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?
As a transplant, I think absolutely not. The conservative WASP wingnuts get lots of press because they are, well, wingnuts. They have many followers, but I don't think they are representative of the country.
America has a lot of liberal minded white people (see: Portland, OR) and many conservative Americans who aren't actually wingnuts or racists. I think in the next 20, and especially 50 years though, the Hispanic wave won't be contained any longer (and I'm not saying that is bad, quite the contrary).
One day the Hispanics/Latinos coupled with [normal] white Americans, will realize they are powerful and would be able to defeat the bolded demographic and make America a country of openness. It'll take time, but I think all this wingnutty stuff we see from Republicans is their last hurrah since they are desperate and see the end is coming for their ideology.
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.
Anecdotal experiences are not that helpful, although I have no doubt that in the places you lived you found that Muslims almost exclusively were tolerant, decent people who had no desire to inflict suffering on other people. That's the vast majority of Muslims in the world, who either don't practice certain doctrines prescribed by the faith or interpret the harsher ones in such a way as to make them more benign, or just don't want to impose them on anyone.
That being said, some of the poll responses you'll get are alarming, like 72% of Indonesian Muslims supporting Sharia as the law of the land. The vast majority of Muslims (or at least a majority, in some places) reject violence in support of the faith, but even the minority is a lot of people, unfortunately:
Spoiler!
We're just left hoping that those minority of Muslims who say violence is sometimes or often justified aren't being truthful when they respond to those polls and are professing a more militant ideology than they actually hold.
Quote:
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.
Islam is largely contained in a series of writings that say what they say. "Paint with the same brush" is a turn of phrase that generally applies to people. But no one is painting all Muslims with the same brush. There's almost zero problem among North American Muslims (Adam Gadahn notwithstanding), for example. There's a difference, though, between talking about the people and talking about what's in the texts. And while there's a lot of arguably good moral teaching in there, there's also some bad ideas that people are acting on. Not surprising from a book from over a millennia ago, in the context a mediaval warlord, which is what Muhammad was.
Quote:
Have you read the Old Testament? Some pretty inflammatory prose there. Should all Christians be judged for their faith as a result?
Absolutely not. The Old Testament is much worse than the Qur'an, in many ways, and again contains many bad ideas that aren't surprising given that it was written in a tribal, bronze age agrarian society. However, almost no one actually puts those bad ideas into practice anymore, and that's the full and final answer to why the bad ideas in Islam present a more pressing problem at this moment in history.
People used to put those ideas into practice, of course. And when people were burning women at the stake for purportedly being witches, they weren't doing it primarily because of geopolitics or historical grievances. They were doing it largely because of Exodus 22:18.
Quote:
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.
And this practice is essentially the new McCarthyism. "I hear what you're saying, and you're trying to sound rational but it all sounds like commie talk to me". Refusing to acknowledge that people are saying what they're saying, because what they're secretly doing is harbouring some sort of bigotry, is not engaging in any sort of rational thought process or dealing honestly with the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy City
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.
I don't agree at all - I think, perhaps, you would still have some sort of theocratic society, but I think you'd see different sorts of bad ideas. Some of them might not be different in effect; you might still see people (e.g. gays) being executed, but more likely stoned than thrown from great heights or beheaded. I'm also not sure if you'd see the same sorts of warfare - a medieval form of Christianity is nonetheless largely about conversion, even in its worst, most holy-war-esque incarnations. It's not so much about creating a Jesus-worshipping caliphate - recall that if ISIS were to succeed in creating some sort of global Islamist regime, Christians and Jews would likely be allowed to live there under a dhimmitude system. So I suspect it would still be bad news, just maybe a different brand of bad news.
Of course, what I really disagree with is that this is the million dollar question. What might happen in a different universe is academic; what's actually happening is the important thing, obviously.
__________________ "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 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
We regularly hear the comparison between the bible and the Quran-Hadith as if they are equivalents of each other. They are not.
Most in the west grow up with a reasonable knowledge of the bible, and its style. (I'm hoping my atheism allows me to be somewhat objective in this comparison.) The bible is an obviously allegorical, metaphorical collection of stories. It is relatively easy to contextualize away most aspects or specific statements. They are often made by third parties (ie characters) in the book, and that further allows for interpretation.
The Quran is not an Islamic version of the same type of document. It is a much more prescriptive and political document, designed to indicate specific actions. It is not acknowledged to be written by men, with their foibles, but is considered the perfect word of god. It's much more specific, and "recipe" like than the bible. When put in this context, it is easier to see why the radical minority do not see the need for interpretation. The document specifically asks for a literal interpretation.
(As an aside, one of the most fascinating things about religion in general, and Islam in specific is the amazing amount of cognitive dissonance that must occur when ignoring the very specific instructions of the Quran in order to be "moderate".)
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.
I think the evidence is in the fact that a majority of Muslims (especially Western) don't take the Qu'ran as a literal, infallible text of God. Yes, Christianity has a second, more moderate version of it's first book that was pretty extreme, but not only is the Old Testament still explored by even moderate Christians, it's also solely explored by a minority of Christians and extremists. Just because Muslims explore the Qu'ran as a whole and still take it as the word of God does not mean they are unable to differentiate what applies to modern society and what doesn't. They do. It's not a 'community problem'. Christianity hasn't fully reformed, just as Islam hasn't. There are extremists on both sides but the moderates FAR out-weigh them.
To suggest that is similar to suggesting that (in the face of some Christian terrorist gunning down a church or a children's camp) the problems are that of the community, and that no change is visible.
If you're looking at extremists for change towards modern religious practices of any religion, surprise, you won't find them.
