Same here. I have had so many arguments recently it's been quite annoying.
When will people realize that everyone is more or less the same, just with different experiences based on where they grew up. There are great people, average people, and total loons in every populace. The total loon segment in Syria is causing everyone else to run from their homes to literally anywhere else in the world. The "Christian" thing that the west should be doing is accepting those refugees with open arms. You want to stop ISIS, do everything in your power to counter their arguments. Their main recruitment tool is that the West hates Islam. There is nothing to fear from any of the non-extremist muslims.
I have had friends from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan (get to learn geography the fun way) and they were all very normal people. Average people from Syria would be no different. They are just looking for safety and some normalcy after seeing everything around them destroyed.
Put yourself in their situation.
This just isn't true. This fallacy is the big story of our time.
The assumption that people are all the same is a dangerous one. People aren't all the same. A strict belief in Islam is a vastly different thing than a a western liberal view of the world.
It leads to certain assumptions, some of which you have articulated here: "the west hates Islam". This just isn't true. Islam does not require you to be the aggressor against the religion in order for you to be suitable for a fiery death or a beheading, or a long dive off of a building if you are gay.
This just isn't true. This fallacy is the big story of our time.
The assumption that people are all the same is a dangerous one. People aren't all the same. A strict belief in Islam is a vastly different thing than a a western liberal view of the world.
It leads to certain assumptions, some of which you have articulated here: "the west hates Islam". This just isn't true. Islam does not require you to be the aggressor against the religion in order for you to be suitable for a fiery death or a beheading, or a long dive off of a building if you are gay.
Just because there are differences in what each group believes in, does not mean that the base things that people care about is not the same.
Also, it wasn't that long ago that Christians felt justified in executing homosexuals as well. A lot of people that were executed by Nazi Germany were gay because they were undesirable. Some people still refer to them as an abomination. Look at Russia for example. Another example is the Westboro church. I could continue to list examples, but it would be a long sad read. The difference between the two is that Judaism and Christianity have both moderated themselves in the last centuries.
Islam as a religion does require the same moderating re-writes that the others have done. Islam having sections where they will one day rule the world and the Jews will be eliminated by god and wiped off the planet are things that do require editing out. There are moderate Muslims, about 70-80 percent of them have moderate views. If the religion itself was moderated like the other older religions, that number would be more like 95%. The urge to change has to come from within, just like it did with both of the others.
In the mean time, not extending an open hand to people in need is not what is needed right now. Showing compassion is a good thing. That is what separates those that are perpetrating these crimes from ourselves.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
Last edited by Caged Great; 11-19-2015 at 05:21 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Caged Great For This Useful Post:
This just isn't true. This fallacy is the big story of our time.
The assumption that people are all the same is a dangerous one. People aren't all the same. A strict belief in Islam is a vastly different thing than a a western liberal view of the world.
It leads to certain assumptions, some of which you have articulated here: "the west hates Islam". This just isn't true. Islam does not require you to be the aggressor against the religion in order for you to be suitable for a fiery death or a beheading, or a long dive off of a building if you are gay.
The poster you replied to is not wrong. You are.
For the passed 19 years I have lived and worked in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, as well as in Yemen. I've lived (not rotated) in Jalal Abad, Kyrgyzstan; Kyzlorda, Kazakhstan and Baku, Azerbaijan. I've rotated in and out of Sanaa, Yemen. I've spent time in Turkey, Jordan and Egypt.
The overwhelming majority of the the people I've met are as Caged Great described. They want the same things from life as we do. Security, employment, education and opportunity.
It is the people who live without hope in dirt poor regions, often oppressed by an ethnic or religious majority, who live with no hope and no opportunity who turn to groups like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and ISIS from desperation and despair convinced that outside interests - Western, Christian, etc - are responsible for their predicament and become extremists as a result. Yemen illustrates this perfectly. When you can't feed your family, find a job, and live in fear, you to turn to someone telling you they can fix it, or its not your fault because outside forces are to blame.
You are the one who is taking a set of beliefs that is held by a tiny fraction of Muslims world wide and attempting to suggest that it is representative of most Muslims. ISIS doesn't represent a 'strict view' of Islam. It represents the most extreme view. Al Qaeda and ISIS prey on the desperate.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
There's a comforting fallacy there. I don't think anyone is suggesting that "most Muslims" are islamists or jihadi Muslims who want to impose Sharia on society, much less by beheading and murdering people. But denying that there are bad doctrines in the religious texts themselves that are motivating this minority is delusory. Consequently, upon reading the Qur'an and some of the Hadiths considered most reliable, you do see how a zealot could literally interpret their faith in exactly the way ISIS does. And for someone who does interpret the text that way, all of these behaviours become readily explicable as the fulfilment of what they think is God's will expressed by Gabriel and literally transcribed.
__________________ "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:
By far the biggest form of financial support from developed countries to the developing world is immigrants or former immigrants sending money back home.
So essentially their "best and brightest" are coming here to work for the financial aid that their countries are receiving. Replacing that aid with direct budget aid is politically completely unrealistic. In many cases they also receive education they could not receive in their home countries.
