some crazy and/or terrible things in its name. If living conditions for most Muslims improved overnight to the same extent they have for the other monotheists, you'd see al-Qaeda-style terrorism vanish at the drop of a hat, because popular support for it would utterly vanish once people felt they had something else, something immediate, to live for - moreover, if you think that the leaders of such organizations are truly driven to commit such acts by their strong religious convictions, you haven't been paying the least bit of attention.

Maybe sort of a chicken/egg situation though; could their squalor be a result of their religious beliefs/practices (and/or could Christians and Jews relative success be a result of their own)? Say what you will about the relationship between science and religion in today's world, but historically, Christianity has been an overwhelmingly positive supporter of science. There are few if any areas of scientific inquiry lacking significant (if not pivotal) contributions by clergy members.

Of course, not everything is cultural; racial differences could play just as large a role. Natural selection would select for different traits in a group of people living in a snowy environment versus a desert. Agrarian versus nomadic. The respective religions might be more informed by their adherents than the other way around. Chicken/egg again. Christians living in the Middle East seem to have more in common with their Muslim neighbors than their European coreligionists.

I should point out that the title of the thread is not "Are Muslims bad?" it's "Is Islam bad?" There is nothing wrong with questioning whether an idea system is a net positive or negative for it's adherents.

[mastermx]

but historically, Christianity has been an overwhelmingly positive supporter of science.

Galileo begs to differ. Also look into the scientist Alhazen and his contribution to the scientific method.

I should point out that the title of the thread is not "Are Muslims bad?" it's "Is Islam bad?" There is nothing wrong with questioning whether an idea system is a net positive or negative for it's adherents.

By saying islam is bad you are condeming muslims by proxy.

Also, what does the word Islam mean? Is it Sufism? Is it Quranism? Sunni? Shia? Ibadi? Five percenters? or maybe Wahhabism?

Now if you asked me if wahhabism is bad, I would say yes. They preach a strict literal law. They are batshit insane, cutting off hands and shit. Do you see how loaded the question of "is islam bad?" can be. What people are debating in this forum is an umbrella term sensationalized by the media.

[Khan]

Is Islam bad? no....are people bad? yes

I consider myself Muslim and for the record I have never had any kind of desire to hurt, steal or cheat anyone I would say there is a history of fundamentalism in every religion and that compared to most religions post 9/11 its probably one of the most associated with negative press.

There was a little news article recently how out of 1500 branches 185 Subway restaurants were serving halal meat only due to strong demand from Muslim customers. Makes sense from a business point of view I mean you will cater to the demographic in the area. But alas all hell broke loose on facebook and out came the racist remarks, P*kis this Muzz*es that and it was like a war and then out came the we should go outside subways and protest it was actually hilarious to see so many people chime in with their 2 quids worth all from a shop that sells sandwiches

If you dont like the idea that 185 of their branches will cater to the local demographic then why not just shop elsewhere instead of trying to make it seem like its the end of the world it just seems like people are always looking for a reason to take a pop.

Regarding circumcision I had the cut when i was quite young I still remember the day at the time i was quite scared and remember crying but im glad i had it done its true what ive heard that lads with foreskin have higher sensitivity but it also smells worse especially if your running on a treadmill or doing something physically intense, tbh from most of the chicks ive spoke to about this matter most prefer circumcised.

[Eaglet]

We should be extremely careful with labelling topics as taboo.
Not having free discussions about whatever is what enables extremist populism to take root.
I know that this can be hard to grasp for theists (or people who approach politics like religion) where you believe that your way is the only right way and any form of dissent is "evil", but it is necessary in modern society. Unless you want a constantly fighting population eventually breaking out into civil war.

Like with every other religion it gets judged based on what its most vocal proponents are saying.
That there actually exist groups proposing sharia law in western countries is bound to be met with scepticism and criticism of the ideology as a whole.
If you also factor in that almost every modern conflict in MENA countries has one side being fundamentalist terrorist backed (Al-Qaida, Al-Shabab etc.) it gets even clearer why a lot of people perceive Islam as something bad.

