Is ISIL Islamic?

[MellowDem]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/11/sam-harris-calls-out-president-obama-on-the-falsehood-in-last-nights-speech-that-islam-is-fundamentally-good/

The privilege of major religions is so great that they can do no harm in the eyes of many world leaders, out of deference to the power of the religious.

President Obama declaring ISIL as not Islamic is a great recent example. The No True Scotsman fallacy used to excuse any religiously motivated violence. And, of course, the unqualified assumption that Islam is good.

It's not healthy to pretend an idea is always good.

[mn9driver]

1. It pretends to be.

But it looks a lot more like violent fascism.

[MellowDem]

5. Have you read the Koran?

It's easy to find justification on it for a group like ISIL to exist.

And I tire of others telling me who is really religious or not. It's not a good argument.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Got some quotes to share that back up your slam of Islam?

How easy is it to find such justification?

[Promethean]

41. Try the story of Mecca and Medina.

In it Mohammed leads his people to war against people who worshiped idols. Most notably the Hubal. There is a notable betrayal but with the strength of his faith Mohammed leads his army to victory anyways.

The lesson taught by the story? Bring war to further Islam and your faith in Allah will give you the strength to assure victory.

This is one of the most important stories in the Koran. Go ask any Muslim. Or just look up the pilgrimage. Every Muslim has a religious duty to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. The site of a successful conquering of another religion by Islam is a mandatory visitation by every Muslim.

[trotsky]

2. Ask the followers.

If they say it is, then it is.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. As much as the "Right" are Christians.

So the answer is no.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Actually so the answer is yes.

That is the thing about religious beliefs. Your interpretation of what is a valid belief is no better than their interpretation. It is all subjective bullshit.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. "It is all subjective bullshit."

So is someone's opinion on any subject. All subjective bullshit.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. That is correct opinions are subjective bullshit unless they are evidence based reasoning.

There are almost no facts in ancient religious texts, the books are filled entirely with myths and fables some of which might mention something for which there is some historical evidence. The texts are contradictory and ambiguous and frequently deliberately obscure. Most of the texts are obvious nonsense. Claims that "those people over there are not really religious" are complete bullshit. The Westford Baptist types have just a valid claim to being "truly religious" as any other group.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Yep.

All opinion remains subjective and bullshit, and subject to the interpretation of the the one opining. Evidence-based reasoning? The question then becomes, whose interpretation should one accept as valid evidence of reasoning on any given topic?

I'll stick to my "opinion is all subjective and all bullshit".

[edhopper]

49. You mean on things

like evolution, Climate Change or Supply Side Economics? I think those with the facts should be accepted as valid.
But when it comes to Biblical Interpretation, which is all subjective based on the reading of a text which, as warren said, "books are filled entirely with myths and fables some of which might mention something for which there is some historical evidence."
I don't think one interpretation can be accepted over another as valid.
People can choose based on their own priorities, but that doesn't make it more correct.

[MellowDem]

6. You can't ignore the bad in religion...

Just because you wish it weren't so. Have you read the Bible? It's conservative as can be in many ways.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Yes, I have read the Bible.

But being a Christian, I don't adhere to the Hebrew Scriptures of it since Christ - from where we've derived the Christian word - is solely part of the Greek Scriptures and it's far from conservative.

Empathize and care for the poor. Give selflessly. Don't be a bigot. Don't be a racist. Don't judge others since no one is perfect. Don't denigrate other religions or beliefs, but show respect for them. Feed the poor and hungry. Heal the sick. Respect one's neighbors. Respect one's parents and parents should treat their children well; feed and clothe them, love them and raise them from the position of love at all times so that they become strong and stable adults. Don't use places of worship for profit (my pet peeve against mega-churches). Women are equal to men; we are the Yin to their Yan they are the Yan to our Yin. Last I've looked, those are not traditional conservative Christian values as we know them today.

And no. I don't ignore the bad in any religion, just as I don't ignore the bad in anything else. As a Christian, I take the good with the bad just like everybody else who isn't a Christian.

[trotsky]

10. Those are wonderful, positive messages indeed.

Although some of them are clearly the result of some creative interpretation and selective editing of even the New Testament.

For instance, reading Paul, it would be pretty difficult to conclude that women are equal to men. And when Jesus says in his parable "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" it's tough to take home the message of religious tolerance.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. This was a parable in context with Judgement Day as they approached Jerusalem

and his Disciples were getting giddy, hoping to see the Kingdom of God immediately appear. At the link provided, you can read that quote in context.

