The West's Moral Superiority To Islam
The Muslim jihadists continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to the West. It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between Christianity and Islam, and not as some relativistic doubletalk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make the West superior to the Muslims.
The West does not have people throwing sulfuric acid into girls' faces for going to school.
The West does not have people setting their daughters on fire for getting raped.
The West does not have children being sent to blow up marketplaces and themselves in the process.
The West has free speech. The West has women's rights. The West has a lot of people working around the globe to extend to others development, opportunity and education.
I do not say that the West is better than Islam for relativistic reasons. I say that it is better than Islam for absolute reasons. I say that West is morally superior to Islam, period. And that, instead of practicing a defensive posture or some sort of religious me-tooism, it needs to go to outright offensive against Islam and seize the moral ground that the Islamists wrongfully claim right from under their feet.
The West's moral superiority comes from free speech. It comes from democracy. It comes from science and technology. It comes from women's rights. And yes, it comes from the belief that people are better authority over their lives than is a government or a religious institution.
For all things that one or another person does wrong, the Western system has produced far better results than has the Muslim system. And while there will always be people who look for alternatives, even they will for the most part come to the conclusions that the Muslim system is far inferior to what is here now. The Muslim system is not only worse than the Western system; it's also worse than Communism, Hinduism or Confucianism. Its global reputation is this: The bottom of the world.
Further, the Muslim people owe a lot to America and the rest of the West. If not for the Western democracies, the Middle East as well as the rest of the world would be practicing Communism; and that means that they would not be able to practice Islam at all. Whereas with the current world leadership they can be as Muslim as they want to be for as long as they aren't blowing up Western nationals in the process. Whereas if Muslims had their way, then everyone would be practicing Islam. And from what we've seen from the condition of the Muslim countries in Middle East, that is not a promising future.
The Middle East used to host the world's greatest civilizations. At this time, and any number of decades past independence, the place is a quagmire and an obscenity. It is entirely not the case, as Hashemi Rafsanjani claims, that Islam keeps these places on the right path. The opposite is true. Islam has taken these places on a destructive path and has turned the world's greatest civilizations into its worst obscenities.
Not enough people are brave enough to confront wrongs like this; and there need to be more. I for one do not care one bit if saying such things will bring onto me a fatwah. The issues here are too important, and they are especially important for the women - such as for example my daughter - who will be growing up in whatever world results from contemporary entanglements.
The West is morally superior to the Islamic world. And it is time that more people say so outright.
The West does not have people throwing sulfuric acid into girls' faces for going to school.
The West does not have people setting their daughters on fire for getting raped.
The West does not have children being sent to blow up marketplaces and themselves in the process.
The West has free speech. The West has women's rights. The West has a lot of people working around the globe to extend to others development, opportunity and education.
I do not say that the West is better than Islam for relativistic reasons. I say that it is better than Islam for absolute reasons. I say that West is morally superior to Islam, period. And that, instead of practicing a defensive posture or some sort of religious me-tooism, it needs to go to outright offensive against Islam and seize the moral ground that the Islamists wrongfully claim right from under their feet.
The West's moral superiority comes from free speech. It comes from democracy. It comes from science and technology. It comes from women's rights. And yes, it comes from the belief that people are better authority over their lives than is a government or a religious institution.
For all things that one or another person does wrong, the Western system has produced far better results than has the Muslim system. And while there will always be people who look for alternatives, even they will for the most part come to the conclusions that the Muslim system is far inferior to what is here now. The Muslim system is not only worse than the Western system; it's also worse than Communism, Hinduism or Confucianism. Its global reputation is this: The bottom of the world.
Further, the Muslim people owe a lot to America and the rest of the West. If not for the Western democracies, the Middle East as well as the rest of the world would be practicing Communism; and that means that they would not be able to practice Islam at all. Whereas with the current world leadership they can be as Muslim as they want to be for as long as they aren't blowing up Western nationals in the process. Whereas if Muslims had their way, then everyone would be practicing Islam. And from what we've seen from the condition of the Muslim countries in Middle East, that is not a promising future.
