Liberal infighting over Real Time argument over Islam

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, the bible is clear, apostates should be killed, adulterers stoned, no tattoos. Christians haven't evolved, they have just chosen to not believe in vast parts of the bible, they have, in many cases without really any self awareness, lost faith in the bible, you cannot evolve around a belief that 'thou shalt not' is the word of god, either you believe or you don't, most Christians don't actually think that anymore in practise, even though they may delude themselves that they do, at best the fundys and Catholics like to cherry pick sins out of the bible they don't do and beat others over the head with them.

How many dumb ***** that go on about gays and quote Leviticus think that it's a sin to wear linen and wool together! a sin punishable by death as I recall.
That's the word of god, non negotiable.

Not everyone's faith demands that they take the bible as the literal word of God though. Religion evolves just like any ideology evolves. For example, someone who believes in government isn't necessarily abandoning their ideals if they support democratic principles instead of absolute monarchy. It just means that the commonly accepted principles of the community evolved. Religion is no different in that respect.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, the bible is clear, apostates should be killed, adulterers stoned, no tattoos. Christians haven't evolved, they have just chosen to not believe in vast parts of the bible, they have, in many cases without really any self awareness, lost faith in the bible, you cannot evolve around a belief that 'thou shalt not' is the word of god, either you believe or you don't, most Christians don't actually think that anymore in practise, even though they may delude themselves that they do, at best the fundys and Catholics like to cherry pick sins out of the bible they don't do and beat others over the head with them.

How many dumb ***** that go on about gays and quote Leviticus think that it's a sin to wear linen and wool together! a sin punishable by death as I recall.
That's the word of god, non negotiable.

Sorry, but this post is a mess. In the same sentence you say that christians haven't evolved and then list examples of them evolving. What are you even saying here?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I do think that the Harris/Affleck exchange pretty muched proved Harris' point. You can't even begin to criticize the beliefs, and behaviours leading from those beliefs, of Islam withiot being shouted down as "racist". The liberal point of view should support an actual discourse regarding any religion. I for one, would like to understand why jihad, martyrdom, paradise, etc. seem to be favoured by the followers of Islam. Perhaps it is right wing misrepresentIon of the religion, but shouldn't it be discussed? Harris will dispute the validity and moral viability of any religion, Islam, Christianity, whatever. All he is saying is that liberals should do the same.

[JeanLucPicard]

Here is the problem though: when you say to muslim countries something like: "your religion has problems, please reform it" - that cant work! Many of them are f-ed up with internal problems like corrupt politicians, wars/civil wars, theocracy, occupation, and so on. Of course that kind of long term environment will produce extremists groups. When you have ####-storms of conflicts where we the external parties (US, Can, etc etc) have taken sides and armed certain groups, of COURSE you'll see brutal reactions and fights between the sects/groups.

I think it is too easy to go up to muslims and debate how "primitive" their "fundamentalists" beliefs are. And that doesn't solve a single thing. What is hard is to not support their dictatorial regimes in countries like S. arabia for the sake of oil, to not invade them for baseless reasons, and to not supply arms to certain factions during civil wars - which is the most dangerous thing to do. THAT is something no one cares about when arguing! People seem to think that if they just blame the rise of extremist groups on religions that'll be sufficient for their argument. Bill and Sam are just hell bent on focusing on the religion factor and this is why I can't take them seriously.

So before taking the easy route that people like Harris take by criticizing the religion - Take a look at the whole picture and realize that you cant have people "reform" their religion just because you tell them to; and you cant just go up to western muslims and ask them to "protest more". There is simply no incentive.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry, but this post is a mess. In the same sentence you say that christians haven't evolved and then list examples of them evolving. What are you even saying here?

The basis of Christianity is the belief in the bible as the word of god, like all religions it has no way to 'evolve'. Once you start to 'choose' which bits of the bible you obey and which bits you ignore you are not evolving you are accepting that it isn't the word of god anymore. It is a fundamental break from the basis of Christianity.
That all churches do this and all their various followers is a good thing, but in truth none of them are really Christians anymore, they are all, even the most fundy or devout catholic, only partially Christian now.

Vast swathes of Islam, on the other hand, do believe in the absurd law they follow without question, if it says stone your wife to death for being raped they do it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not everyone's faith demands that they take the bible as the literal word of God though. Religion evolves just like any ideology evolves. For example, someone who believes in government isn't necessarily abandoning their ideals if they support democratic principles instead of absolute monarchy. It just means that the commonly accepted principles of the community evolved. Religion is no different in that respect.

Religion is different, it is, in theory, the law of god, not debatable. As individuals or even as churches we can, and have, essentially decided not to believe in it as the word of god, but rather as a series of moral precepts that we change as we need, but at this point it isn't really a religion any more than, to use your example, Canada is a monarchy, we may have a queen still but she holds no power and is a mere figurehead much as god is for Christians.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by JeanLucPicard

Here is the problem though: when you say to muslim countries something like: "your religion has problems, please reform it" - that cant work! Many of them are f-ed up with internal problems like corrupt politicians, wars/civil wars, theocracy, occupation, and so on. Of course that kind of long term environment will produce extremists groups. When you have ####-storms of conflicts where we the external parties (US, Can, etc etc) have taken sides and armed certain groups, of COURSE you'll see brutal reactions and fights between the sects/groups.