This also significantly brings world cultures closer together and helps everyone understand each other.
I do think there should be programs to support and encourage some of the trained immigrants to go back to their countries of origin. But not taking them in is a terrible idea.
Plus it's pretty unfeasible really. Like in many things, the best way to fight illegal X is to make legal X a possibility. If the West stopped taking immigrants we'd just see a huge raise in illegal immigration, which creates a lot more problems.
He's not saying immigration is a bad idea or any such thing though, he is only pointing out that the solution to poverty in these nations is to help them there.
Immigration is key to the west's future prosperity.
For the passed 19 years I have lived and worked in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, as well as in Yemen. I've lived (not rotated) in Jalal Abad, Kyrgyzstan; Kyzlorda, Kazakhstan and Baku, Azerbaijan. I've rotated in and out of Sanaa, Yemen. I've spent time in Turkey, Jordan and Egypt.
The overwhelming majority of the the people I've met are as Caged Great described. They want the same things from life as we do. Security, employment, education and opportunity.
It is the people who live without hope in dirt poor regions, often oppressed by an ethnic or religious majority, who live with no hope and no opportunity who turn to groups like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and ISIS from desperation and despair convinced that outside interests - Western, Christian, etc - are responsible for their predicament and become extremists as a result. Yemen illustrates this perfectly. When you can't feed your family, find a job, and live in fear, you to turn to someone telling you they can fix it, or its not your fault because outside forces are to blame.
You are the one who is taking a set of beliefs that is held by a tiny fraction of Muslims world wide and attempting to suggest that it is representative of most Muslims. ISIS doesn't represent a 'strict view' of Islam. It represents the most extreme view. Al Qaeda and ISIS prey on the desperate.
The data show that you are incorrect.
A strict observance of the Quran (ie Islamism) is not strongly correlated to lack of education or poverty. We know this from relatively reliable Pew poll research and other sources.
ISIS in particular has a significant component of its fighting force made up of western Muslims who took a pilgrimage to fight for the cause.
The source of ISIS' motivation is the doctrine. They say that it is, and it is easy to see why this might occur when the doctrine is analysed. And yet, western liberals refuse to believe them when they say so.
The fact that a huge component of the Muslim world chooses to ignore and/or "moderate" sections of the doctrine is a great thing, but it does not address the process at work here. A direct line can be drawn between the doctrines of Islam and the actions taken by the 9/11 bombers, and by ISIS. And no, it is not intolerant, bigoted, racist, or xenophobic to say so. It's just identifying that ideas/ideologies can instruct action, and we should neither deny this fact, nor refuse to admit it when it happens in front of us. To do the opposite is nothing more than wishing the world was different than it is.
The officials did not want to be identified because diplomats and immigration officers have been told by Ottawa not to speak about the matter, with all requests referred to the government.
Muzzled! Shall we gather pitchforks and make this about an attack on our diplomat class?
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Given the faith some have put in the UN vetting process, this is kind of surprising....
Quote:
The UNHCR does some initial vetting to check if anyone was a combatant in the Syrian civil war during the registration interviews it conducts with all refugees — if they were this would usually exclude them from consideration, Rummery said. The UN agency also tracks biometrics, including retinal screening, of those it registers. However, it is primarily the responsibility of host resettlement nations such as Canada to conduct “in-depth screening” for security reasons for those who were “identified for resettlement,” Rummery said.
A strict observance of the Quran (ie Islamism) is not strongly correlated to lack of education or poverty. We know this from relatively reliable Pew poll research and other sources.
ISIS in particular has a significant component of its fighting force made up of western Muslims who took a pilgrimage to fight for the cause.
The source of ISIS' motivation is the doctrine. They say that it is, and it is easy to see why this might occur when the doctrine is analysed. And yet, western liberals refuse to believe them when they say so.
The fact that a huge component of the Muslim world chooses to ignore and/or "moderate" sections of the doctrine is a great thing, but it does not address the process at work here. A direct line can be drawn between the doctrines of Islam and the actions taken by the 9/11 bombers, and by ISIS. And no, it is not intolerant, bigoted, racist, or xenophobic to say so. It's just identifying that ideas/ideologies can instruct action, and we should neither deny this fact, nor refuse to admit it when it happens in front of us. To do the opposite is nothing more than wishing the world was different than it is.
That a boy. If it makes you feel better keep a closed mind and refuse to consider real world experiences of people who live amongst Muslims.
I'm not trying to refute anything that you're saying about ISIS. What I find intolerable is that are too quick to paint all of Islam with the same brush. Have you read the Old Testament? Some pretty inflammatory prose there. Should all Christians be judged for their faith as a result?
Your dogmatic position makes me wonder whether you're one of the anti-Muslim, anti-refugee proponents who increasingly confront Canadian Muslims going about their daily lives.
Last edited by longsuffering; 11-19-2015 at 08:49 AM.
This is from an interview with the former head of immigration in Canada Peter Showler and answers one of the questions I had....
