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.
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.
Yeah, of course, but such discussions are infinitely more interesting than "is what you said Islamophobic." Not saying I disagree with your position on that question at all, but good lord, I feel like our collective society has been ruminating on this precise subject with varying levels of coherence for the last 14 years.
I know, but we're perilously close to going right off the freakin' deep end here and need to pull back from the brink. So while first principles of reasoned discussion of ideas might not be that interesting it's sort of a baseline that apparently needs to be established, which is made all the more clear by the posts on the last page.
__________________ "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
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.
I'm sorry, I thought the only way religious doctrines could hurt you were if someone following that religion followed them.
I did not understand that you were literally afraid that words on a paper will attack you.
Quote:
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.
It seems you should spend more time reading up and less time talking.
Salafists are ultra-conservative orthodox Muslims. It's a branch of Islam, not a different religion. Same doctrines, different interpretations.
It's perfectly rational to be worried about people who take the stuff they find in ancient books literally and religious movements that encourage that kind of behavior. I think Salafism is highly problematic, and so do tons of Muslims.
So no, I don't think Salafists are dangerous because of their doctrines. They're dangerous because they're ultra-conservatives who take religious texts too seriously. I think ultra-conservatism of all sorts is dangerous. Doesn't really have anything in particular to do with Islam though.
Personally I have more to worry about the crazy Finnish dudes who regurarly want to tell me that my kid should be raped because I don't think refugees are scary people.
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.
Terrible idea???
She turned me into a newt!!
...
..
.
I got better.
The Following User Says Thank You to ranchlandsselling For This Useful Post:
I'm sorry, I thought the only way religious doctrines could hurt you were if someone following that religion followed them. I did not understand that you were literally afraid that words on a paper will attack you.
Let me put this differently and see if I can get my point across.
Ideas are put into practice by people. If an agrarian society operates on the basis that the universe is run by a supreme being that controls the weather and enjoys human sacrifices, it is not surprising when you see the people who believe that idea responding to drought by increasing the number of human sacrifices.
When one responds to that idea by saying that it's not the people that are the problem, but that the idea that "there's a supreme being that controls the weather and enjoys human sacrifice" is the problem, that should not be confused with criticism of the people implementing it.
Consequently, one opposes the idea, with the hope that people do not put it into practice.
Quote:
Salafists are ultra-conservative orthodox Muslims. It's a branch of Islam, not a different religion. Same doctrines, different interpretations.
I know this, but first, this isn't quite right. Different Islamic sects, salafists included, emphasize different parts of the Islamic tradition - different hadiths are given importance, etc.
However, it's beside the point - if a doctrine is interpreted differently, it's a different idea. Consequently, the rational response will be different.
It's a totally rational response to say, "no, CHL, you've read Sura X:YZ and I see how you've interpreted it one way, but the translation is bad / you've just misread it and really what it's talking about is something else". My response to which may be, "okay, I don't have a problem with that conception of the idea, it's the other one that led me to the conclusion I came to that's the problem. So to the extent that THAT is being enacted by ISIS, or others, we need to confront that."
Quote:
It's perfectly rational to be worried about people who take the stuff they find in ancient books literally and religious movements that encourage that kind of behavior. I think Salafism is highly problematic, and so do tons of Muslims.
Okay, then, you are not opposed in principle to the practice of criticizing religious ideas. That's a start. Now we can apply that to all religious ideas, regardless of where they originate.
__________________ "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
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.
Both of these examples are interesting. The Salem witch hunts were conducted by "reformed" Christian sects. The Reformation tends to be looked at as a liberalization of Christianity, but there were also a lot of backwards movements.
The Spanish Inquisition is interesting because it does somewhat parallel what we see in the ME today. It came off the heals of an invasion, occupation and colonization of Spain by a foreign culture. The ugliness that ensued was as much political as it was religious.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Both of these examples are interesting. The Salem witch hunts were conducted by "reformed" Christian sects. The Reformation tends to be looked at as a liberalization of Christianity, but there were also a lot of backwards movements.
The Spanish Inquisition is interesting because it does somewhat parallel what we see in the ME today. It came off the heals of an invasion, occupation and colonization of Spain by a foreign culture. The ugliness that ensued was as much political as it was religious.
