A solution for Iraq

[Timsup2nothin]

What, then, is a misconception about Islam? Do you deny that it allows for slavery, for example? Don't try to wriggle around the question by saying, "...yeah, but what about the Old Testament?" I'm not a Christian and do not believe in their god, so don't tell me to remember that.

Slavery? Slavery was "allowed" everywhere, until it was transformed into serfdom when feudal economics became prevalent. Serfdom and slavery were separated by a very blurry line, and now there is an equally blurry line between serfdom and wage slavery. It is a function of economics that has nothing to do with being "allowed" or "disallowed" by Islam, or any other religion.

As such raising it as a stone to throw at Islam is a "glass house" thing, even if you immediately disclaim Christianity in the same breath. No religion, or lack of religion, "allows" economics, any more than they "allow" gravity. So scourging any one particular religion with it, or "blaming the godless" would be equally inappropriate.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I guess that is why Muslims avoid these threads like the plague. They realize that even trying to discuss their religion with many Westerners is now futile. Besides, they are far too busy tending to their slaves.

 

[Ajidica]

Slavery? Slavery was "allowed" everywhere, until it was transformed into serfdom when feudal economics became prevalent. Serfdom and slavery were separated by a very blurry line, and now there is an equally blurry line between serfdom and wage slavery. It is a function of economics that has nothing to do with being "allowed" or "disallowed" by Islam, or any other religion.

As such raising it as a stone to throw at Islam is a "glass house" thing, even if you immediately disclaim Christianity in the same breath. No religion, or lack of religion, "allows" economics, any more than they "allow" gravity. So scourging any one particular religion with it, or "blaming the godless" would be equally inappropriate.

If history has taught us anything, it is that people can find any justification -no matter how noble- for any action -no matter how base.

 

[Berzerker]

It is a function of economics that has nothing to do with being "allowed" or "disallowed" by Islam, or any other religion.

But if a religion is truly worthy of respect, wouldn't slavery be frowned upon at the very least if not outright prohibited? If religious folk aint any better than the non-religious, it says something about religion.

 

[JollyRoger]

If history has taught us anything, it is that people can find any justification -no matter how noble- for any action -no matter how base.

Including unnecessarily bashing many Muslims.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But if a religion is truly worthy of respect, wouldn't slavery be frowned upon at the very least if not outright prohibited? If religious folk aint any better than the non-religious, it says something about religion.

I dunno. If the non-religious folk were as enlightened as they think they are, would they not outright prohibit it? If it weren't for that basic reality that economic laws are as immutable as gravity so simple "prohibition" is a fairly fruitless exercise, that is.

 

[Antilogic]

Direct targeting of civilians to instil 'terror' in the population is how I define terrorism. While I abhor the US definition of collateral damage, they can not be deemed 'acts of terror', but I can see how it can encourage terrorists to respond in kind. So I disagree with those tactics as well, because they are effectively 'war crimes' if the 'War on Terrorism' is defined as an actual war under the Geneva convention.

Is it just getting down to a matter of tactics and technology, though? Can it not be both--does it being kinda war crime-y/collateral necessarily mean it isn't a form of terrorism?

Also, while this distinction might be an interesting point of conversation for us sitting behind computers, I doubt it means as much to the families of those who have been killed.

...

I don't like confusing nested quote wars, so here's the condensed 6ish point summary:

1) Your argument appears to be that Islam is uniquely violent and destructive. I dispute that it is, largely because of other, less media-covered examples of modern day terrorism and historical examples to the contrary. As you have pointed out, the crimes of one group don't excuse the crimes of the other, so I'm quite confused by your internally inconsistent logic with FGM, errors on Jim Crow, the dismissal of my other examples, and so on, particularly when you prompted them yourself.

2) The key support seems to be a highly literal reading of a centuries old book, which can be done with other centuries old books that lead to similar horrible conclusions. I'd argue the manner in how it is written is largely a function of the time period, age, language (Greek -> English feels different than Arabic -> English), etc. I am thoroughly unconvinced that how it is written is a dominating factor here.

3) You discount Islamic scholars on the subject of Islam, especially those who disagree with your particular and very literal interpretation of it. That's a big red flag because the few practice their bronze age religion as it was written centuries ago. Modern thinkers and practitioners are doing their own thing that may only be tangentially related.

