Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Which were essentially branches of monastic schools and were run by clergy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Well, true. Although to claim that this actually had something to do with religion is highly debatable.

And of course the Muslims did it first, which is a much bigger flaw in the argument of "oh Christians are so special".

[Thor]

If you guys don't already, follow Ali Rizvi on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/ali.a.rizvi?fref=ts

And my friend Faisal (runs Global Humanist movement)

https://www.facebook.com/faisalsalmutar/?fref=ts

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well, true. Although to claim that this actually had something to do with religion is highly debatable.

And of course the Muslims did it first, which is a much bigger flaw in the argument of "oh Christians are so special".

Sure, Muslims did it first. And if you go back further, ancient Greeks and Chinese were doing it before then.

Again, I am not a religious person and have nothing personal invested in it. I don't think Christians are special, but I don't think anyone can deny that the Church has shaped what the West is a this point from a purely historical and academic perspective, just like Islam has helped shape the ME. Some of those influences were no doubt bad, but some of them were good.

Just because "Muslims did it first", doesn't mean that if Europe was Islamified at a time that Islam was a progressive light on Europe's dark ages, that Europe wouldn't be in the same theocratic quagmire that the ME is in today.

A lot of the scientific discoveries in Europe in the late middle ages and renaissance were by Church clergy and backed by the Catholic Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ric-scientists

[Flash Walken]

I think if a bunch of dorks on the internet can find 4 or 5 instances of other cultures outside 'christendom' were capable of higher learning and secular thought, maybe we've proved that statement invalid?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

because "Muslims did it first", doesn't mean that if Europe was Islamified at a time that Islam was a progressive light on Europe's dark ages, that Europe wouldn't be in the same theocratic quagmire that the ME is in today.

There isn't anything suggesting that it would be either, which is why suggesting that "it might" is a really odd and kind of islamophobic thing to say.

It's kind of like saying "if women ruled the world we'd have no wars". Worthless speculation based on nasty implications.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

There isn't anything suggesting that it would be either, which is why suggesting that "it might" is a really odd and kind of islamophobic thing to say.

It's kind of like saying "if women ruled the world we'd have no wars". Worthless speculation based on nasty implications.

I agree, there is no way to know how things would have turned out. But we do know how things are now in the West compared to the alternative, and you either like it or you don't. For all its faults, the Christian Church has played a big roll on how life is in the West, even if it is now passed its best-before date.

A big part of the wealth and secular advancement has roots in colonialism. It fueled the industrial revolution which in turn created our privileged lifestyles. Yet from an academic point of view, it's easy to see the bad side effects as well as the good ones. I view Christianity in Europe in a similar light. We shouldn't forget the transgressions, but we also shouldn't try to erase or diminish the positive effects.

[CliffFletcher]

The notion that Catholicism was responsible for Europe's ascendancy on the global stage is a head-scratcher. However, there isn't any doubt that there's a causal relationship between the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, and that it was during the Enlightenment that Europe pulled away from the rest of the world in science, commerce, and technology, and laid the foundations of the West's liberal and secular traditions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The notion that Catholicism was responsible for Europe's ascendancy on the global stage is a head-scratcher. However, there isn't any doubt that there's a causal relationship between the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, and that it was during the Enlightenment that Europe pulled away from the rest of the world in science, commerce, and technology, and laid the foundations of the West's liberal and secular traditions.

Yet the Reformation also spawned some of the most conservative evangelical sects in Christianity as well and forced the Catholic Church to slowly liberalize.

When looking at the Church influence, I tend to just lump them all together. Even before the Reformation, the Church was basically the only social safety net for serfs and peasants in Europe, many of whom went on to lead rebellions forcing the Monarchs to make social contracts.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yet the Reformation also spawned some of the most conservative evangelical sects in Christianity as well and forced the Catholic Church to slowly liberalize.

When looking at the Church influence, I tend to just lump them all together. Even before the Reformation, the Church was basically the only social safety net for serfs and peasants in Europe, many of whom went on to lead rebellions forcing the Monarchs to make social contracts.

While I enjoy hearing views on history (even ones I disagree with), I think we're moving pretty far off topic here.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

There isn't anything suggesting that it would be either, which is why suggesting that "it might" is a really odd and kind of islamophobic thing to say.

This is an excellent example of why we all really, really need to stop using this term, because you've completely misused it here and it's so easy to conflate anti-Muslim bigotry with a comment (right or wrong) about the doctrinal content of a religion.

What flamesaddiction seems to have suggested, taking your reading of his post, is that if Islam were imported as a set of ideas over European people instead of Christianity, that Europe might have developed into a theocracy or group of theocracies.

Let's change it to "would" instead of "might". The proposition then becomes: "If Islam were imported as a set of ideas over European people instead of Christianity, Europe would have developed into a theocracy."