I despise organized religion in general, but so long as you're able to fit into whatever (secularized or non-secularized) society you're living in you're alright.
Fundamentalists give everyone a bad name, no matter where they're from.
It's too bad a lot of western countries (my own being one of the worst) are so PC that you can't even criticize the wacko insane stuff (like wahhabism) without being labeled a racist or islamophobe.
Opening up a sound debate would do a lot for general understanding, i believe.

[Moniker]

I should point out that the title of the thread is not "Are Muslims bad?" it's "Is Islam bad?" There is nothing wrong with questioning whether an idea system is a net positive or negative for it's adherents.

By saying islam is bad you are condeming muslims by proxy.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Catholicism has a net negative effect on the world, but I don't condemn Catholics. I think the belief system, with I guess the exception of the Golden Rule, is wrongheaded and not really even beneficial on an individual level. But people find peace in the church, and I can't well condemn them for it. Same goes with Islam.

Also, what does the word Islam mean? Is it Sufism? Is it Quranism? Sunni? Shia? Ibadi? Five percenters? or maybe Wahhabism?

Now if you asked me if wahhabism is bad, I would say yes. They preach a strict literal law. They are batshit insane, cutting off hands and shit. Do you see how loaded the question of "is islam bad?" can be. What people are debating in this forum is an umbrella term sensationalized by the media.

Part of the purpose of the thread. I don't know enough about Islam and the varying sects. I mean, I know the basics about Sunni, Shia, and Wahhabiism. Perhaps it was irresponsible of me to start it without doing more research. Don't think I was particularly insensitive or out of line, though.

[Krooze L-Roy]

Galileo begs to differ. Also look into the scientist Alhazen and his contribution to the scientific method.

The Galileo thing is overblown if you read about it. And there aren't a whole lot of similar examples.

I'll read up on Alhazen. I don't doubt the existence or significance of noteworthy Muslim scientists, but you can't deny the huge impact that Christians have had.

Islam peaked during it's era of conquest. Maybe expansion is the key, and not just for them; discovering an entire continent has been an enormous boon to Western Civilization. With what's happening in the ME right now, and the West seeming to have overextended itself, maybe the poles will shift, and Islam will enter a new Golden Age while the West slides into stagnation and authoritarianism.

I should point out that the title of the thread is not "Are Muslims bad?" it's "Is Islam bad?" There is nothing wrong with questioning whether an idea system is a net positive or negative for it's adherents.

By saying islam is bad you are condeming muslims by proxy.

Also, what does the word Islam mean? Is it Sufism? Is it Quranism? Sunni? Shia? Ibadi? Five percenters? or maybe Wahhabism?

Now if you asked me if wahhabism is bad, I would say yes. They preach a strict literal law. They are batshit insane, cutting off hands and shit. Do you see how loaded the question of "is islam bad?" can be. What people are debating in this forum is an umbrella term sensationalized by the media.

Well, sure, it's a complicated discussion, better suited to those more educated on the relevant topics than any of us likely are. Thing is, we're talking well over a thousand years worth of history, theology, philosophy, science, culture and the complex interactions between all the different sects and factions; shit is SO complicated, that we're probably not a whole lot less qualified to have a discussion than an expert. A simple thumbs up or thumbs down based on our own perceptions shouldn't be too much for us to muster, with the caveat that it's a lot more complicated than that.

[mastermx]

I should point out that the title of the thread is not "Are Muslims bad?" it's "Is Islam bad?" There is nothing wrong with questioning whether an idea system is a net positive or negative for it's adherents.

By saying islam is bad you are condeming muslims by proxy.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Catholicism has a net negative effect on the world, but I don't condemn Catholics. I think the belief system, with I guess the exception of the Golden Rule, is wrongheaded and not really even beneficial on an individual level. But people find peace in the church, and I can't well condemn them for it. Same goes with Islam.