4) People have reasons for that last sentence in 3. Geopolitical, economic, social (yes, cultural) factors, etc. all play into that (more so than 2), and that's not uniform across the world and time. These complicating factors, as Ajidica has pointed out, are better at explaining terrorism and violence. I have argued that people have ulterior motives and are using religion as their shield or as a recruitment tool (although I didn't emphasize the second point previously), and yes, I'm sticking with that. Those ulterior motives should be the focus if we want to actually solve this problem.

5) JR made this a tongue-in-cheek thread, but if you wanted to seriously find a solution for Iraq, you would have to answer questions like why secular Baathist generals are allied with religious fundies to build the ISIS killing machine. I'll give you a big effing hint, it's probably not a literal reading of the Quran. But hey, I'm just an ignorant lefty who doesn't read books or websites or whatever.

6) Much broader point: hating on the religion on a whole is playing into ISIS' narrative, and the net effect of our (meaning: USA) actions and words is to fuel the machine instead of defeating it. This can't be allowed to turn into a massive war between the billion-plus Muslims and billion-plus Christians, but that slow motion trainwreck is in progress so long as we are playing their game.

*) It looks an awful lot like Sam Harris's crap on this subject (he is far, far, too literal). That's more an observation than a point.

I don't think Funky's calling for the purge of all Muslims, nor is he claiming that most Muslims are evil. He does raise the valid point that Islamist terrorists and governments do things that are completely contrary to liberal ideals, yet there's this dilemma for the left because they think that criticizing these actions too harshly is just bigotry. So they end up defending, ignoring, or excusing actions that they would definitely and rightly criticize if done by Christians.

Attacking the problems of Islam can be done without becoming Islamophobic, just as one can mock Christianity without hating or fearing Christians. It requires walking a fine line, though, and most people don't bother and prefer to stay on one side or the other.

He's not criticizing Muslims for being Muslim. He's criticizing Islam. There's a difference between attacking an ideology and attacking people. And he's not a mass murderer; even ignoring the fact that there's no evidence he's ever killed someone, he isn't even advocating for violently annihilating all Muslims with nuclear weapons as you claim he is.

I would hope this doesn't degenerate into what you describe. I have brought up the points I did, particularly regarding comparisons to Christianity, to criticize that double-standard and direct attention towards more tangible factors. Seems to be failing.

Also insert generic "Islam is not a monolithic ideology just as Christianity isn't a monolithic ideology" statement here.

If history has taught us anything, it is that people can find any justification -no matter how noble- for any action -no matter how base.

+1.

 

[Berzerker]

If the non-religious folk were as enlightened as they think they are, would they not outright prohibit it?

yes, so what about religions - paths to God - that condone or endorse slavery? Thats my main problem with Christianity, it condones slavery in spite of the golden rule

If it weren't for that basic reality that economic laws are as immutable as gravity so simple "prohibition" is a fairly fruitless exercise, that is.

not fruitless for a morality based ideology, Islam allows slavery and bans usery

 

[Timsup2nothin]

not fruitless for a morality based ideology, Islam allows slavery and bans usery

Christianity banned usury too. Notice that it had no effect on the existence of usury.

As I said, you can read in "endorsements and bans" wherever you want, but the reality is that religion has as much impact on economics as fish have on orbital mechanics. So when you choose among these "endorsements and bans" to define one religion as "good" or another as "bad" you are just exercising the old justification machine, not producing an effective argument.

 

[kiwitt]

Is it just getting down to a matter of tactics and technology, though? Can it not be both--does it being kinda war crime-y/collateral necessarily mean it isn't a form of terrorism?

Also, while this distinction might be an interesting point of conversation for us sitting behind computers, I doubt it means as much to the families of those who have been killed.

Which is why I believe the US should be held to account for its 'war crimes' in its 'War on Terrorism', for its indiscriminate/unlawful killings/renditions/detentions, etc., of terrorists and civilians alike, with either special ops or drones.

 

[Antilogic]

Which is why I believe the US should be held to account for its 'war crimes' in its 'War on Terrorism', for its indiscriminate/unlawful killings/renditions/detentions, etc., of terrorists and civilians alike, with either special ops or drones.

Well, agreed on that.

 

[Berzerker]

Christianity banned usury too. Notice that it had no effect on the existence of usury.

Did the ban have an effect on Christians?

