Well, we cant have that! I'll not stand for any such thing! Give me sandals or give me death!
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Both believe the agenda is acceptance, the problem is one sees this as a basic human right, the other sees this as the same thing that lead to God flooding the earth.
I don't believe religion is the only difference between the societies so I can't deduce that some intrinsic quality of Islam is the root cause of the differences of outcomes.
That Christianity has had its violent and reprehensible in modern view eras suggests to me that there's more to it than the name applied to the religion.
I magically transplanted you or I into those countries and we lived the same lives, we'd hold the same views and would have the same chance of falling to extremism.
And if the base religion was swapped out but the rest of the socioeconimic and geopolitical factors remained the same, I'm not convinced that the outcomes would be different. It's difficult (impossible?) to compare Islam and Christianity in the apples to apples comparison necessary to call one vastly more evil than another IMO.
He hasnt flooded the Earth for a while, just small bits of it here and there, I think its a risk we can afford to take. Besides, we could all just buy boats. We dont suffer the same Socio-Economic deficits as Old Testament Judea.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
And if the base religion was swapped out but the rest of the socioeconimic and geopolitical factors remained the same, I'm not convinced that the outcomes would be different. It's difficult (impossible?) to compare Islam and Christianity in the apples to apples comparison necessary to call one vastly more evil than another IMO.
Like parts of South America and Africa? Being raped by colonial powers and poverty isn't that rare an example to dig up.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
No doubt. Still, it's preferable to "hate the sin, flog or stone the sinner to death."
14 per cent of Canadians today believe society should not accept homosexuality. In most Muslim-majority countries, that number is over 90 per cent. It takes a special kind of equivocation to brush off the difference between the two.
The issue isn't just people's beliefs, but how those people believe they should act on those beliefs. The 14% in Canada who are bigots largely believe that God will sort things out in the after life and that they should not be taking matters into their own hands.
There are sects of Islam that believe it's up to them to take things into their own hands in the physical world.
And yes, I'd 100% agree that liberal political correctness is perpetuating this problem. How is Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Commission? Why did the UN pass anti-blasphemy laws in 2011 that protect a nation's rights to pass anti-homosexuality laws?
That being said, we have to remember that moderate Muslims are also the most likely to be victims of the sects of Islam that promote violence. The best approach in dealing with that, once again, is going to be pushing universal values. That means always standing up for victims regardless of the religion of the perpetrator.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I don't believe religion is the only difference between the societies so I can't deduce that some intrinsic quality of Islam is the root cause of the differences of outcomes.
That Christianity has had its violent and reprehensible eras when viewed with modern viewpoints suggests to me that there's more to it than the name applied to the religion.
If I magically transplanted you or I into those countries and we lived the same lives, we'd hold the same views and would have the same chance of falling to extremism.
And if the base religion was swapped out but the rest of the socioeconimic and geopolitical factors remained the same, I'm not convinced that the outcomes would be different. It's difficult (impossible?) to compare Islam and Christianity in the apples to apples comparison necessary to call one vastly more evil than another IMO.
Photon, it sounds like you were exposed to a cult that teaches, and adheres to what most Christians would deem a heretical perspective.
You are a smart guy, and obviously, given your past, appreciate a contrarian perspective on religion, and its historical effects.
I would highly recommend everyone reading the sociologist of religion, Rodney Stark, an agnostic who has actually debunked a great deal of the negative myths surrounding Christianity. For example, that the witch-burnings of the early Enlightenment were actually condemned by Rome, and often had their biggest supporters among early rationalists, such as Isaac Newton?
That Christianity has had its violent and reprehensible eras when viewed with modern viewpoints suggests to me that there's more to it than the name applied to the religion.
Of course there is. Religions have a range of dogmatic severity within them, and evolve over time. But there's no doubt that Islam today is far more conservative than Christianity today. Which isn't to say that Islam is terrible and Christianity is awesome. But right now one is more hostile to liberal values than the other. And as some of us keep pointing out, the people who suffer the most from this are moderate or secular-minded Muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And if the base religion was swapped out but the rest of the socioeconimic and geopolitical factors remained the same, I'm not convinced that the outcomes would be different. It's difficult (impossible?) to compare Islam and Christianity in the apples to apples comparison necessary to call one vastly more evil than another IMO.
But even when we do factor in other socioeconomic factors, Muslim communities are dramatically more socially conservative than Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist communities. When we look at mixed religion countries like Indonesia, Muslims are more conservative than non-Muslims. India is socially conservative compared to Europe, but not as conservative as neighbouring Bangladesh or Pakistan. The Philippines and Malaysia are both poor countries in SE Asia with a history of colonialism. 26 per cent of Filipinos believe society should not accept homosexuality; 86 per cent of Malaysians.