If i say someone follows violent and immoral rules. That means they behave in violent and immoral ways. I'd gladly condemn extremists and their rules wherever and whoever they are. But saying something like "islam is bad", is so generalized that it's difficult for some not to be offended.

I'm personally grateful that I don't have to endure the kind of shit that's going on in Northern Iraq

You and me both, and I'm Iraqi! Iraq is a mess right now, who am I kidding it's always been a mess. Syria is ruined too actually. Too bad because when there was stability in those regions it made for some pretty fun holidays. What's happening in iraq was to be expected though tbh, Iraq has very few allies in the middle-east, and those that it does have amicable ties to, it has stepped on their toes in the past. The chaos that is Iraq is the product of politics and greed, not religion(despite what most media sources say these days). Talking with family and friends on the ground(both sunni and shiite), has shown me that there is so much misinformation on the news, that I seriously just give up. I've had too many iraq related debates in my life.

Don't think I was particularly insensitive or out of line, though.

its cool dude, i think it's a good thing! It's better to ask and confirm things rather than just roll with whatever you may have heard.

[endoKarb]

Oh so we have shifted more towards "Tritness and banality: the thread"

[BulletMagnet]

And there aren't a whole lot of similar examples.

Considering that fundamentalist Christians at this very moment are doing their darndest to, as but one example, have evolutionary theory written out of science textbooks (not to mention Jefferson's myriad musings on the separation of church and state, a particularly sore point with me) you really don't have to go very far for "similar examples." Mind you, I think it's safe to say that most Christians don't particularly support these efforts, but somehow the wingnuts still end up finding strongholds and exuding influence on the rest of our lives, religious or not; in similar fashion, a relative handful of Islamic extremists manage to get enough of a foothold to mess things up more than seems possible off the cuff. The common factor? Supporters of both factions have been persuaded to feel that they and/or their faith are somehow "under attack", and that only drastic, far-reaching action (God's stock and trade) can make things right.

Frankly, I'm not well-read enough to offer anything worth reading when it comes to cultural factors and whatnot, but my larger point remains that, whatever the cause, the fuel for any extreme point of view, religious, political or otherwise, is the sense that your back is up against the wall and you're out of options. Once that sentiment goes away, no matter how or why, support for the margins all but vanishes with it. Whatever angle you want to take on how it got there and what specifically needs to be done about it, if you really want to combat extremism that's the target you need to aim for, or else no other efforts to that end will end up mattering in the least.

[Moniker]

I'm personally grateful that I don't have to endure the kind of shit that's going on in Northern Iraq

You and me both, and I'm Iraqi! Iraq is a mess right now, who am I kidding it's always been a mess. Syria is ruined too actually. Too bad because when there was stability in those regions it made for some pretty fun holidays. What's happening in iraq was to be expected though tbh, Iraq has very few allies in the middle-east, and those that it does have amicable ties to, it has stepped on their toes in the past. The chaos that is Iraq is the product of politics and greed, not religion(despite what most media sources say these days). Talking with family and friends on the ground(both sunni and shiite), has shown me that there is so much misinformation on the news, that I seriously just give up. I've had too many iraq related debates in my life.

This is something I've wondered for awhile. How do Iraqis generally feel about ISIS and similar? A poor analogy might be something like a souped up version of the KKK during its height? I also wonder at the level of pragmatism your non-newsgrabbing Muslims mix with their faith. In the US you have Catholics and mainstream Protestants who may be more or less devout, but tend to insert common sense where scripture lacks it. Then you have your Seventh Day Adventists and hardcore Baptists who insist on literal interpretations, and it's nigh impossible to have a civil conversation with them on, like, anything.

Edit: quasi-ninja'd by BM.

[Lord Satori]

Extremism in general is something to despise, no matter what particular view is being expressed. I wish I could just dump a massive bucket of water over their heads and tell them to calm the fuck down.

