Video: Is This Lady Right Or Wrong?

Very forceful and much to commend what she says and the Imman was on the back foot and could only mutter simplicities because there was no good answer. I am no great fan of Israel but again what she says is with an element of truth too. Basicially she is correct in medieval against modernism. Islam finds it difficult to accept modern thinking and freedoms as it chips away at it's foundations of being monolithic and determined to stamp out others. Even where we generously tolerate Islam there is always a faction that comes with it which wants more and it would not only destroy our modern and democratic views but moderate Muslims into the bargain. There is always a fifth column wherever it appears.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Very forceful and much to commend what she says and the Imman was on the back foot and could only mutter simplicities because there was no good answer. I am no great fan of Israel but again what she says is with an element of truth too. Basicially she is correct in medieval against modernism. Islam finds it difficult to accept modern thinking and freedoms as it chips away at it's foundations of being monolithic and determined to stamp out others. Even where we generously tolerate Islam there is always a faction that comes with it which wants more and it would not only destroy our modern and democratic views but moderate Muslims into the bargain. There is always a fifth column wherever it appears.

I see nothing wrong in what she said

Originally posted by laujustice:

I see nothing wrong in what she said

That's because you seem to have a prejudice against Moslems. Much of what she says is true, but its not without error and prejudice. Being a Syrian woman, I don't doubt that she has good reason to hold the prejudicial views that she does, but she doesn't seem to know much about the injustices committed by Buddhists and other religionists against Moslems.

Buddhists and Hindus are both supposed to be practitioners of harmlessness (ahimsa), but if you study history you will know that human beings are always capable of intolerance, prejudice, and racially motivated violence. It is rather harder to find scriptural support in Buddhism than in the Koran or the Bible for committing acts of violence, but it is a common fallacy that there has never been a war in the name of Buddhism.

Human beings the world over are not fundamentally different, whatever their religion or lack of it. We can find greed, anger, and delusion in all societies and cultures — though rather more in some areas than in others. Different societies each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, as a Buddhist monk, I would say that the Buddha's teaching is without defect since the Buddha was a perfect being, but his followers do not always live up to his high standards. A secular society, without any religious values is not ideal either. The best thing is to study all religions and take the best aspects from each to use in your own life.

If only I could get Buddhists to meditate five times a day — that would be quite an achievement. Once a week is barely possible for most. Even abstaining from alcohol is becoming rare among Buddhists in the West.

That video and her tone of voice get a little tiresome, but given that she seemed to be largely responding to the annoying guy around 3:30 (and people like him) I guess it's justified.

Originally posted by Pesala:

Buddhists and Hindus are both supposed to be practitioners of harmlessness (ahimsa), but if you study history you will know that human beings are always capable of intolerance, prejudice, and racially motivated violence. It is rather harder to find scriptural support in Buddhism than in the Koran or the Bible for committing acts of violence, but it is a common fallacy that there has never been a war in the name of Buddhism.

She's clearly talking about the recent past, otherwise all of what she says in that particular segment makes no sense whatsoever. Far more relevant than historical records from the distant past, if you wish to prove her statement wrong, are the Sinhala Buddhists from Sri Lanka who commit violence against Christians and Tamils in this day and age. Still, that's a localized problem, whereas the Muslim terrorist problem seems prevalent throughout the Muslim world, and to a lesser extent even the Muslim communities in Europe and elsewhere. I find her hyperbole and tone of voice a tad disconcerting (but for all we know the hyperbole was introduced by the translators), but I find your retort to be missing the point, even though it's factually correct.

Originally posted by Pesala:

If only I could get Buddhists to meditate five times a day — that would be quite an achievement. Once a week is barely possible for most. Even abstaining from alcohol is becoming rare among Buddhists in the West.

What do you mean by meditate and what do you mean by abstain? I would find it utterly meaningless to say that I've abstained from eating meat in the past few years; even though I suppose I am a de facto vegetarian, I wouldn't refer to myself as such unless the context asked for it. I would consider it meaningful to say that yesterday, while I was quite sick, I refrained from eating Oreos exclusively instead of forcing myself to eat them with bread for some good fibers, although I'm not sure if even that applies sufficiently. I believe I've said something like this to you before, but I think the only thing I could meaningfully abstain from (in the sense that I associate with the word abstain) are those things typically considered healthy foods and drinks. I'm not one who likes tons of fat, salt, and sugar. As such I can't help but wonder if those who proclaim the good of "abstaining" are simply just like me, except all holier-than-thou about it.

I can find no viewpoint from which to pass judgement on her comments...except to say that she's a secularist while her opponent isn't. There's no vantage point that reigns supreme. I'm an unabashed secularist, but am loath to damn other viewpoints.

That said, the Imam lives in a medieval cocoon that hinders the development of Muslim areas of the world.

I wonder how countries like Turkey will weather the storm of modernity in the face of religious opposition.

Oh I have no problem with secularists voicing an opinion. I don't have to agree with them any more than they with me. Such is the right of free speech. What does t me off is the modern day trend with the PC mob to demand control over the right to offend.Ifthey cannot get their way that is the course they follow. We are increasingly seeing that here.

The important thing at that video is that the woman words represents the moderate Islam view even if she has clearly learned about how atheists jumps into situations in order to get attention and benefit...
What surprises me is why doesn't the West massively support financially the Islam moderates, without it they can't moderate nothing as obvious.

Everything she says seems factually accurate to me.

The part that is wrong and completely out of whack is the notion that she is trying to logically debate with religious fundamentalists. I was raised religious and have known many christian fundies. Throughout I've also had contact with muslim ones. Logic and reason is an alien concept in a fundie's religious debate. Muslims are more violent in this present time compared to christians, but read up on what the catholic church did in the past. This lady, I don't know her motivations. Maybe desperation. But I think many people that had no contact with religion don't have this perspective and don't understand the futility of religious debate with the religious. Don't waste your time.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The important thing at that video is that the woman words represents the moderate Islam view even if she has clearly learned about how atheists jumps into situations in order to get attention and benefit...

She says she doesn't believe in the supernatural. I sure do hope she represents the moderate Islamic view, but she's not a Muslim, moderate or otherwise, herself.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

She says she doesn't believe in the supernatural. I sure do hope she represents the moderate Islamic view, but she's not a Muslim, moderate or otherwise, herself.

You aren't certainly emphasizing that she is moderate (politically) because she is not religious, I suppose... Insisting at the women religious options is acting as fundamentalist do.
From what country is that television? I was surprised to see them having such an open not censorshiped debate. And I can realize on how the majority of Islam feels seeing the world confusing them with paranoiac groups.

The strategy for fighting Islam terrorists the West is doing is not complete and efficient without including a strong support to political moderates so radicals gets isolated from the remaining Islam populations. That means supporting financially and massively local media and television.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

You aren't certainly emphasizing that she is moderate (politically) because she is not religious, I suppose... Insisting at the women religious options is acting as fundamentalist do.

Um, what? I'm just pointing out that she's not a Muslim, but that she may represent the moderate Muslim point of view (on a Western scale) in the same manner that I represent the moderate Christian point of view.

Those who voted that she is wrong, let them specify where she was wrong

Yes a very good point laujustice. Once one gets beyond the fact that she is irate there is much to ponder on. Hope you get a measured response.