Taking things out of context always carries the risk that people will interpret a message differently than intended. Don't fall into the same trap Conservative Christians have been doing.

[trotsky]

19. Yes, I'm well aware of the context.

Simply responding "context!" doesn't resolve the problem, however. It still expresses intolerance of those who would not be ruled by Jesus.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. No. I don't think you are.

Because it was told to and for followers of Christ who understand the penalty for rejecting him - a penalty the Father set, not the Son - on Judgment Day.

I could be wrong, but I don't get the sense you are a follower of Christ and maybe that's why you see it differently than I do.

Anyway, how do you square that parable of seeming intolerance to this accounting:

When Jesus was being crucified and thunder and lightning broke the skies as earthquakes began to split open the earth, Jesus didn't say, "KILL them ALL, FATHER!" No. Even in extreme pain, he begged, "Father, forgive them because they don't know what they're doing." I call that pretty tolerant, don't you?

[trotsky]

29. So do you agree with that?

1) You believe there will be a "judgment day."
2) You believe people will be given a choice to accept or reject god at that time.
3) You believe those who reject will be "killed" (tortured for eternity, whatever - please specify what punishment you think they will receive!)

There is STILL nothing about religious tolerance. In fact, those whose religious beliefs are solid and firm for their own god (not Jesus or Yahweh) would, by the rules you lay out, be rejecting your god and thus suffer the consequences. "slay them before me" Yikes.

And no, your "forgive them for they know not what they do" isn't a message of religious tolerance, either.

Much like conservative Christians, you have an agenda you prefer, and so you interpret the stories of the bible through that filter. Neither one of your is really any more right or wrong than the other.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Agree with what?

To answer your bullet point questions:

1) Yes (although it's not really a "day&quot ;
2) Yes;
3) No. Not "killed". More like, put to sleep in the "Second Death" after Judgment Day is completed and you really cease to exist. There is no purgatory. No hell. No limbo. No second resurrection. There's just ... eternal non existence.

And no, your "forgive them for they know not what they do" isn't a message of religious tolerance, either.

From Jesus' point of view, it is the ultimate display of religious tolerance and a prime example to us all. I really can't understand how you can't see that. Because even in his most painful last moments, bleeding from holes in his wrists, feet, head, and side and just before he dies as he drowns in his own fluids, nailed to the cross by people who thought he was a charlatan and a fraud, that even then, he begs his Father to forgive them and not destroy them - as any loving father would do if he saw his child being tortured to death. Jesus understood that they had other faiths, other beliefs, and because of it, he got the most horrific type of death penalty. Yet he still begged for forgiveness for them. I just can't understand how you can't see just how tolerant he had been all throughout his short life up until the end of it.

But if you're really interested in reading Christ's tolerance of other religions and people, you can go here:http://www.religioustolerance.org/tol_bibl.htm

Here is an excerpt:

Religious Tolerance in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
Tolerance of other types of "Christianity": Jesus' disciples had rejected a healer who was exorcising demons in Jesus' name, yet was not one of Jesus direct followers. Jesus criticized his disciples and accepted the healer. Mark and Luke report the incident in parallel passages:

Mark 9:38-40 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." (KJV)

Luke 9:49-50 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

* * * *

Jesus refused to curse non-believers: Jesus' teachings were rejected by the inhabitants of a village in Samaria. His disciples asked that he exterminate the people of the village by issuing a curse. Jesus refused to do it, and simply move on to the next village.

Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

* * * *

Jesus treats a Samaritan women with respect: Jesus initiated a conversation with a Samaritan woman in Sychar, Samaria. This is unusual in at least two ways: Jewish men did not talk to women who were not their wives or were not from their family. Also, Jews normally treated Samaritans with contempt. Jews did not have dealings with them, because they had deviated from Judaism.

John 4: 7-27: "There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink...Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water...Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman...

* * * *

So ... still think the Westboro Baptist Church members and other assorted conservative "Christians" are faithful to the teachings of Christ and can therefore be rightfully called, Christians when they do everything exactly the opposite that Christ has done? Really?

[trotsky]

51. Interesting.

Your beliefs on judgment day and punishment (non-existence) put you at odds with most liberal Christians that I know. They don't believe people will be judged; they believe everyone will be saved. I guess they aren't Christians, but you are - since they disagree with you?

I mean, that's the standard, right? If they don't accept your interpretation, then they aren't Christians? That appears to be what you are saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. So, I haven't heard a good explanation for this before, but maybe you can help me.

"Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"

What is that in reference to, if not at least some of the older OT rules/laws? (This is around where Jesus gives 'his commandments' of his own.)

[BlueCaliDem]

15. The "Law" is the Ten Commandments, a pact between God and the Israelites.

Jesus was born an Israelite and as such, he was under the Mosaic Law (10 Commandments among 590 others). But his gruesome death as ransom fulfilled the Law, giving birth to Christianity and a "new contract" with God.

But what does the expression "to fulfill" mean in this context?

To illustrate: A contractor enters a contract to complete a structure. When that's done to satisfaction, the contract is fulfilled and the contractor is no longer bound to that contract.

Likewise, Jesus didn't break or rip up the Law; rather, he fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly. Once fulfilled, that Law, that "contract", was no longer binding on God’s people. Now, Christians are under Christian Law, as outlined by Christ, and although there are many laws similar to the Ten Commandments, keeping the Sabbath, for example, isn't one of them anymore.

Under inspiration, the apostle Paul says about the Sabbath: “Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.”—Colossians 2:16, 17.

I hope that helped.

[trotsky]

21. If "The Law" is just the 10 commandments, then who are "the Prophets"?

Only Moses was involved in the revelation of the 10 Cs.

Kinda neat though that your interpretation lets you discard the commandments that are silly by our modern secular standards.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. I haven't discarded the commandments. Re-read what I've written.

There is a reason why there is a difference between the Hebrew faith and Christendom. Try to figure that one out first before we continue this discussion. Or don't.

[trotsky]

30. No, you just discarded the ones that are incompatible with your modern secular life.

Similar to how right-wing Christians embrace some of the OT laws but reject the ones prohibiting pork, or getting one's hair cut, etc.

I had another question you ignored - if "the Law" is just the 10 Cs, then who are the "Prophets" (plural)? Only one person delivered the 10 Cs.

Feel free to insult my intelligence again if you wish, but it would be nice if you could try to answer the questions instead of attacking me personally.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. That's a false accusation. I didn't attack you personally.

And I don't discard laws, whether they're compatible or incompatible with my modern Christian life. I'm a Christian, not Jewish, and as a Christian I'm not bound by the Mosaic law or the Leviticus Law.

Galatians 3:23–25

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

There's a reason why I asked you to try and figure out why there is a difference between the Hebrew and Christian faiths. If you don't understand that there is, we'll just be going round in circles. The difference is, Christians believe the Messiah has already come. The Jewish people don't and are still awaiting the coming of the Messiah. If the Jewish people don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, then they're still bound to the Mosaic and Leviticus laws. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, therefore we're no longer bound by Hebrew laws of faith.

Anyway, there are over 600 laws in, what you incorrectly call, the Old Testament (they're actually referred to as the Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scriptures). The Ten Commandments are just ten of them and, unlike most of the others, they remained unchanged and valid up until Christ's crucifixion.

Some laws, such as those that tell how Israelites should dress to set them apart from tribes around them, and sacrificial laws that were written by prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Simon, etc.) for the Israelites were invalidated throughout the centuries as circumstances changed, but the Ten Commandments remained untouched. They can be considered the core of "the Law", their Constitutional Bill of Rights, so to speak (compare to the first ten amendments of our Constitution).

[trotsky]

36. Ah, OK, I get it now.

You have all the answers and know for certain how the bible should be interpreted.

Which is way different than someone like, say, Pat Robertson, who has all the answers and knows for certain how the bible should be interpreted.

Thanks for clarifying!

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Sadly, you don't get it.

I'm sorry if you're more confused than when you first started this discussion, but it appears as if you're hell-bent on lumping all Christians into one pile for whatever personal reasons you have, no matter what explanations you're given.

If that's what you're after ... I'm sorry to have wasted your time.

[trotsky]

50. No, I'm not confused, but apparently you are with your continued attacks on my character.

What I'm doing is pointing out that other Christians use the same source, and same rationale that you do. They just come to different conclusions - which happen to be just as valid as yours.

You never answered my question about who the prophets (plural!) were, if the 10 Commandments were the only law that Jesus was referring to. Your refusal to answer it is similar to the reaction one gets when confronting a Republican Christian about the verses that speak about taking care of the poor. Do I think you are the same type of Christian as them? Nope, of course not. But you do display the same awkward silence when confronted with the different parts of the bible you don't like.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I have seen varying interpretations on what the finish line looks like

(Most often, people include the return, which hasn't happened yet) but thank you for elaborating on how you read the meaning behind it.