Doesn't mean Islam is evil. But it's remarkable how people who don't hesitate to call out misogynist religious conservatives in Kansas or Missouri fail to show the same enthusiasm for calling out far more oppressive religious mores in Pakistan, Libya, and some Muslim communities in Europe.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-29-2017 at 11:11 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
I think there are several things at play here:
1. Liberals, both from within and without Islam, can disagree about how to spread liberal values in the Muslim world very easily, even though the end goal is the same (a more liberal Muslim world).
There is no roadmap for liberalizing a massive population of people living in disparate communities around the world and sharing a religion. Some people believe that alienating Muslims only hardens their illiberal views; some want to focus on socioeconomic grievances; some want to focus on the religion itself reforming; some want to argue dogma and "true" Islam; some want to share culture and create interdependence; some want to look at historic grievances. Some even want violence.
While obviously the goal is the same (again - liberalizing the Islamic world), there are very different views on how to achieve these outcomes. All of these methods have been tried to various degrees, and probably all have seen successes and failures to various degrees.
2. There are also some illiberal critiques of Islam that are completely invalid. It is not valid to declare Muslims lesser or beyond hope. It is also not valid to seek to create or enforce a schism between one type of people (non-Muslims) and Muslims. I believe it is wrong to characterize this entire religion as violent or incompatible with liberalism: I find that illiberal as well given that there are Muslim liberals. Much of the time, I find critiques of Islam rooted in bigotry rather than a goal of liberalization.
3. It is also illiberal to seek an end to discussions about problems within Islam (the dreaded "Regressive Left"). While, some of the time, I believe Regressive Leftists are actually just liberals with a different view on how one should approach the issue of increasing liberalism in the Muslim world, there are also those for whom dissenting views seem to be anathema. Competing ideas and the freedom to speak of them is definitely a hallmark of liberalism (if not the hallmark).
Unfortunately, it is easy for the Regressive Left to find allies in the Muslim world: many in the Muslim world have strong reasons to prefer that their illiberal lives are not changed.
*** All that said, it is perfectly valid to have very different liberal views about how to approach this massive problem in the world today. Frustrating part is there are many who don't actually have liberal views fueling the arguments on both sides.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
No doubt. Still, it's preferable to "hate the sin, flog or stone the sinner to death."
14 per cent of Canadians today believe society should not accept homosexuality. In most Muslim-majority countries, that number is over 90 per cent. It takes a special kind of equivocation to brush off the difference between the two.
Same with the Christian-majority countries in Africa!
It's almost like certain regions are more prone to being unaccepting of homosexuality. If only there was another example, even of a country divided up into states where the same religion maintains prominence and yet the feelings on homosexuality vary greatly. If only.
1. Liberals, both from within and without Islam, can disagree about how to spread liberal values in the Muslim world very easily, even though the end goal is the same (a more liberal Muslim world).
There is no roadmap for liberalizing a massive population of people living in disparate communities around the world and sharing a religion. Some people believe that alienating Muslims only hardens their illiberal views; some want to focus on socioeconomic grievances; some want to focus on the religion itself reforming; some want to argue dogma and "true" Islam; some want to share culture and create interdependence; some want to look at historic grievances. Some even want violence.
While obviously the goal is the same (again - liberalizing the Islamic world), there are very different views on how to achieve these outcomes. All of these methods have been tried to various degrees, and probably all have seen successes and failures to various degrees.
2. There are also some illiberal critiques of Islam that are completely invalid. It is not valid to declare Muslims lesser or beyond hope. It is also not valid to seek to create or enforce a schism between one type of people (non-Muslims) and Muslims. I believe it is wrong to characterize this entire religion as violent or incompatible with liberalism: I find that illiberal as well given that there are Muslim liberals. Much of the time, I find critiques of Islam rooted in bigotry rather than a goal of liberalization.
3. It is also illiberal to seek an end to discussions about problems within Islam (the dreaded "Regressive Left"). While, some of the time, I believe Regressive Leftists are actually just liberals with a different view on how one should approach the issue of increasing liberalism in the Muslim world, there are also those for whom dissenting views seem to be anathema. Competing ideas and the freedom to speak of them is definitely a hallmark of liberalism (if not the hallmark).
Unfortunately, it is easy for the Regressive Left to find allies in the Muslim world: many in the Muslim world have strong reasons to prefer that their illiberal lives are not changed.
*** All that said, it is perfectly valid to have very different liberal views about how to approach this massive problem in the world today. Frustrating part is there are many who don't actually have liberal views fueling the arguments on both sides.