(btw, I think we should change the thread's name to something like "is religion bad" or "religion thread", or something)

[mastermx]

This is something I've wondered for awhile. How do Iraqis generally feel about ISIS and similar?

That they are crazy ass motherfuckers! There's videos of them decapitating Iraqis, and one where they put a bullet in some poor dude's head(many of these actually). In reality ISIS don't give a shit if you're sunni or shiite, though plenty of them are Wahabi. Most of them are not Iraqi anyway. They are a mixture of extremist from pakistan, aghanistan, syria, saudi, and even some from britain (four lions anyone?) They are being helped by saddam hussain's buddies from the baathist party. ISIS WERE the same "Syrian" Rebels. There's so many layers to this onion it'll make people cry. And here's the last layer I'll peel: they are being funded by Saudi Arabia.

I also wonder at the level of pragmatism your non-newsgrabbing Muslims mix with their faith. In the US you have Catholics and mainstream Protestants who may be more or less devout, but tend to insert common sense where scripture lacks it. Then you have your Seventh Day Adventists and hardcore Baptists who insist on literal interpretations, and it's nigh impossible to have a civil conversation with them on, like, anything.

People are people. It's just like the U.S. or anywhere else you go. There are those that are pragmatic, and those that are impossible to talk to. Iraq is a different case to most other middle eastern countries. Some faiths we have are Atheists, Christians, Yazzidis, Muslims, Zorastrians, and jews. Interestingly many of the Jewish Iraqis I have met still have a strong connection to Iraq.

If I think something is bullshit, I call it straight up. Hasn't made me too popular amongst the religious. But the youth of Iraq are heavily westernised, and seem to be more worth my time than others. There is hope for the new generation raised on internets.

[Moniker]

This is something I've wondered for awhile. How do Iraqis generally feel about ISIS and similar?

That they are crazy ass motherfuckers! There's videos of them decapitating Iraqis, and one where they put a bullet in some poor dude's head(many of these actually). In reality ISIS don't give a shit if you're sunni or shiite, though plenty of them are Wahabi.

So the Obama administration's notion that the movement is stoked by Sunni/Shia tensions mishandled by Maliki is probably bullshit. Still don't get why the Iraqi army has melted before these guys. Pure fear? On a similar note, what are the major doctrinal differences b/w Sunni and Shia? All I really know is that they disagree on who the last Imam was, which reminds me of the difference b/w Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the issue of icons... except the Great Schism was never really backed by major military/violent action. Moreover, do your average Sunnis and Shiites tend to get along?

[mastermx]

This is something I've wondered for awhile. How do Iraqis generally feel about ISIS and similar?

That they are crazy ass motherfuckers! There's videos of them decapitating Iraqis, and one where they put a bullet in some poor dude's head(many of these actually). In reality ISIS don't give a shit if you're sunni or shiite, though plenty of them are Wahabi.

So the Obama administration's notion that the movement is stoked by Sunni/Shia tensions mishandled by Maliki is probably bullshit. Still don't get why the Iraqi army has melted before these guys. Pure fear? On a similar note, what are the major doctrinal differences b/w Sunni and Shia? All I really know is that they disagree on who the last Imam was, which reminds me of the difference b/w Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the issue of icons... except the Great Schism was never really backed by major military/violent action.

Maliki done goofed, don't get me wrong. Both Sunnis and Shias have problems with the guy. But he is the democratically elected leader. And trust me when I say that whether they are happy or angry at him, neither sunni nor shia iraqis would go around killing people on the streets like maniacs. The majority of ISIS are foreign terrorists. I swear these news stations are making me rage. I watch the ISIS videos and some have laughably broken arabic.

Moreover, do your average Sunnis and Shiites tend to get along?

Most major news corporations are overplaying the Sunni Shia divide(I can theorize as to why). I have plenty of family that is a mix of both sunni and shiite. Also their friends' are also a mixture of Sunni, Shiite and Christian. You're average joe does not give a crap, all he wants is a good wage and safety. Most friends and family that are in iraq know I don't care much for religion, but not everyone does anyway I guess. Again this all differs from region to region. Some places are more backwards than others.