In regards to Salem, as well, the later Puritans actually incorporated a lot of the characteristics that we would deem familiar and indeed, beneficial now. A universally free education being one of them.
We also forget the many times that the Church interceded, and tried to stop the murderous, and predatory actions of tyrannical regimes.
Okay, then, you are not opposed in principle to the practice of criticizing religious ideas. That's a start. Now we can apply that to all religious ideas, regardless of where they originate.
Theoretical speculation about the dangers and merits of religious texts is fine in the absence of actual evidence. However there is no point in arguing whether or not Islams holy texts are somehow particularly dangerous, because we have an abundance of actual evidence also known as the history of the world.
Since Islam does not stand out as particularly violent, then it's obvious that its holy texts are not any more (or less) dangerous than religious writings in general. End of discussion. If the evidence and the theory are not in alignment, you have to go with reality and find a new theory.
We do have plenty of evidence that religious movements which encourage literal interpretations of holy texts are almost always problematic, sometimes in violent ways. But I don't think there is any evidence that Islam is particularly prone to literal interpretations either.
So if you want to stop talking about Islam in those generalizing sweeps and start talking about something more specific such as the problems of the Salafist movement I'll be totally with you.
Since Islam does not stand out as particularly violent, then it's obvious that its holy texts are not any more (or less) dangerous than religious writings in general. End of discussion. If the evidence and the theory are not in alignment, you have to go with reality and find a new theory.
Dude, slow down and try to allow for the possibility that you might not be getting my point. "End of discussion" should pretty much never be uttered. There seems to be a big problem with people being absolutely, unquestioningly certain that their conclusions are right and should not be examined or questioned. Let's not do that.
Religious writings in general contain a bunch of ideas, some good, some bad. Often they produce real-world violence. Same goes for Islam.
However, Islam's religious ideas are DIFFERENT from the religious ideas of other texts. The words on the page are different, the preachings are different and thus the practices are different. The Old Testament proclaims that all Amalekites should be killed; the Qur'an does not. This is self-evident.
These differences, put into practice, produce different results. For example, there is no doctrine in Islam that the soul enters the body at conception, but some time later. Christianity does have that sort of doctrine, so people basing their actions on Christian doctrine oppose embryonic stem cell research, while Muslims have no religious basis for doing so.
Consequently, generalizing about religions is not productive. Looking at specific ideas within a given religion, and then determining whether it's good or bad, is the better way to go. Hence, when I look at "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", I find a specific idea that I've argued is bad. Similarly, if I look in the Qur'an, and see Sura 2:216, which says,
Quote:
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
I can say that I don't think that is a good doctrine to put into practice. We can then discuss whether it, in fact, is or isn't.
Quote:
So if you want to stop talking in those generalizing sweeps and start talking about something more specific such as the problems of the Salafist movement I'll be totally with you. That would actually be relevant.
This seems pretty much like what I've engaged in above, in which case it seems like we're actually in full agreement.
I do think it's incorrect to come to the conclusion that no religion is more inherently violent than another, because all of the parts, when you add up the doctrines in two books, will result in different sums. So, for example, I am quite certain that the Old Testament as a source of religious tenets is more violent than the New Testament. Or more abstractly, if you took the New Testament and decided to add another sentence that said, "also, we should kill all people with green eyes", Christianity would suddenly be a more violent religion than without that doctrine.
However, I don't really know that it matters, because talking about the consequences of specific beliefs is way, way more helpful than generalizing about the entire contents of generally rather large books.
__________________ "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 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Doesn't look like this has been posted yet, the Eagles of Death Metal (the band playing the Bataclan concert hall when the attacks occurred) did their first interview since the attacks with Vice.
Very heavy stuff.
Last edited by Regular_John; 11-25-2015 at 03:50 PM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Regular_John For This Useful Post:
Really tough to watch. Jesse is a wreck, he doesn't seem able to make eye contact at all.
Given Jesse's history (Josh basically put Jesse through rehab out of pocket, saving his life), the line: "Because that's just what you do when you're in trouble, you call Josh" is especially powerful.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
Theoretical speculation about the dangers and merits of religious texts is fine in the absence of actual evidence. However there is no point in arguing whether or not Islams holy texts are somehow particularly dangerous, because we have an abundance of actual evidence also known as the history of the world.