As I said, you can read in "endorsements and bans" wherever you want, but the reality is that religion has as much impact on economics as fish have on orbital mechanics. So when you choose among these "endorsements and bans" to define one religion as "good" or another as "bad" you are just exercising the old justification machine, not producing an effective argument.

Religions banning usery had an impact on it. And as far as I can tell, both Islam and Christianity either allowed or endorsed slavery, that makes both suspect as paths to a moral God. But if Jesus was the prophet, then Muhammad was most certainly not - Muhammad spread his word via the sword, Jesus did not.

 

[Farm Boy]

Christianity banned usury too. Notice that it had no effect on the existence of usury.

That's why so many of the bankers are... ba-dum-ching!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Did the ban have an effect on Christians?



Religions banning usery had an impact on it. And as far as I can tell, both Islam and Christianity either allowed or endorsed slavery, that makes both suspect as paths to a moral God. But if Jesus was the prophet, then Muhammad was most certainly not - Muhammad spread his word via the sword, Jesus did not.

Christianity banning usury meant that they had to have non Christians in their society in order for it to function. The ban had no effect on usury. Religions banning slavery would have had no effect on slavery either, so their position on the subject, if they actually have one, would be irrelevant. You are looking for a nit to pick, and unsurprisingly you find one.

 

[Funky]

@Phrossack:

Thank you for your support. It does get kind of frustrating when discussion partners read all sorts of things into your statements without actually reading what you write. Not that it surprises me. Criticising Islam and raising awareness to the rather obvious connection between scripture and behaviour has become an important part of my life. I am fully aware of the fact that many people have not studied the issue or thought things through very well. I occasionally have to remind myself that liberals who deny the problems with the ideology of Islam are not acting with malicious intent. Instead, because they have been taught to respect other people and other cultures, because they are educated on the horrors of racism and colonialism and the many missteps white people have taken thoughout history, they view any critique of Islam reflexively as a form of racism, xenophobia or white supremacy. This thread documents this very well. There is not a large variety of responses I get from liberals to my critique. And they all boil down to the same motive.

1) Bring up Christianity. This is especially common among other atheists. Note that you will never hear them bring up Hinduism or Buddhism. Instead they throw in the crusades, burning of witches, or the murder of an abortion doctor. As if these incidents would magically absolve Islam from any faults.

2) Blame America. This comes in various forms, though the most common is to focus on the Iraq war. They don't bring up World War II, or the first Iraq war, or Afghanistan. That would make no sense, since the general consensus is that those wars were justified. So they focus on the one war in the recent past which was controversial, and attempt to blame the Muslim violence around the globe on this American attack.

3) Blame the Jews. Often combined with critique of Israel. The narrative is that of a military powerhouse, supported by America, illegally occupying Muslim territory and brutaly oppressing the poor Palestinian people, who just want to live in peace. That that view is diametrically opposed to the facts makes this argument just as disturbing as the negligence of Jewish history in the 20th century.

4) Blame Whites. 2) and 3) often fall into this category, but this is a more general point. References to colonialism and imperialism should signal that due to our white guilt, we are the last who should be judging others. (Note that no other imperialistic, colonial nations, like the Ottoman Empire, are ever mentioned.) Whites are inherently racist, and any every so slight critique of other nations or cultures in frowned upon because it could bring out the racist and the feeling of white supremacy in us. The great irony is that this view is in itself racist, by drawing a distinction between whites and others.

5) Finally, the motives of the person criticizing Islam are questioned. We often hear arguments from people like Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer being described as "hate speech". While I don't neccessarily agree with everything these people say about Islam, I challenge you to find a single quote from any of these people that is tantamount to hate against Muslims as people. Conveniently, once they are labeled as bigots, racists, or "islamophobes" (the ridiculous term I will touch on later), they are marginalized and it is pretended that their arguments no longer have any merit.

We have seen all these responses in the current discussion. What they all have in common is that they imply that it's all about us. It's always our fault. No matter whether it's ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, or even the attack of 9/11, somewhere along the line it was us racist white Christian American Jews that caused the problem in the first place.

Note that among the common responses is not the addressing of the actual arguments. Look back at the thread. This discussion has hardly been about Islam. We have talked about Christianity, the Iraq war, and about latent racism. Hardly anyone has talked about the actual facts I brought up to support my arguments, such as the disturbing poll results, specific Koran verses inciting violence and barbaric practises, the overwhelming percentage of Muslim terror attacks, or the terrible practises of sharia in most Islamic countries. These facts are conveniently avoided to sidetrack the discussion back to us, the whites. As I said above, I understand the motives behind this. People think they are being tolerant and progressive. Unfortunately, the reality is that by deflecting criticism away from Islam, we are impeding true reform of the Muslim faith, and supporting the Islamic religious right that wants to maintain the status quo, which leads to the horrendous outcomes we see today.