[Moniker]

Moreover, do your average Sunnis and Shiites tend to get along?

Most major news corporations are overplaying the Sunni Shia divide(I can theorize as to why). I have plenty of family that is a mix of both sunni and shiite. Also their friends' are also a mixture of Sunni, Shiite and Christian. You're average joe does not give a crap, all he wants is a good wage and safety. Most friends and family that are in iraq know I don't care much for religion, but not everyone does anyway I guess. Again this all differs from region to region. Some places are more backwards than others.

So why would Shia-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia be supporting violent action over the middleground that is Iraq? If the two sects aren't actually that far apart, I'd have to guess that it's more of a geopolitical sphere of influence than a religious one?

[mastermx]

Moreover, do your average Sunnis and Shiites tend to get along?

Most major news corporations are overplaying the Sunni Shia divide(I can theorize as to why). I have plenty of family that is a mix of both sunni and shiite. Also their friends' are also a mixture of Sunni, Shiite and Christian. You're average joe does not give a crap, all he wants is a good wage and safety. Most friends and family that are in iraq know I don't care much for religion, but not everyone does anyway I guess. Again this all differs from region to region. Some places are more backwards than others.

So why would Shia-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia be supporting violent action over the middleground that is Iraq? If the two sects aren't actually that far apart, I'd have to guess that it's more of a geopolitical sphere of influence than a religious one?

Sunni-Shia relations may be good in Iraq, but Wahabis just hate everyone and everything. This whole situation is so convoluted i can fill a whole graph with lines denoting benefactors. Iraq is the middle-easts' bitch.

You are right, it is a geopolitical thing. By far one of the biggest causes of this insanity, is Saudi Arabia. The stench of hypocrisy and corruption in saudi is very disturbing, but then again I hate monarchies anyway.

[neorichieb1971]

There is good and bad with every nation/people/religion.

The art of getting along is to accept people that do you no harm. For some reason this is one step too far. The ones who do want to get along just get caught in the tsunami of hate..

[Axelay]

The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

Enlighten me .

[austere]

I don't think this is an offensive topic nor "Stormfront" material, it's a valid question. I have members of my family who identify as Muslims so I'm not writing this from complete ignorance/hatred but experience. Nothing is intrinsically bad or good, everything is either useful to you or useful to someone else (e.g. who doesn't like you very much). Religion in general is out dated, despite serving a purpose once upon a time. Likewise, Islam is a similar waste of time and a gateway to nihilism. Unfortunately, unlike the others, it is also a biological weapon -- a dangerous tool for conquest when wielded by a skilled manipulator.

Poverty, as mentioned by BulletMagnet, is simply one element of the dynamics at play. When you have to pray 5 times a day, poverty is inevitable. That's time you could have otherwise spent on personal development. Any Muslim, in a country that enforces Sharia, is allowed to have four wives (and an infinite number of concubine war slaves). Let's say all the girls get taken in a town by the people who have all the wealth. That leaves 3 male virgin for every 1 thoroughly married guy. This forms an army, ready to conquer the next town filled with women. Should they die doing it, it's fine, there's 72 virgins waiting for them so its win-win for the true believer. From there the attacks go outwards until they've exhausted the number of civilizations ill-prepared (Persia, Byzantine Syria, Egypt, Libya, Berbers, half of Spain) for their zerg rushes. Eventually, this rolling ball is halted by a well prepared powerful entities (the Franks) and from that point the progress is checked. To ensure whatever gains they make are held, anyone leaving Islam is to be killed as an apostate. Everyone else is to be harassed with Jizya (tax) until their livelihoods are destroyed or they convert. It's quite ironic that the majority of "Palestinians" were actually Jews who loved their land more than their religion and decided to convert so they wouldn't be driven off it via tax. Someone tell the Israelis and Palestinians that they're both killing their own people, lol. Anyway, as Muhammed was the only prophet who claimed to be the final prophet, he became the final prophet. Self-fulfilling you see, wouldn't want any future reversal.