That proposition is very possibly wrong. It's certainly a massive oversimplification on a hugely complex and likely impossible to answer hypothetical scenario. However, there is absolutely nothing bigoted about it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is an excellent example of why we all really, really need to stop using this term, because you've completely misused it here and it's so easy to conflate anti-Muslim bigotry with a comment (right or wrong) about the doctrinal content of a religion.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

Unless you've got some kind of a disorder, you should understand context.

This discussion is not taking place in a vacuum, nor is it taking place in a forum of counter-factual historic speculation.

It's a part of a larger discussion on whether or not Islam is religion of terrorism, in which context that speculation is not innocent at all, and really is (mildly) islamophobic in the literal meaning of "fear of Islam".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

It's a part of a larger discussion on whether or not Islam is religion of terrorism, in which context that speculation is not innocent at all, and really is (mildly) islamophobic in the literal meaning of "fear of Islam".

Okay, if you want to talk about it in terms of literal fear of Islam, then Islam is a set of doctrines written in a book. There is nothing bigoted about being afraid of (or really, in this context, being opposed to) the enactment in practice of certain ideas written in a book.

To use a corner case example, if a manifesto is written suggesting that all developing countries should be nuked immediately to eliminate the human suffering going on in those countries, I am afraid of that idea, (or, really, opposed to it) as well.

So, if you look at the text of the Qur'an and Hadiths, and look at specific passages, it's absolutely not somehow bigoted to argue about whether they suggest violent courses of action. That discussion is perfectly fair game, not something to be categorized as some form of bigotry.

[peter12]

^two good posts, Corsi.

In response to everyone else, I am really shocked as to how little the public generally knows about the Catholic Church pre-Enlightenment. For most people, reasonable Christianity started with the Reformation, and by reasonable, I mean, Christianity in decline (debatable). The tradition is much richer than most people give credit for in modern times.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It occurs to me that I don't even need to use a hypothetical corner case to make that point - I can just go back to Exodus 18:22, which is a specific religious doctrine - "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Now, I can look at that and say, that seems like a pretty bad idea. If you put that idea into practice, I can see how it would lead to problems, because it's pretty hard to prove that someone's been communing with the Devil. All you've got is an accusation, and all you've got on the other side is a flat denial - for precisely the same reasons, no one can prove that they aren't somehow in league with an evil none of us can see. Even if you take as a certainty that there ARE witches in the first place, there's no way to tell if someone is or isn't a witch, conclusively. So it's likely to result in a bunch of hysteria and false accusations and really produce no useful results.

Then I can look at history when the idea was put into practice, and be vindicated. Yep, turns out that was a pretty terrible idea. Clearly, I am Old-Testament-Phobic, at least with respect to that one particular doctrine.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It occurs to me that I don't even need to use a hypothetical corner case to make that point - I can just go back to Exodus 18:22, which is a specific religious doctrine - "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Now, I can look at that and say, that seems like a pretty bad idea. If you put that idea into practice, I can see how it would lead to problems, because it's pretty hard to prove that someone's been communing with the Devil. All you've got is an accusation, and all you've got on the other side is a flat denial - for precisely the same reasons, no one can prove that they aren't somehow in league with an evil none of us can see. Even if you take as a certainty that there ARE witches in the first place, there's no way to tell if someone is or isn't a witch, conclusively. So it's likely to result in a bunch of hysteria and false accusations and really produce no useful results.

Then I can look at history when the idea was put into practice, and be vindicated. Yep, turns out that was a pretty terrible idea. Clearly, I am Old-Testament-Phobic, at least with respect to that one particular doctrine.

What historical example are we talking about here? The Inquisition or something?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I was thinking Salem - though there were obviously witch hunts and accusations of that sort throughout the history of Abrahamic religion, whether recorded or not.

The inquisition is certainly an example of bad religious ideas being put into practice, but it's more complex as which specific ideas were being used there. It's not like there's a passage in the bible that says, "if X doesn't conform to doctrine, there's this thing called a thumbscrew you can use". So for the purposes of the example, the above is more useful.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, if you want to talk about it in terms of literal fear of Islam, then Islam is a set of doctrines written in a book. There is nothing bigoted about being afraid of (or really, in this context, being opposed to) the enactment in practice of certain ideas written in a book.

To use a corner case example, if a manifesto is written suggesting that all developing countries should be nuked immediately to eliminate the human suffering going on in those countries, I am afraid of that idea, (or, really, opposed to it) as well.

So, if you look at the text of the Qur'an and Hadiths, and look at specific passages, it's absolutely not somehow bigoted to argue about whether they suggest violent courses of action. That discussion is perfectly fair game, not something to be categorized as some form of bigotry.