I consider myself a liberal. For me that has always meant to stand for liberal values, freedom of speech and human equality being the most important ones. Fighting for these values against forces who oppose them is what makes you liberal. You do not become liberal by blaming yourself (aka the Christians, Americans, whites etc). for everything bad that happens in the world.
Now if the KKK, or any other Western, white organization was killing people, attempting to impose inhuman laws on society, or violating virtually every human right, I would criticize them. But we do not see this by anyone on a scale that is even close to what we see in the Muslim world.



There are a few other minor points I would like to deal with.

@Islamophobia:

The reason why this term is so absurd, is that Islam is an idea. No idea is above criticism. Am I a christianophobe when I criticize Christianity? Am I National Socialism-phobe when I criticize National Socialism? It's just silly. That's not to say there isn't bigotry and prejudice against Muslims as people. That is a problem we should talk about. But it is a seperate issue from criticizing Islam as a religion.

I don't want to waste anymore time on this term. This excellent video should seal the deal on the issue.

Islam doesn't mind criticism and scrutiny - just the opposite.

Are you kidding me?! This is where it really gets absurd. Throughout the Muslim world we see harsh blasphemy laws, which entail the killings of apostates, fatwas issued against critics of Islamic scripture, killings over cartoons, you name it. This statement is a liberal fantasy. Wake up to reality.

Given what he says repeatedly about the teachings of Islam it is clear that as far as he is concerned the only followers of those teachings who are not evil are ex-followers. The most effective way to make followers into ex-followers is, of course, kill them all, which is how he fits into the "solution to Iraq" thread. He is the typical "rain nuclear fire across all who oppose us" mass murderer...the sort that supports the neocon madness that caused the problem in the first place.

Normally I don't even go into such misrepresentations like this, but this is just comical. How in earth can anyone extract from my words that I am in favour of a (nuclear) war against all Muslims?! How is that even possible? Baffling.

Any document or treatise on Islamic law and interpretation by Islamic scholars you would classify as 'apologist' or 'false' or what have you.

You discount Islamic scholars on the subject of Islam, especially those who disagree with your particular and very literal interpretation of it.

I do not ignore these interpretations. In fact I am delighted that there are many Muslims who do not take their scripture literally and support human rights and Western values. What I do oppose is the apologetic approach to deny that the scripture presents a problem, despite the fact that every single radical Islamic group references the holy texts all the time and bases its entire identity on the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith.

I don't like confusing nested quote wars

That is ashame, since meaningful discussion usually results from looking at specific statements and examples.

As you have pointed out, the crimes of one group don't excuse the crimes of the other, so I'm quite confused by your internally inconsistent logic with FGM, errors on Jim Crow, the dismissal of my other examples, and so on, particularly when you prompted them yourself.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough on this. I condemn horrible acts of other groups too. I just haven't emphasized this more for three reasons: 1) We already condemn our own missteps all the time, 2) This discussion is about Islam, not about us, and 3) Currently the overwhelming majority of acts of violence and violations of human rights are committed by Muslims.


Finally, since I won't be able to post till Sunday, let me point you to an excellent speech given by Sarah Haider, co-founder of the group Ex-Muslims of North America. It's just 38 minutes long, and I strongly recommend anyone who is interested in an honest conversation to watch it. I am seriously interested in your views of her opinions, and would gladly discuss the points which you disagree with.

 

[Formaldehyde]

...

Great post.

@islamophobia:

The reason why this term is so absurd, is that Islam is an idea. No idea is above criticism. Am I a christianophobe when I criticize Christianity? Am I National Socialism-phobe when I criticize Nation Socialism? It's just silly. That's not to say there isn't bigotry against Muslims as people. But apart from a few right-wing cracknuts it hardly ever occurs.

Since "Islamophobia" isn't actually here to defend itself, I'll take that one.

Right. Yet more utter nonsense that people can't legitimately criticize Islam, even though it occurs all the time, and even by Muslims themselves.