I wish the bible read more like an IEEE specification...

[BlueCaliDem]

28. You're welcome.

Thank you for not ridiculing what I've written even if you don't believe in it.

I appreciate it.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. No worries.

Something Maya Angelou once said came to my attention today, and it reminded me of this.

"In my twenties in San Francisco I became a sophisticate and an acting agnostic. It wasn’t that I had stopped believing in God; it’s just that God didn’t seem to be around the neighborhoods I frequented. And then a voice teacher introduced me to Lessons in Truth, published by the United School of Christianity.

One day the teacher, Frederick Wilkerson, asked me to read to him. I was twenty-four, very erudite, very worldly. He asked that I read from Lessons in Truth, a section which ended with these words: “God loves me.” I read the piece and closed the book, and the teacher said, “Read it again.” I pointedly opened the book, and I sarcastically read, “God loves me.” He said, “Again.” After the seventh repetition I began to sense that there might be truth in the statement, that there was a possibility that God really did love me. Me, Maya Angelou. I suddenly began to cry at the grandness of it all. I knew that if God loved me, then I could do wonderful things, learn anything, achieve anything. For what could stand against me with God, since one person, any person with God, constitutes the majority?

That knowledge humbles me, melts my bones, closes my ears, and makes my teeth rock loosely in their gums. And it also liberates me. I am a big bird winging over high mountains, down into serene valleys. I am ripples of waves on silver seas. I’m a spring leaf trembling in anticipation."

Emphasis added on the key piece.

How does one determine if an individual is standing with god, in the face of complete error to identify and align with god's position by every other believer? If that person stands alone, it must needs follow that everyone got it wrong, or that person stands alone on error. If everyone got it wrong, how do they then identify the truth?

[goldent]

42. I think some standards read a lot like the Bible

It seems everyone who reads it has a different interpretation. Which is what made interops so fun and interesting in the old days.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. There are actually something like 670 laws in the OT.

They are all just as binding as the 10 commandments, speaking of which there is no agreement on exactly what the 10 commandments are or even how many of them there are. They show up twice in two different sections of the OT, are different in different translations, are not clearly 10 in number etc.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Yes. There were hundreds of laws in the Hebrew Scriptures - but they're not binding on Christians.

The key to understanding the issue of Hebrew Scriptures' laws and whether or not Christians are bound by them, is knowing and understanding that the Mosaic laws were given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. There were no Christians back then because Christ wasn't born yet.

Some laws were to let the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the laws in the Hebrew Scriptures are binding on Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled all of them and put an end to, what you call, the Old Testament laws, and Christianity was born.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. Yeah, that makes sense...

...if you ignore all those parts in the Gospels where Jesus says he has not come to overthrow the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them.

I have it on pretty good authority that the Christian decision to ditch Old Testament law was a rather gradual process, accepted by and large because the early Church knew damn well they were never going to win converts from the gentiles if bacon were off table.

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Actually, what I've written makes perfect sense. And I have it on pretty solid authority, too,

that it wasn't a decision by Christians to "ditch" the Hebrew laws. It's actually mentioned in the Bible, in the Greek Scriptures, a few times that because of Christ's death, we're now no longer bound by the Law but by faith in him:

Galatians 3:23–25

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. No, it doesn't. And no, you don't.

So, before Jesus died, it was moral to kill your disobedient children? This makes "perfect sense" to you?

it wasn't a decision by Christians to "ditch" the Hebrew laws. It's actually mentioned in the Bible, in the Greek Scriptures, a few times that because of Christ's death, we're now no longer bound by the Law but by faith in him:

What you've presented here really doesn't help your case.

First and foremost, you're claiming something written years after Jesus' death by a guy who never met Jesus trumps the alleged words of Jesus himself. That, in and of itself, is a curious claim to make.

But never mind that. What's more important is the example you have chosen illustrates perfectly the story I told you.

Paul -- the author of Galitians -- was probably the most prolific evangelist in the history of Christianity, and Galitians was addressed to, you guessed it, gentile converts to the fledgling religion. Though there is some controversy over which happened first, this epistle was written around the time of the Jerusalem Council, which was convened -- by early Christians -- to determine whether or not gentiles brought into the religion were bound by Mosaic law.