Since Islam does not stand out as particularly violent, then it's obvious that its holy texts are not any more (or less) dangerous than religious writings in general. End of discussion. If the evidence and the theory are not in alignment, you have to go with reality and find a new theory.
We do have plenty of evidence that religious movements which encourage literal interpretations of holy texts are almost always problematic, sometimes in violent ways. But I don't think there is any evidence that Islam is particularly prone to literal interpretations either.
So if you want to stop talking about Islam in those generalizing sweeps and start talking about something more specific such as the problems of the Salafist movement I'll be totally with you.
That would even be relevant to the topic.
Islam stands out as far more violent now, does it not?
Doesn't look like this has been posted yet, the Eagles of Death Metal (the band playing the Bataclan concert hall when the attacks occurred) did their first interview since the attacks with Vice.
Very heavy stuff.
This is awful. Really hope these guys (and everyone else who witnessed this horror) get some sort of counselling because you can tell these guys aren't in a good mental state.
Doesn't look like this has been posted yet, the Eagles of Death Metal (the band playing the Bataclan concert hall when the attacks occurred) did their first interview since the attacks with Vice.
Very heavy stuff.
Going to watch this later today, but expecting it to be hard to finish.
Some pictures got leaked of the inside of the Bataclan and it's pretty f'ing horrible. I made the mistake of looking at them so don't look at them unless you want to have it seared into your brain.
There's definitely been a change in the religion in the past 60 years or so. Saudi Arabia has been pushing a more extreme form of the religion that incorporates more historical regional values. Obviously, this isn't endemic to all of Islam. As you point out, there are relatively secular population as well.
It has a lot to do with Wahhabism/Salafism and the more extreme and violent interpretations of Islam, which sprung from Wahhabism/Salafism. Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars over the last 100 years pushing these more extreme forms of Islam, and we are seeing the effect of that now.
So U.S. support for Saudi Arabia has historically been about access to oil, and more recently as a foil to Iran. Today, the U.S. is close to energy self-sufficiency. And frankly, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, it would be Iran (which is some respects, is one of the more socially-advanced countries in the region). As a geopolitical play, ditching Saudi and making up with Iran has a lot to recommend it. I suppose the biggest barrier is the U.S. relationship with Israel.
__________________
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.
So U.S. support for Saudi Arabia has historically been about access to oil, and more recently as a foil to Iran. Today, the U.S. is close to energy self-sufficiency. And frankly, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, it would be Iran (which is some respects, is one of the more socially-advanced countries in the region). As a geopolitical play, ditching Saudi and making up with Iran has a lot to recommend it. I suppose the biggest barrier is the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Saudi Arabia also receives a ####load of military aid.
The American's probably aren't looking to turn off that tap any time soon.
So U.S. support for Saudi Arabia has historically been about access to oil, and more recently as a foil to Iran. Today, the U.S. is close to energy self-sufficiency. And frankly, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, it would be Iran (which is some respects, is one of the more socially-advanced countries in the region). As a geopolitical play, ditching Saudi and making up with Iran has a lot to recommend it. I suppose the biggest barrier is the U.S. relationship with Israel.
I don't see why the US would find Iran preferable to Saudi Arabia. Iran has their own army of militant fundamentalist groups, most notably Hezbollah and the Houthis. Both governments essentially have the same goal, to become the dominant political/religious force in the region. The only difference between the two is that one is #####e and the other Sunni.
Ideally, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the US needs to keep both sides in a stand off. As soon as one side sees they have the clear advantage, that's when things really go down. Things go from a state of small proxy wars to a full on religious armageddon, a war 1400 years in the making.
As far as the US's relationship with Iran, it's a two way street. How do the Ayatollahs, whose entire power base is based on propaganda, now turn around and say the "Great Satan" really isn't all that bad.
Really tough to watch. Jesse is a wreck, he doesn't seem able to make eye contact at all.
Given Jesse's history (Josh basically put Jesse through rehab out of pocket, saving his life), the line: "Because that's just what you do when you're in trouble, you call Josh" is especially powerful.
Jesse and most of the band members will never get over this, very sad that these religious freaks that think they're human beings get to destroy all hope in humanity.