Did you even bother to read the second article I posted where that silly argument was discussed in detail? Nobody is trying to stop you, or anybody else, from criticizing Islam in any logical manner you choose. But when you use the same rhetoric found on Muslim hate sites, expect people to point that out.

Are you kidding me?! This is where is really gets absurd. Throughout the Muslim world we see harsh blasphemy laws, which entail the killings of apostates, fatwas issued against critics of Islamic scripture, killings over cartoons, you name it. This statement is a liberal fantasy. Wake up to reality.

More of the same...

You are painting with way too broad of a brush. Sure, there are a few hopelessly backward countries where authoritarians are in complete control, and in some cases they are even controlled by fundamentalist Muslims. But that is hardly representative of the entire Muslim world, much less whatsoever of the Western world. And what is more important, it really has nothing to do with the religion of Islam as it is currently practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims who do none of those things. They even deliberately pick countries like the US to live in to escape that madness themselves, where they are supposedly free to practice their religion without being the next victim of a hate crime perpetuated by some American bigot.

There has been one single case in the US where two wackos tried to inflict their own non-Islamic form of "jihad" on a bunch of bigots at an Islamophobic convention, which was sponsored by one of the biggest Muslim haters on the planet. And they abysmally failed, much to the relief of the overwhelming number Muslims in the Western world, and who didn't hesitate in the least to condemn those stupid acts.

When a fundamentalist Christian bombs an abortion clinic, or murders an abortionist while he is in church, do you try to blame Christianity? When a Jew apparently engages in a hate crime against a Christian church in Israel, do you blame Judaism? What makes Islam any different?

 

[Tahuti]

Christianity banned usury too. Notice that it had no effect on the existence of usury.

Banning usury is not universally adopted in Christianity. Indeed, Calvinism interprets Christianity as allowing it.

 

[Ajidica]

1) Bring up Christianity. This is especially common among other atheists. Note that you will never hear them bring up Hinduism or Buddhism. Instead they throw in the crusades, burning of witches, or the murder of an abortion doctor. As if these incidents would magically absolve Islam from any faults.

I, for one, bring up Christianity because -regrettably- I don't know much about Hinduism or Buddhism on any level beyond an introductory college course. That said, given the violence propogated by Buddhists in Myanmar against the Muslim minority, some of the actions of the Buddhist majority government in Sri Lanka sort of qualify as war crimes, and anti-Muslim riots in India indicate that religion and violence is not isolated to Abrahamic faiths.

2) Blame America. This comes in various forms, though the most common is to focus on the Iraq war. They don't bring up World War II, or the first Iraq war, or Afghanistan. That would make no sense, since the general consensus is that those wars were justified.

How the first Gulf War was prosecuted puts it on very thin ice with regards to 'justified'. Liberating Kuwait; yes. Attacking retreating Iraqi troops on the 'Highway of Death', not exactly what the UNSC Resolution said.
Plus there is the whole issue of the post-war sanctions which I'm pretty sure I posted about earlier in this thread. I'm sure banning most forms of leukemia medication had a totally legitimate military purpose, and that the stringent sanctions bears no relation to the two successive UN Humanitarian coordinators for Iraq saying the sanctions 'satisfied the definition of genocide' and 'constituted a true human tragedy', respectively.

We have seen all these responses in the current discussion. What they all have in common is that they imply that it's all about us. It's always our fault. No matter whether it's ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, or even the attack of 9/11, somewhere along the line it was us racist white Christian American Jews that caused the problem in the first place.

ISIS could not have existed had the Second Gulf War not occurred. Simple as that. The overthrow of Saddam and the subsequent refusal to allow ex-Baathists to hold office or work as civil servants created an environment where we had a large number of people with organizational experience hostile to a very weak and fragile central government. Had we handled post-war reconstruction better, my opinion is that ISIS would not have existed.
Hamas would not have come to power in Gaza had the Israeli government followed through with the Oslo Agreements. The PA was full of barely competent ageing revolutionaries, sure, but Hamas has a point in that every time the PA negotiates, the PA looses part of Palestine and gets nothing in return. The Israeli government is not innocent in the sordid state of that region.
I mean, it is doubtful the Taliban would have existed had a coordinated American, Pakistani, and Saudi effort had not splintered the country into a number of feuding warlords and crumbled the central government. Had the 'mujahideen' not received substantial foreign assistance, the country would likely be in a not so crappy place now.
Things don't spring out of nowhere -and I agree that the 'blame whitey' line of thought is inaccurate at best and racist at worst- but that should not be taken as an excusal of responsibility or causality.