They had to argue. Ergo, it was decided. And their decision makes perfect sense, from an evangelical perspective. I mean, try telling a Gaul the Kingdom of Heaven awaits him in thereafter... as long as he stops eating pork and cuts the tip of his dick off.

Yeah, that would have gone over well...

[littlemissmartypants]

7. There are So Many

Religions. I can't keep up.

~littlemissmartypants

[840high]

11. Yes it is.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Of course it is

Amir Ahmad Nasr, on the 9/8 episode of The Majority Report pretty much nailed it.

ISIS didn't "emerge from a vacuum". Saudi Wahhabi clerics who preach the destruction of the West, the destruction of the infidel, and the destruction of Shiite Muslims command a large following, and it is their ideas that propel and influence others to join or otherwise support ISIS.

The guys who are "ideologically committed" to ISIS reject the concept of the modern nation-state as "Western", as "toxic" to Islam. They are essentially trying to "purify" the Muslim world of western influence, to bring it back to the glory days of the Golden Age; and in doing so, have adopted a distinctively medieval perspective of Islam and interpretation of the Koran.

Religion is not irrelevant to ISIS, and it is safe to assume anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. I don't know that GoT explains ie either, because in GoT, the Dornish are fucking awesome.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. In either event, Winter is Coming

One best bundle up and prepare for stormy weather.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Yes and no

Yes, in the sense that its members are Muslim, No, in the sense that it is representative of Islamic teaching. It is as representative of Islam on the same level that the KKK is representative of Christianity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. How do you qualify something like that?

It is as representative of Islam on the same level that the KKK is representative of Christianity.

If we skip ideology and go straight to the numbers, ISIS constitutes about 100,000 out of 1.6 billion people. A small fraction, I agree. But the KKK constitutes about 8,000 out of 2.2 billion. A much smaller fraction.

But I don't think membership is a good way of gauging ISIS' ideological representativeness of wider Islam. As has been noted in this thread, ISIS didn't spontaneously spring up from a hole in the ground. They're a militia spreading, by force, an ideology that is consistent with Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. While Wahhabis are certainly a minority, they are by no means an insignificant, or even a small, minority. They are certainly not comparable to the minute KKK.

Evangelical Christians, I think, would be a better point of comparison. They represent a minority theology, but one that is nevertheless large enough to be a source of concern.

I understand that we have to be vigilant for our fellow liberal Muslims, and not let conversations about Islamic terrorism devolve into bigoted attacks on the people themselves, but I think we are at times so overzealous in this pursuit that we do not think carefully or honestly about the situation. The fact of the matter is there is really no way to tell what "most" Muslims believe; even if such a poll were to be written in such a way that we could be sure that the results were accurate, we'd still be hard pressed just to administer the damn thing, given geographic and political considerations. All we can do is infer based on incomplete information.

At the end of the day, here's the problem in a nutshell: how a religious person interprets scripture is largely dependent upon social context. In places where Muslims live side-by-side with Jews in relative calm, relative peace, and relative prosperity (like, for example, the United States), not many of them will hammer away at those verses of the Koran that are antisemitic. But, in places where the Arab-Israeli conflict is of imminent political importance, then you'll find these verses are, unsurprisingly, more popular.

And they are in the book, which makes them a part of the religion, which means part of the problem can be traced back to the ideological influence of the religion. On some level, the religion plays a role in this, and that needs to be addressed.

If you aren't still surviving on limited bandwith, I would urge you watch the video posted above (or at least stream the episode from the Majority Report website).

[No Vested Interest]

22. ISIL is to Islam as the Westboro Baptist church

is to Christianity.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. + 1000 eom

[Lordquinton]

39. So... Yes.

[edhopper]

48. Are you saying the Westboro BC

aren't Christians?
Or are you saying ISIS is Islamic, but represents a small minority?

[rug]

37. Is Sam Harris Islamophobic?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

[Lordquinton]

38. The claim that they are not is dishonest

And is a variant on the usual tactic of dehumanizing the enemy.

[Prophet 451]

52. The nasty passages are in the Bible too

You can find just as many encouragements to war and murder in the Bible as you can find in the Qu'ran. ISIL are just the Islamic version of the KKK, same outlook, same approach, just with modern technology. Now, the problem might be with the Abrahamic faiths generally or with organized religion in itself (I'm a believer in a religion that is proudly disorganized) but I'm inclined to think that neither Islam nor Christianity are good or bad in themselves but reveal what the believer brings to them. Fred Phelps read the same Bible as Martin Luther King but they obviously got very different things from it.