Again in a vacuum that makes sense, but in context that's ridiculous.

We have ample proof that the vast majority of muslims are normal people (in good and bad), and that historically speaking Muslims do not in any way stand out in terms of violence towards anyone.

We also have the context that we know for a fact religions have been used and abused and distorted throughout history for what ever purpose, and really it's terribly difficult to find a sensible correlation with what is written in religious text and what parts of those texts are taken as "you should actually take this literally".

So in order for you to be afraid of those doctrines you essentially need to ignore all of history and most of existing reality.

Which is again why, in context, that talk is not observations on doctrines, but attemps to rationalize completely irrational islamophobia.

If you want to talk about problematic religions, talk about those Salafists. There you'd have some ground to stand on, and it would actually be relevant in this context.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I was thinking Salem. The inquisition is certainly an example of bad religious ideas being put into practice, but it's more complex.

Salem is a pretty specific example with myriad variables present beyond biblical literacy. Certainly, human psychology can be affected by religion in many different manners depending on the context.

That said, I will give you Salem.

The Inquisition is a lot more complicated as it was the Spanish state that ended up pursuing most of the trials purely for political reasons. It has also been the subject of much secular hysteria regarding the evils of the Catholic Church. Recent scholarship indicates that the myth is far worse than the reality.

For all religious discussions, we have to remember that religion is not purely an independent variable that emerges ex nihilo but something responsive, and adaptable that is normally based on a set of first principles that in turn shape society around them.

In terms of Christianity and Islam, the world's two largest religions, both sets of ideas set both groups on increasingly divergent, complex paths. I don't think that a type of peaceful liberalism emerged out of Christianity, but rather developed from within its basic principles.

So yeah, we can argue about texts, and exactly what the dogma means. I actually think that is important - so did Augustine, Aquinas, and the Puritans - but it is also good to treat historical developments as particular to certain traditions.

I don't want to sound like Karen Armstrong though.

My main point is that is incredibly easy to be an uncompromising scientist, democrat, liberal, and Christian, while the same cannot be said for a Muslim to be the same. Not saying it is impossible because at the individual existential level most things are, but there would have to be some kind of compromise of principle.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

We have ample proof that the vast majority of muslims are normal people (in good and bad), and that historically speaking Muslims do not in any way stand out in terms of violence towards anyone.

This is a failure of reasoning on your part. Again conflating commentary about Muslims, who are people, with Islam, which is a set of ideas written in a book.

We also have the context that we know for a fact religions have been used and abused and distorted throughout history for what ever purpose, and really it's terribly difficult to find a sensible correlation with what is written in religious text and what parts of those texts are taken as "you should actually take this literally".

Quite right, no one has even commented upon this. However, it's also pretty absurd to say that no one does take certain passages literally or that no one does rely on those passages as justification for brutal behaviour.

So in order for you to be afraid of those doctrines you essentially need to ignore all of history and most of existing reality.

This is nonsense. I am concerned with the application of ALL bad ideas when implemented, regardless of their source. There is a unique problem with bad ideas that are claimed to be sourced in divine inspiration, because it tends to make people who are convinced of that notion less likely to question whether those ideas should in fact be followed.

Which is again why, in context, that talk is not observations on doctrines, but attemps to rationalize completely irrational islamophobia.

This is, as far as I can see, a statement with no content whatsoever.

If you want to talk about problematic religions, talk about those Salafists. There you'd have some ground to stand on, and it would actually be relevant in this context.

And this is just blatantly hypocritical. If you think there are religions that are problematic, presumably on the basis of their dogma, then you cannot consistently deny that all religious doctrines (in fact, all doctrines of any kind regardless of whether they're religious) are open to criticism.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Salem is a pretty specific example with myriad variables present beyond biblical literacy. Certainly, human psychology can be affected by religion in many different manners depending on the context. The Inquisition is a lot more complicated as it was the Spanish state that ended up pursuing most of the trials purely for political reasons. It has also been the subject of much secular hysteria regarding the evils of the Catholic Church. Recent scholarship indicates that the myth is far worse than the reality.

This is all beside the point, which is that we are perfectly capable of having a conversation as to whether Exodus 18:22, when put into practice, is a bad doctrine for people to be following. There isn't anything inherently objectionable in having that discussion and taking a position on either side. This is true regardless of the source of the doctrine.

My main point is that is incredibly easy to be an uncompromising scientist, democrat, liberal, and Christian, while the same cannot be said for a Muslim to be the same. Not saying it is impossible because at the individual existential level most things are, but there would have to be some kind of compromise of principle.

I'm not at all sure that this is the case. I'm actually pretty sure I disagree. However, I'm open to being convinced either way and am not willing to shut down the discussion because it might make me or someone else uncomfortable.

That's the point.