Note that among the common responses is not the addressing of the actual arguments. Look back at the thread. This discussion has hardly been about Islam. We have talked about Christianity, the Iraq war, and about latent racism. Hardly anyone has talked about the actual facts I brought up to support my arguments, such as the disturbing poll results, specific Koran verses inciting violence and barbaric practises, the overwhelming percentage of Muslim terror attacks, or the terrible practises of sharia in most Islamic countries.

Not sure what you are on about, but I've brought out treatise by Islamic scholars emphasizing that cherry picking lines is not in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence and that the Koran in-and-of-itself is not the sole source of authority in Islam.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Banning usury is not universally adopted in Christianity. Indeed, Calvinism interprets Christianity as allowing it.

For over a thousand years Catholicism was Christianity. For that period usury was banned by Christianity. Note that this made no difference to usury, as it follows economic laws rather than the laws of gods or men. Just like slavery does.

 

[Antilogic]

Thank you for your support. It does get kind of frustrating when discussion partners read all sorts of things into your statements without actually reading what you write. Not that it surprises me. Criticising Islam and raising awareness to the rather obvious connection between scripture and behaviour has become an important part of my life. I am fully aware of the fact that many people have not studied the issue or thought things through very well. I occasionally have to remind myself that liberals who deny the problems with the ideology of Islam are not acting with malicious intent. Instead, because they have been taught to respect other people and other cultures, because they are educated on the horrors of racism and colonialism and the many missteps white people have taken thoughout history, they view any critique of Islam reflexively as a form of racism, xenophobia or white supremacy. This thread documents this very well. There is not a large variety of responses I get from liberals to my critique. And they all boil down to the same motive. ...

Man, you got a real hero complex here, but you don't have a critique. I have scanned through your posts in this thread (forgive me if I missed it, they are quite long and life is short), and I'm not seeing any detailed discussion on, say, the Sunni/Shia divide, the complicated relationship between Wahhabi clerics and the Saudi monarchy, a comparison of that to the theocratic elements in the Iranian government post-1979 and how it was different previously, differences between the practice of extremist groups and other people, why Indonesia's relationship with Islam is so different from the Arabian peninsula, or some kind of other historical context. That's real critique. You keep using the term Islam but don't seem very familiar with any of the working parts, which is leading you to blindly smear a bunch of people with your superficial claims. And those silly grievance-industry libruls might have sniffed that out. You say you are delighted some Muslims don't take their scripture literally, so why don't you do them the good favor of keeping your criticism leveled at those who deserve it?

And Pam Geller. Good grief, son, you know how to pick 'em.

But that's not the end of the problems here. You have missed the motive of the other posters, too, or at least myself. Completely. If you go back to my point 1, I am asking you whether you consider the Islamic faith uniquely violent or dangerous, which can be heavily disputed based on these responses to your so-called critique. The list you have all relates to my 1, maybe 2 as well. So give us a straight yes or no so we can hopefully move on to my 4-6, which is far more interesting.

That is ashame, since meaningful discussion usually results from looking at specific statements and examples.

No, it leads to a lot of repetition and point-counting(, and life is too short). Take our prior exchange, where you in one response you say we should condemn attacks by Christians too, and in the very next response proceed to downplay the impacts of FGM by Christian countries to keep up the attack on Muslims, while erroneously claiming my source contradicted my argument. Elsewhere, you claim there aren't significant modern examples of non-Muslim violence, apparently missing the whole thing about the Civil Rights era being in living memory amongst others (that one really bothered me).

Separately, you might think you scored three points in three responses. But you have misunderstood the post, made factual errors, and contradicted yourself. If you think that is meaningful, then we got a disagreement on that as well.

I, for one, bring up Christianity because -regrettably- I don't know much about Hinduism or Buddhism on any level beyond an introductory college course. That said, given the violence propogated by Buddhists in Myanmar against the Muslim minority, some of the actions of the Buddhist majority government in Sri Lanka sort of qualify as war crimes, and anti-Muslim riots in India indicate that religion and violence is not isolated to Abrahamic faiths.

This is sadly my case as well, and although you would hope a global forum like this one would bring more people outside of our background in, we are a really North American/European-heavy group.