I think it is too easy to go up to muslims and debate how "primitive" their "fundamentalists" beliefs are. And that doesn't solve a single thing. What is hard is to not support their dictatorial regimes in countries like S. arabia for the sake of oil, to not invade them for baseless reasons, and to not supply arms to certain factions during civil wars - which is the most dangerous thing to do. THAT is something no one cares about when arguing! People seem to think that if they just blame the rise of extremist groups on religions that'll be sufficient for their argument. Bill and Sam are just hell bent on focusing on the religion factor and this is why I can't take them seriously.

So before taking the easy route that people like Harris take by criticizing the religion - Take a look at the whole picture and realize that you cant have people "reform" their religion just because you tell them to; and you cant just go up to western muslims and ask them to "protest more". There is simply no incentive.

The policy your talking about would just result in a bunch of isolated dictatorships selling oil to China. There would be no reform there either.

What needs to be done is for major bodies like the United Nations to actually start holding up basic human rights. There needs to be real consequences for doing things like executing gays and minorities.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by blankall

...
What needs to be done is for major bodies like the United Nations to actually start holding up basic human rights. There needs to be real consequences for doing things like executing gays and minorities.

United Nations has very little influence and power to do anything like that. It was created as a venue for all nations to be able to get together and talk about things regardless of current level of relationship between some of them. Its role and function changed quite a bit over the years. What we have now is a bit of a circus with UNHR Council chaired by a former diplomat from Gabon, a country notorious for HR abuses and Arab countries dominating all Assemblies with their anti-Israel agenda. Overall, UN is now a massive and hugely expensive pig-trough for political appointees and well-connected bureaucrats from all over the world. Very unfortunate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

What's your point? Wouldn't the correct solution be to pan all violations of human rights. Criticize this Utah thing and then also criticize a Muslim nation the next time they hang a homosexual. Instead we have nations like Saudi Arabia and Libya being appointed to human rights commissions. Motions are being passed in the UN that criminilize criticising Islam, and nobody says anything.

Who are you arguing with? I said it's perfectly acceptable to criticize Muslim nations who commit these atrocities.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by JeanLucPicard

Here is the problem though: when you say to muslim countries something like: "your religion has problems, please reform it" - that cant work! Many of them are f-ed up with internal problems like corrupt politicians, wars/civil wars, theocracy, occupation, and so on. Of course that kind of long term environment will produce extremists groups. When you have ####-storms of conflicts where we the external parties (US, Can, etc etc) have taken sides and armed certain groups, of COURSE you'll see brutal reactions and fights between the sects/groups.

I think it is too easy to go up to muslims and debate how "primitive" their "fundamentalists" beliefs are. And that doesn't solve a single thing. What is hard is to not support their dictatorial regimes in countries like S. arabia for the sake of oil, to not invade them for baseless reasons, and to not supply arms to certain factions during civil wars - which is the most dangerous thing to do. THAT is something no one cares about when arguing! People seem to think that if they just blame the rise of extremist groups on religions that'll be sufficient for their argument. Bill and Sam are just hell bent on focusing on the religion factor and this is why I can't take them seriously.

So before taking the easy route that people like Harris take by criticizing the religion - Take a look at the whole picture and realize that you cant have people "reform" their religion just because you tell them to; and you cant just go up to western muslims and ask them to "protest more". There is simply no incentive.

All good points. It's the real world examples behind the extremism, not the values of the religion. Just not sure how we would reform. I guess the biggest thing is to get the world off oil for starters. It's about time we relied less and less on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons and this is just one of them. However, change would still come very slowly there.

But you are right, Bill and Sam are blindly trumpeting their far to simple explanation without looking at the real causes because they are anti-religion. Being anti-religion is fine, but you still gotta make sense. They're out to lunch on this one.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by blankall

The policy your talking about would just result in a bunch of isolated dictatorships selling oil to China. There would be no reform there either.

What needs to be done is for major bodies like the United Nations to actually start holding up basic human rights. There needs to be real consequences for doing things like executing gays and minorities.

As CaptainYooh mentioned, that's not really the UN's mandate. I have long dreamed of a UN with teeth. Even a military of sorts, a responsible organization that can defend human rights. But you know that's not the way it would end up. There's no way that could even be created at that point in world history. Nearly every nation in the world would see it as an affront to their sovereignty. Shoot, even the US makes ridiculous claims about that already with the UN as it stands now. It's far to 'one world' for a lot of people to get behind. And even if it did get traction you'd see a lot of nations leave the UN cause they'd want no part of it, or the UN at that point.

Not to mention the very real danger, when just like any organization, it becomes corrupt, even bought by the lobbies and the wealthy. A sanctioned UN military that isn't living by it's mandate anymore? Yikes!

It's a great thought, but the world just isn't moral enough for it now. All we can do now is just talk at each other. Which often seems pointless and counter-productive. But it's the best thing we've got, and does make a real difference every once in a while.

Human rights will just have to be defended by negotiations and charity until then. Not great, I agree, but it's all we can do.