There's a lot of hatred towards "Saudi Arabia", but very few people know that before Islam, there indeed was civilization in what was called the Arabian peninsula. In Yemen too, they had beautiful cities and strong trade and craft. Eventually, this humanity is consumed, as it was in Persia, Baghdad, Syria which were all heading towards their golden ages, somewhat stunted by combined invasions of the original Muslims (aka the Salaf) and the Mongol invasions. Furthermore, about Wahhabism, though the intention behind it is quite nefarious, if you actually listen to what they say and look up what they cite, you will see that they're simply following Islam as it is written. Destroying "idols" wherever they go:


(Ancient thousands of years old statue from the Assyrian empire before it was shattered to pieces by devout ISIS Muslims who invaded Syria via US state department proxies such as Turkey)

All this said, don't judge Muslims by looking at Islam nor the other way around. There have been truly valiant people that I have known who were Muslim as well as the worst of villains who identify as such. In modern times, the rolling ball was halted at the gates of Damascus and is being driven back by the valiant Syrian army, comprised mostly by people who identify as Muslims (and a significant number of Christians) but in reality, people who hold "western values". Also, they are genetically distinct from the attacking hordes. These soldiers will tell you that their enemies aren't "real Muslims", but I beg to differ.

[mastermx]

When you have to pray 5 times a day, poverty is inevitable.

lol, some of the wealthiest people i know pray 5 times a day.

is allowed to have four wives (and an infinite number of concubine war slaves).

Despite travelling through most of the arabian countries, I very rarely see anyone with more than one wife. In 99% of cases it was because the first wife couldnt bear children. And I have never met, nor seen of a concubine war slave.

To ensure whatever gains they make are held, anyone leaving Islam is to be killed as an apostate.

This is what wahhabis do.

Furthermore, about Wahhabism, though the intention behind it is quite nefarious, if you actually listen to what they say and look up what they cite, you will see that they're simply following Islam as it is written. Destroying "idols"

This is the problem you see. It's not a case of what's written, but rather what's interpreted. It's like the creationists in christianity. Most muslims disagree with the destruction of historic sites and art, in fact it is labeled as a crime.

by devout ISIS Muslims who invaded Syria via US state department proxies such as Turkey

This I agree with you on. ISIS is funded by external sources.

There's a lot of assumption in your post, it almost read like an RTS guide. I'm not sure if you've ever had a chance to debate with a scholar, but really the points raised can really easily be rebbuted. I mean no offense of course, it's just an honest observation.

[Ed Oscuro]

but historically, Christianity has been an overwhelmingly positive supporter of science.

Galileo begs to differ.

Galileo shouldn't be your only source in this debate.

The answer to this is...kinda complicated.

In the US we have a long tradition, dating back to before Thomas Jefferson, of puritans / protestants complaining about THE POPERY! and arguing that Catholicism had its hand in every bad thing you could imagine. Today we know that's not true, certainly not to the extent that has was popularly argued in pretty much every history of science through the late 1800s.

What was that history actually like? I'm definitely not qualified to give you THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER! but I will give you a couple examples.

In the 14th century, some early work done on theories of impetus (i.e., the precursor of Galileo's work on impetus, itself the direct ancestor of Newton's theory of inertia) was by Jean Buridan, a French priest.