I don't think it's just about dealing with large groups of people abroad. There were plenty of groups within the UK preaching some very violent and hateful ideologies. It's one thing to promote Sharia law or state that Islam is the best religion. It's another to hold up a placard that directly promotes violence towards those who oppose you.
This stuff wasn't just going on abroad or in the "Muslim world". It is going on within the UK and many parts of Europe. I don't understand how you don't end up in jail for stating that someone who disagrees with you should be murdered. This is 100% the result of Political Correctness gone wrong.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I don't think it's just about dealing with large groups of people abroad. There were plenty of groups within the UK preaching some very violent and hateful ideologies. It's one thing to promote Sharia law or state that Islam is the best religion. It's another to hold up a placard that directly promotes violence towards those who oppose you.
This stuff wasn't just going on abroad or in the "Muslim world". It is going on within the UK and many parts of Europe. I don't understand how you don't end up in jail for stating that someone who disagrees with you should be murdered. This is 100% the result of Political Correctness gone wrong.
Sometimes it's about political correctness and sometimes it's about maintaining an open society. Has to be case-by-case in any situation where multiple liberal values are at odds with one another (free speech vs. inciting violence), and that's why it's very thorny.
Despite the preaching, and despite the hate, the number of Muslims committing horrible acts remains statistically very low across the Western world. It's just not an easy thing to balance competing ideals. And history has definitely taught us that limiting liberal ideals even for good reasons often has very unfortunate outcomes.
Radicalization is a big problem. They did a 2 part undercover investigation into some of England's (London mostly) mosques and there is radical material available even in the grand mosque of London even though the administration claims it does not:
The Return:
We need to seperate Islam as a political force and Muslims as people. We criticise Christianity in the west openly but it does not mean we hate Christians and I feel it should be the same for Islam. Legitimate questions should not be shouted down as hate speech. The source of this brutal branch of Islam is coming out of Saudi Arabia and being taught to Imams in Saudi schools to import all over the word their fundamentalist version of Islam. There seems to be more anti Islamist Imams coming out but even they are being attacked and threatened with death even more so than those outside the religion who criticise Islam.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to northcrunk For This Useful Post:
A random shower thought I had about the problems of radicalization was that Islam just seems to be a very testosterone fueled religion because of the marginalization and segregation of women in the religion.
In Western religion, there is usually tighter integration of the nurturing, softer, family, and feminine influences.
In Islamic mosque society, the entire structure from the old ultra-conservative leadership down to the frustrated young men are fueled by a lot of testosterone and aggression in decision and policy making while women are completely excluded and segregated out. It's a big echo-chamber without the calming influence that their wives, mothers, sisters, or family might provide. It's like a big boys- club where a few bad angry seeds can easily influence the entire pack with an extremist way of thinking or rile them up with aggression.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-29-2017 at 07:07 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
A random shower I had about the problems of radicalization
Er... I don't think you're doing it right.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Sometimes it's about political correctness and sometimes it's about maintaining an open society. Has to be case-by-case in any situation where multiple liberal values are at odds with one another (free speech vs. inciting violence), and that's why it's very thorny.
Despite the preaching, and despite the hate, the number of Muslims committing horrible acts remains statistically very low across the Western world. It's just not an easy thing to balance competing ideals. And history has definitely taught us that limiting liberal ideals even for good reasons often has very unfortunate outcomes.
I do agree with you, however freedom of religion and speech are always trumped by the right to physical safety. By this I mean, your right to practice the religion of your choice never gives you the right to threaten the safety of others. I agree everything does have to be looked at on a case by case basis and there are certainly grey areas, particularly when it comes to speech. The point where freedom of expression/thought crosses over into threats of violence isn't always clear.
Once again, I agree that the majority of Muslims are not engaging in criminal activity. However, in the UK in particular, there seem to be some Muslims getting away with what is criminal activity, and its happening as a result of political correctness. These aren't grey areas. These are people making criminal threats of violence towards other people.
And I've never heard a word of anti-semitism interacting semi-regularly with devout protestants around my age; quite the opposite, as they all seem to be intractably pro-Israel.
Not suggesting your protestant acquaintances follow but being pro Israel doesn't necessarily mean loving Jewish people.
Quote:
Waiting for Armageddon opens with James and Laura Bagg, an attractive
pair of 30-something jet-propulsion engineers living in Connecticut. Yes,
Evangelical rocket scientists from the Northeast.