The sad thing about Christian extremism in the West is that the perpetrator is often labelled as 'mentally ill' whereas if it's Islamic extremism, it's simply in their religion.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It seems to me, and I'm not a biblical scholar or a practicing Christian, that most Christians use the Old Testament exclusively for prayers (as if it were a book of poems), and as a sort of reference point to prove the divinity of Jesus. By which I mean, "it says in the Old Testament that some guy would do X, and he would be the son of God, and Jesus did X, and is therefore divine." The actual rules aren't treated as rules. I mean, obviously there are a few people who do.
__________________ "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
If you gave the Westboro Baptist Church hundreds of billions of dollars and their own country, I'm sure Christianity would probably be seen as a religion of hate and violence as well.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
__________________ "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
Muzzled! Shall we gather pitchforks and make this about an attack on our diplomat class?
Yes, sounds like a "date-driven" decision rather then a "data-driven" decision. Looks like we are getting is a left wing version of the previous regime delivered with a pretty face, what a surprise!
Last edited by Flamenspiel; 11-19-2015 at 10:36 AM.
If you gave the Westboro Baptist Church hundreds of billions of dollars and their own country, I'm sure Christianity would probably be seen as a religion of hate and violence as well.
Their "church" has like 40 members. Not too many folks would be attracted to that brand of christianity.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
Their "church" has like 40 members. Not too many folks would be attracted to that brand of christianity.
Except that it's estimated 30%-35% of US Christian population considers themselves "Evangelical", which includes Christian Fundamentalists, a group that for better or worse, believe in the literal interpretation of both the Old and New Testaments.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
We've been over this before. There are such things as incorrect thoughts and opinions.
Who gets to decide what those are? Many mainstream thoughts and opinions today were considered odious 30 years ago. And many other thoughts and opinions that are considered correct today will be regarded as incorrect or odious 30 years from now. In all likelihood, some that you yourself hold.
The truth is not self-evident. The only people who like to believe it is are zealots. So yes, challenge stuff you disagree with. But don't prevent it from being said, and appreciate you only get to say your piece because those who disagree with you tolerate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
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.
That isn't true when it comes to Islamic extremism. Affluent Saudis fund ISIS, and most of the ringleaders and foreign jihadists come from educated and comfortable backgrounds. If you don't think educated and intelligent people from middle-class backgrounds can be drawn to violent extremism, you need to read up on the rise of fascism in the 20th century and the makeup of the Nazi party.
Religion is an essential element in the rise of Islamic terrorism. There are downtrodden and disadvantaged people the world over. And yet we don't see Vietnamese, Hondurans, or Angolans strapping bombs to themselves and gunning down patrons at restaurants in Paris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
That doesn't mean Islam (or at the very least, aspects of it) should be immune to criticism. Just as western liberals criticize Christianity.
I marvel at the cognitive gymnastics the modern left engage in to relentlessly condemn conservative Christians while ignoring religious conservatism among non-Christians.
Evangelical Christian father demands school board not give HPV vaccine to daughter.
Modern leftist response: Too bad you sexist redneck bigot! Why do we let religious freaks have any say in school policy?
Muslim father demands school board not give HPV vaccine to daughter:
Modern leftist response: [crickets]
The thinking (if you want to call it that) goes something like this:
1) Bigots criticize Muslims (or women, or non-whites, etc.)
2) Decent people don't want to be regarded as bigots.
3) Therefore, decent people don't criticize Muslims (or women, or non-whites, etc.)
Now, this might be a defensible stance if you think we should never make generalizations about people. But of course, many of the same people who hew to the position above do not hesitate to make generalizations about and criticize whites, conservatives, Christians, and men. So I guess it's okay to make generalized criticism of some groups of people but not others - even when the two groups hold the same views. Bizarre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
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?
Why do I have to pick one? Can't I criticize both? Frankly, I'm concerned the number of Americans in high positions in the military and government who are Evangelical Christian who believe in the end times. Let's be wary of them too. Let's condemn and be vigilant of bad and dangerous ideas regardless of their origin and who holds them.
__________________
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; 11-19-2015 at 11:01 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
This is from an interview with the former head of immigration in Canada Peter Showler and answers one of the questions I had....
Not super comfortable with that answer but it seems honest at least.
My response would have been looking for any evidence for potential radicalization of Canadians. The most recent attack on Parliment hill was done by a radicalized Canadian. The Paris attack from a radicalized Belgian.
Now, this might be a defensible stance if you think we should never make generalizations about people. But of course, many of the same people who hew to the position above do not hesitate to make generalizations about and criticize whites, conservatives, Christians, and men. So I guess it's okay to make generalized criticism of some groups of people but not others - even when the two groups hold the same views. Bizarre.
I mean, this is descriptive of some people now being called "regressives" in certain Bill Maheresque circles (thanks, Maajid Nawaz; another label to bandy about ad nauseum)... but I don't think it's the right tack to take. You don't need to generalize about anyone to criticize bad ideas. Those bad ideas might happen to be held by one person or a dozen people or fifty million, of one ethnicity or background or many backgrounds, and that changes nothing about the criticism of the idea itself.
__________________ "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
Their "church" has like 40 members. Not too many folks would be attracted to that brand of christianity.
If you gave the Westboro Baptist Church hundreds of billions of dollars and their own country, I'm sure Christianity would probably be seen as a religion of hate and violence as well.
If you gave the Westboro Baptist Church hundreds of billions of dollars and their own country, I'm sure Christianity would probably be seen as a religion of hate and violence as well.
Well that's kinda putting the cart before the horse or whatever that farmyard analogy is.
Nobody "gave" ISIS billions of dollars and land. They had an ideology of violence that attracted a lot of people first, and then they violently took over swaths of land that happen to have oil below it to make thier money.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