Galileo came along at a difficult time for the Catholic Church, when it felt under threat by a whole variety of secular trends that I won't discount here, and on top of that when you look at how Galileo treated his intellectual rivals (even if I'm charitable and say his rivals for public influence - he was much more accomplished and a more careful reasoner than many of them), it's not hard to see how he became a big target. Essentially, he was a boaster who could almost always back it up - in the realm of theory. In his famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he intentionally fails even mentioning the Jesuits' favored compromise system, depicting the cosmological argument of the day as between the completely outmoded Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system (if memory serves, what should actually be known as the Galilean system; Galileo altered Copernicus here and there). Of course, Kopernik was a priest also, and I believe his work was favorably received by local Catholic officials (though it was left to obscurity for some time until Galileo picked it back up). Another thing Galileo did, aside from carelessly losing the support of his old friend who happened to be the Pope, was making the fool of the Dialogue a peripatetic (Aristotelian). In fact, Jean Buridan is considered an Aristotelian philosopher. In short, Galileo would have done better if he kicked his ego down a notch and paid as much attention to his use of bad rhetorical tactics (like trying to make powerful or important figures and powers into strawmen) as he had to the deductive reasoning behind his theories. He did portray himself as the modern defender of Copernicus' work, though since Copernicus had died only Galileo stood to receive any real recognition for the work of popularizing it. If Copernicus had been alive, it seems quite likely that Galileo would have taken him sharply to task for the various errors and omissions he fixed in his own updates of that work.

The Church's opposition to Galileo appear basically centered around political necessity, not the scientific content of his work. There were some highly-placed Church officials, like the soon-to-be-dead chief astronomer who argued that the moon just looked rocky, but maybe was still perfectly spherical, with the mountains being encased in something like a giant sno-globe (this kind of Aristotelians who couldn't give up on Aristotle's theory of the universe, even in the light of evidence, drove Galileo mad). These folks didn't seem inclined to treat this more than a matter for scholarly disagreement, even after Galileo didn't make friends by injudicious application of his famous sarcasm and wit when putting them in their place. Church scientists don't seem to have been the driving force against Galileo; rather it seems Galileo forced the matter by avoiding the censorship requests (like "please remove this stuff that makes the Pope look like a fool, for no apparent reason"), and he couldn't count on great support from groups like the Jesuits due to having pissed them off as well. Once the actual scientific content of his work was out there, though, it was free for the rest of the world to decide on its merits. Before the showdown over his Dialogue, Galileo had all kinds of patrons for whom he built telescopes and wrote letters, including a highly-ranked Church official (whose support he relied far too heavily on).

Since the time of Galileo, the Catholic Church has counted among its members a large number of important scientists. Its current doctrines appear to be twofold, that science should serve good interests, and that science and the church cannot in fact disagree, logically speaking, because both things follow the same ultimate source of truth - focusing on perhaps divergent aspects of it, but still true all the same. In modern times, the Catholic Church's opposition to aspects of science is mostly on moral grounds. The modern liberal / atheist / agnostic / humanist / utilitarian / etc. shouldn't be completely comfortable with this - but the actual areas in which Church interference in scientific conduct seem relatively few. You've got some productively-intentioned interference in cosmology, which is a very difficult and abstract science at best, and then you have a few other areas in which many people agree that there are moral implications (research related to the formation of new persons - abortion, cloning, eugenics of any kind). How many of my fellow Americans think that climate change is a scare tactic dreamed up by academics looking to generate salaries? While I don't want the Church determining what research can and cannot be done, I don't mind listening to the views of Catholics on those areas - and I certainly appreciate the support for many important kinds of science that don't get treated by the current corporate/elite consensus in many governments.

As I said, the bit about Galileo isn't the whole story. The new run of Cosmos (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) has helped popularize the history of another visionary, Giordano Bruno, who was persecuted and eventually killed - essentially for his beliefs about science. Though, with hindsight, we can say that the unfortunate monk seems to have failed to put his ideas in terms that made clear he was talking about something scientific, and there was also a strong religious component to his ideas. It is ironic that his belief of a large universe is closely associated with the current Catholic views on the majesty of the universe, but he seemed to frame a theological challenge to the Church's teachings no different from the many other heresies of the era (Jansenism and so on).