“We could be raptured out of this world during this interview,” Laura
says, referring to a miracle where all good Christians disappear from earth
and rematerialize in the clouds as chaos seizes the world. “There will be
car crashes and plane crashes. And the people left behind will be asking,
‘Are they coming back for me?’”
Then James Bagg explains that, “You see God has a plan for the world
and it all centers around Israel.”
Quote:
If that sounds unfamiliar or contradictory, then you’ve never spent much
time listening to Evangelicals. End Times theology declares that the Jewish
people must maintain control of Israel and Jerusalem, and retake the Al-Aqsa
Mosque (a/k/a the Dome of the Rock), or Jesus won’t return. Period.
Understand, they are talking about mankind’s ultimate salvation. And if that
means embracing foretold disasters and wars including the Battle of
Armageddon, so be it.
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Mark Alan Siegel, who served as the chairman of Florida’s Palm Beach County Democratic Party, told an interviewer the following about what he thought of Christian and Jewish relationships:
“The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ. The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord. It is a false friendship. They are seeking their own ends and not ours. I don’t believe the fundamentalists urging a greater Israel are friends of the Jewish state.”
Radicalization is a big problem. They did a 2 part undercover investigation into some of England's (London mostly) mosques and there is radical material available even in the grand mosque of London even though the administration claims it does not:
The Return:
We need to seperate Islam as a political force and Muslims as people. We criticise Christianity in the west openly but it does not mean we hate Christians and I feel it should be the same for Islam. Legitimate questions should not be shouted down as hate speech. The source of this brutal branch of Islam is coming out of Saudi Arabia and being taught to Imams in Saudi schools to import all over the word their fundamentalist version of Islam. There seems to be more anti Islamist Imams coming out but even they are being attacked and threatened with death even more so than those outside the religion who criticise Islam.
Careful posting stuff like this or you'll be labeled a white nationalist.
Not suggesting your protestant acquaintances follow but being pro Israel doesn't necessarily mean loving Jewish people.
Not necessarily, but generally speaking, your bible-thumping varietal of anti-semite isn't pro-Israel or anything to do with the Jews, who they tend to see as secretly manipulating society in some way. Anyway, point being - with the caveat that I don't attend church and can only speak from more or less regular interactions with churchgoers - I'm not aware of any significant anti-semitic strains in Canadian churches. You'd probably have an easier time finding it at a university...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No doubt. Still, it's preferable to "hate the sin, flog or stone the sinner to death."
14 per cent of Canadians today believe society should not accept homosexuality. In most Muslim-majority countries, that number is over 90 per cent. It takes a special kind of equivocation to brush off the difference between the two.
I have dug around pew a few times looking for hit but have never found the analog survey to the Muslim survey with a target area of US evangelicals. What % would say not except homosexuality, what % believes the bible should be the basis for the rule of law. Without an analog to compare it to its hard to tell if the Muslim numbers are "normal" for conservative religious groups in developed nations or outliers.
The Pakistan and other countries results are concerning however I think the UK and European numbers are more interesting to track if one wants to measure progress in the fight against extremism. Monitoring the pew poll year over year in Europe, Canada and the US will show if things are getting worse or better.
Also terrorism in the western world is really a non-issue relative to the coverage it gets. Mostly it should be ignored by the public but aggressively fought by law enforcement. A few hundred people die each year from it world wide. Anti-Vax probably has a higher death toll for things driven by fear based propaganda.
Careful posting stuff like this or you'll be labeled a white nationalist.
Right Pepsi?
Nope! These videos were actually produced and aired by Channel 4 in the U.K. They're legitimate videos from 10 years ago which caused police investigations of both the mosques in question and the videos themselves (to ensure they were not designed to fuel hate and bigotry and met certain journalistic standards). While there was some controversy at they time over the editing, ultimately they were found to be legitimate undercover investigations.
Unlike the videos you were posting, which were produced by white nationalists as propaganda meant to inspire racists and bigots to take action against the Muslim community, and taken directly from a white supremacist YouTube channel.
See, investigating the source of the videos you watch on the internet is an important part of fact-checking and holding an educated opinion on the content. When someone posts white nationalist propaganda and tries to pass it off as a legitimate, objective view of the Muslim community, they come off as either a) misguided or b) a white nationalist themselves. When someone continues to defend that content in light of its origins being revealed, then it's easy to tell which of the two categories they fall under.
There is really no excuse for defending white nationalist propaganda unless you're one of them, and in my opinion losers that defend white supremacists and nazis are as bad as the people who sympathise with ISIS.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Sooo... anyone at all concerned about the 31 dead in a bombing in Baghdad, including one at an ice cream shop? Or do we just care about British kids now? I'm no longer sure what the rules are.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