Quote:
CO: Finally, what we've seen is the potential for radicalization. People who look on paper to be okay then get involved, they fall in with the wrong people. Once they get here, how do we screen for that potential?
PS: Well that is incredibly difficult. That's a very different question and I must say it's a toughie. The only way we deal with it is the way in which Canada has consistently dealt with immigration flows in general. We have a society that is not only open and inclusive, we make sure that we have access to employment, access to education, access to all of the parts of our functioning society that make it easier for them to integrate into Canada over the long range.
Not super comfortable with that answer but it seems honest at least.
I mean, I really don't think he's painting all Muslims with the same brush. He's simply pointing out that there are some pretty disgusting religious documents relating to Islam, and that a minority choose to take them literally. I don't think he denied that Judaism and Christianity have some equally terrible texts of their own.
I mean, I really don't think he's painting all Muslims with the same brush. He's simply pointing out that there are some pretty disgusting religious documents relating to Islam, and that a minority choose to take them literally. I don't think he denied that Judaism and Christianity have some equally terrible texts of their own.
Million dollar question: If Christianity was in the middle east and Islam in the west, would we still be in the same situation as today?
I'd argue it'd be the exact same. Radicalism needs an ideology to cling to and it doesn't matter which holy book it comes from.
Representatives from Canada and the UN and diplomats from other embassies posted in the region privately expressed grave doubts about whether such a large resettlement project could be completed in a safe and responsible way in such a short time frame.
Independent of each other, several of them said they were surprised and disappointed that the prime minister had not used the terror attacks in Paris and Beirut as justification for slowing the Canadian resettlement program down to a more manageable pace.
None of these officials could remember any country trying to resettle 25,000 refugees in such a short time period, particularly across almost half the world to a country where they will experience a serious winter for the first time in their lives.
Million dollar question: If Christianity was in the middle east and Islam in the west, would we still be in the same situation as today?
I'd argue it'd be the exact same. Radicalism needs an ideology to cling to and it doesn't matter which holy book it comes from.
Second million dollar question. What will the US look like in 20 years? 50 years? With the rise of the Tea Party, racial and political intolerance, the religious right, anti-intellectualism and a growing trend of rejecting science in favour of dogma, could America become a hotbed of Christian extremists ready to attack those that don't share their zeal?
That a boy. If it makes you feel better keep a closed mind and refuse to consider real world experiences of people who live amongst Muslims.
I'm not trying to refute anything that you're saying about ISIS. What I find intolerable is that are too quick to paint all of Islam with the same brush. Have you read the Old Testament? Some pretty inflammatory prose there. Should all Christians be judged for their faith as a result?
Your dogmatic position makes me wonder whether you're one of the anti-Muslim, anti-refugee proponents who increasingly confront Canadian Muslims going about their daily lives.
This is straight from my post:
"The fact that a huge component of the Muslim world chooses to ignore and/or "moderate" sections of the doctrine is a great thing,"
I'm not certain if you read what I wrote as I acknowledge that the percentage of Islamists is still small in relative terms (but in absolute terms in many times the population of Canada).
This is the problem with this discussion. People are making a mistake in logic by assuming that suggesting terrorists are driven by ideology, that that conclusion can be used to generalize against all Muslims. That's not the case, and that's not what I'm doing.
We can have a relatively objective conversation about the religion, and what it teaches, and how that informs the activities of the extremists.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it seeks to use a PC argument to avoid a discussion that is necessary and useful. It's just a way of trying to shout down a legitimate discussion.
Million dollar question: If Christianity was in the middle east and Islam in the west, would we still be in the same situation as today?
I'd argue it'd be the exact same. Radicalism needs an ideology to cling to and it doesn't matter which holy book it comes from.
Could be the same situation, and I would agree that radicalism needs an ideology to cling to. However, if that were the case, I would hope that there would be a similar reaction to those radicalized Christians. I think that is the point. It isn't anti-Muslim, its anti-radicalism.
The only issue that I take with your scenario, is that Christianity seemed to have the ability to reform and moderate, whereas Islam takes the Qu'ran as the final and infallible word of god. How does one reform perfection? I hope that community finds a way, but I am not sure there is any evidence of any headway.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Second million dollar question. What will the US look like in 20 years? 50 years? With the rise of the Tea Party, racial and political intolerance, the religious right, anti-intellectualism and a growing trend of rejecting science in favour of dogma, could America become a hotbed of Christian extremists ready to attack those that don't share their zeal?
They basically already are that. The violence isn't nearly on the same scale but think of things like the KKK and abortion clinic bombings. It's not on the same level obviously but the US is pretty scary to me right now. Also, look at the fools they have running for president. Guys like Huckabee's and Carson's ideals would be more relevant to the middle ages than today. The fact that half the country eats that up is the truly scary part.
Honestly, in 50 years I think things might be better in the US. The biggest thing that changes the views of a population is time and generation shift that comes with it. You likely won't teach the old dogs new tricks but there is hope for thier pups.