Religion and science are not dissimilar in that both can follow popular currents and fads. Important research might be diverted into dry channels, and religious people might flail away at concerns that nobody later can even fathom being important. Just as it's important for religious people not to subvert the scientific process for temporal ends, it's also important for friends of science to not draw up a false picture of religion as having always had some particular character. Religion has brought good and bad - quite often by accident, and sometimes on purpose. The same is true of science fans and their attempts to influence the world to be more science-friendly. I think the reason for what is usually a not so wide spread in views is that all groups are bound by the same kinds of earthly ignorance, and have similar views on what represents good science.

[austere]

lol, some of the wealthiest people i know pray 5 times a day.

I'm sure as you'd also agree, some of the poorest as well. Once you have wealth, its difficult to lose it unless you lack wit. But if someone is burdened with 5 prayers a day compared to another person who isn't, who is more likely to become more wealthy? All things being equal, expending large amounts of time and energy on an activity unlikely (unless they become a rich preacher) to convey economic benefits will tend towards poverty, all things being equal.

Despite travelling through most of the arabian countries, I very rarely see anyone with more than one wife.

People are unlikely to come forward with it, but its very common in Gulf countries. In the Levant it's a convenient way of cheating and always leads to a divorce anyway. I was exaggerating a little bit but you will find a lot of the "Jihadis" operate this way and the females that hang around them eventually develop some sort of slavedom-fetish. No idea how that works yet.

This is what wahhabis do.

Not just wahhabis, also Iran. The fact that extremists on both sides of the spectrum do the same thing should have you wonder, no? Most Islam scholars in the west will say "that is a sura that is only meant for war". Well, the Qu'ran itself is divided in two sections, the Mecca suras and the Medina suras. The latter override the prior ones, as most Wahabbis will correctly tell you. That means their head chopping antics are actually pretty much justified according to Islam proper. The scholars are wrong. Ask one why the Quran doesn't list the Ayehs chronologically. They won't have an answer for you, but I can tell you why.

This is the problem you see. It's not a case of what's written, but rather what's interpreted. ... Most muslims disagree with the destruction of historic sites and art, in fact it is labeled as a crime.

That's the thing about Islam, if you interpret it (i.e. ignore anything that contradicts basic human decency) the right way, all is good, the moment you change its interpretations you'll be eating hearts in Homs, Syria and blowing up ancient monuments while cutting heads of the people guarding them. Is that true of Judaism/Christianity? Not so clear. I challenge you to find a hadith or surah that advocates the protection of history, if it existed it would be in contradiction of other more numerous texts advocating destruction of "idols" and other national/cultural/religious symbolism.

I can tell you that most of the funding of Al Qaeda et al. ("Free" "Syrian" "Army", Jabhet Al Nusrah etc.) has been coming from "moderate" mosques around the world, is that not a big tick of approval by "moderate" Muslims towards the violence unleashed by the Jihadists that fight in their names? Behind closed doors, didn't some Muslims you know approve of the horrific events of 9/11? At the very least in the "had it coming" manner? It's true that most Muslims do not take part in terrorism, but recent events have truly opened my eyes towards the percentage of them that actually approve of terrorism. It is not insignificant.

This I agree with you on. ISIS is funded by external sources.

ISIS, FSA, J.N, Al Qaeda, all of them are funded by external sources, supplied with arms by US-aligned nations, provided logistics by same nations and strategy by the US through their various think tanks. I did say, it's a powerful weapon when wielded by a skilled manipulator. How long they can control it is coming into question with the events in Iraq. What can I say, we warned them.

As for my post sounding like an RTS guide, that was very deliberate. I'm writing both of these with my tongue firmly in cheek in the hope that it spurs more discussion and fewer posts arguing against discussing this matter at all.

[Ed Oscuro]

but historically, Christianity has been an overwhelmingly positive supporter of science.

Galileo begs to differ.

In case anybody can't stomach my post (overly long-winded?! Say what?!), an informative, succinct treatment of very nearly the entire issue is found here:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009 ... world.html