How many violent and/or destructive urges/impulses do you resist & keep yourself from acting upon everyday?
Hey I just asked a question about those urges being normal or not. I have impulses quite often - some stronger than others. I have learned to let them slip out of my mind, but sometimes they can be upsetting. I am not really sure if I would call them urges or not. I think the destructive impulses are not really urges, but my mind processing anxiety about accidents and catastrophies. But the self-destructive ones seem to be more like urges. It seems that way because of the feeling that follows. It is different somehow.
What are some characterics that violent and destructive religions share?
Actually it's not religion that is an enemy of human progress.It's actually 'dogma' which is the problem. Dogma in the sense of 'my way is the only way, and I have the right to destroy any who's views do not match mine.'There are plenty of ruthless dictators who have not had a religious cause - Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao to name a few. Each had a world-view that was one-eyed and sought to destroy 'other'. In Hitler's case it was the gypsies and the Jews - defined as 'vermin' to be eradicated, sub-humans that didn't 'deserve to live.' Religion was not required, although some kind of ancient mythology of the Aryans served as a philosophical justification.Dogma is everywhere. And in the West, it's not helped by our rather crippled Aristotlean view, 'A or not A', which can quickly leap to an adversarial situation. In the East, there is the option of 'A and not A at the same time' - Krishna can have form, and no form, all at once. Reminds me of quantum physics.So violence and destruction soon follows if you adhered to a philosophy and dogmatic world-view that is narrow and exclusive, and all others ('infidels' as the Islamic State militants would have it) have nil value at all, or are seen as primarily 'evil' and it's in everyone's best interest to wipe them of the face of the Earth, and make the world a better place. And this is the tragedy of human nature.Militants of any sort (even militant Atheists) are fundamentally weak and insecure. It takes far more strength to be a peaceful person (e.g. Ghandi, Martin Luther King), and to promote non-violence in the face of oppression. The final issue here is that if you subscribe to a dogma, you probably don't actually view it as a dogma. From a militant's point of view, it would just seem as the most normal thing to do, and that 'everyone else' are the ones with the dogma. So subjectivity is a big problem here.
Are Muslims similarly destructive to Germany as to the rest of the West?
Muslis in Germany are way less destructive. I would say, there are three main reasons:- They are better and longer integrated into german society. As far as I know, most muslins in France live almost ghetto like in so called Banlieus. Of course, there are also several "concentrations" of muslins in Germany, say Berlin-Neukölln for example, but their situations are by far not as bad as in France. Not ideal yet, but better.- Germany has no oppressive history against muslins. Please correct me, but most of the french muslims are from former collonies like Algeria, right? Most german muslins are from Turkey, Albania or Syria, to which we do not have a bad past.- Nothing bad happened yet. There were no (successfull) terror strikes or violent riots yet. So, they did not kick off something to "counter" it like "opressive laws against Islam" or a common growth of rightwing parties.
The violence and destruction that occurred during ww2 led to the?
B
Is islam a destructive force?
Yes, Islam is a destructive force. Islam doesn't even purport to be a religion of peace, other than the peace that supposedly comes with the establishment of Islamic supremacy. The whole "religion of peace" nonsense is a modern day PC fabrication. Islam always has been, and always will be, a religion of war. Just look at all those peaceful, stable Muslim countries out there. Oh yeah, that's right, the Islamic world is at war with itself - same as it has been the majority of the time since its inception. Muhammad was a pig. A child raping, caravan robbing, slave trading, mass murdering pig. He was a warlord, plain and simple. Once he attained power he slept with as many women as he could, raided as many villages as he could, and killed anyone who dared to criticize him. He was a disgusting human being, yet Muslims exalt him to the ideal moral example. Frightening.
Why are so many Trump supporters so violent and hate-filled?
They were driven into it. I believe they were once very nice law abiding people. But something got a hold of them and changed them. Now they want to fight and divide.Its so much better to get along with people.
Why did Muslim invaders and rulers destroy Indian temples and other historical places?
Contrary to the popular belief, all Mughal invaders weren't completely intolerable with other religions.Looking at the graph of 5 main kings in Mughal ancestry, the graph shows the mountain- like presentation.In Babur's times, he wasn't much liberal with other faiths. He let them grew alongwith capturing the Hindu kingdoms.His son Humayun, was more liberal than him in flowering other faiths side by side with Islam but he supported the Mohammadans over and above other faiths.He was succeeded by hia son Akbar whose liberality and open mindedness towards other faiths made him the most famous and loved Mughal emperor. At his times, followers of other faiths did not feel heat of his wrath.His son Jahangir did not completely follow his father's footsteps and didn't treat Hindus and others fairly.After him, Shah Jahan, who dethroned him by killing him alongwith his elder brother, too was’nt tolerable towards other faiths.And last, but not the least ill-famous emperor Aurangzeb completely tried to destroy the other faiths from the face of India.These were the famous Mughal emperors and after them, for some time, Mughals still ruled India but not without much power. They were defeated by Portugese and British invaders who alongwith Marathas and other Hindu kings.This now brings us to the answer to your question, why Lal Mandir was allowed to be built in front of the Red Fort, the symbol of Mughal rule?The temple was built by some Aggarwal merchants who Shah Jahan invited to live along with him in his walled city of ShahJahanabad in 1658. Earlier the idols were put in tents and later the temple was built and restructured by Raja Harsukh Rai ji, a treasurer under the rule of Shah Alam II, who was kind towards other religions, in early nineteenth century.So, basically, whole Mughal dynasty can't be tagged with destruction. It varied king to king. And due to this, we have a temple at the front of the most important place of Delhi, Chandni Chowk.Bliss!!
Why do people misjudge Muslims?
well thanks for realizing that Muslims are misjudged, because popular belief about hte religion is brought about by propaganda, racism, and ignorance. Media focuses only on the extremists that are causing violence and destruction. WE ARE NOT ALL EXTREMISTS. however, i dont think those things about Christians. I mean, there are some people that have absolutely NO shame in what they wear, but i cant control that. and there are people that are alcoholics, but thats just like hte misconception that all Muslims are terrorists. Not all of us are terrorists, just like not every Christian is an alcoholic.