The Middle East used to host the world's greatest civilizations. At this time, and any number of decades past independence, the place is a quagmire and an obscenity. It is entirely not the case, as Hashemi Rafsanjani claims, that Islam keeps these places on the right path. The opposite is true. Islam has taken these places on a destructive path and has turned the world's greatest civilizations into its worst obscenities.
Not enough people are brave enough to confront wrongs like this; and there need to be more. I for one do not care one bit if saying such things will bring onto me a fatwah. The issues here are too important, and they are especially important for the women - such as for example my daughter - who will be growing up in whatever world results from contemporary entanglements.
The West is morally superior to the Islamic world. And it is time that more people say so outright.
Comments (209)
thank you. you are a better man than me and i do believe christianity supports the fact that some people really are better than others.
"You're presupposing enlightenment values -universal basic rights, universal freedoms- as your metric for superiority. As obvious as it seems, it still needs a grounding or justification before this sort of argument can be made. Moral theists can always appeal to divine command to legitimate their system "
and now we are essentially getting into the whole debate about whether there is objective truth.
Except that it implicitly sets the Islamic world up as not liberal, not desirous of free speech, cruel, hateful and Other than Us.
It's an argument that has long supported colonialism and now supports gratuitous wars fought by proxy.
And it is an argument, as can be seen here, that Christians will see as supporting their morally bankrupt religion.
This sort of error of omission cannot be lightly excused, because the omission renders the statement both false and vicious.
but does their attitude make them morally bankrupt or does that make them have moral flaws. Do you see the difference?
That'd be it.
"Ah, so Islam is immoral as a social system, while Christianity is a moral social system that happens to have a few folk with moral flaws..."
i'm not going to argue with you too much on that statement. I believe the OP is very in line with the truth or events in history. Mohomed had some serious flaws whereas the supposed Jesus had few to none (i would argue none). As to the various churches that popped up along the way there is alot i could say to that. Christian nations give more to charity than non christian charities. As to whether all christian principles are followed by modern christians in general is another topic.
yup
I'm not interested in a bigoted pissing competition.
I don't think we do need to ground enlightenment values in something else. Rather, those who reject them ought explain why.
"?christian2017
That was an impressive slide, from liberal apologetics in the OP to whether Jesus was a nicer person than Mohamed...
I'm not interested in a bigoted pissing competition.
?aporiap
I don't think we do need to ground enlightenment values in something else. Rather, those who reject them ought explain why. "
Thats fair. I'll be back on this forum in a couple of days perhaps tommorow.
"The West" and "Islam" belong to different categories. Christianity and Islam are in the same category--world religions--and the West and the East are in the same categories--regions of particular culture. The categories of religion and the category of cultural regions are both rather large. Within either one there are many subsets that may be quite dissimilar to the larger whole.
So, are you claiming that Christianity is superior to Islam, or that the West is superior to the Middle East?
My cultural bias is heavily on the side of The West, Christianity, and to the republic for which it stands... etc. Your cultural bias seems to be about the same. Which religion, culture, landscape, language, food ways, etc. are equivalent, inferior, or superior is difficult to determine, because none of us can be very objective about any of this stuff. 99.99% of people have a vested interest in their own cultures, religions, homelands, and so on.
Most (not all) of the participants on this site are either somewhat disinvested in religion (if they aren't atheists), and many of the people here also eschew strong national affinities to boot. Race, ethnicity, religion, nationalism, and so on are all hot button issues. So, you aren't going to get a very sympathetic hearing for your OP.
It might (or might not) help to detail your claims about superiority and inferiority. Much of the middle east maintains tribal honor systems. Honor systems (whether in the American South or Pakistan) cause a lot of trouble. When severe punishments are applied in Islamic cultures, they tend to be crudely corporal -- severing the hands of thieves, stoning adulteresses or homosexuals, and so on. We can and should condemn this kind of justice. The most conservative of Islamic countries (like Saudi Arabia) offend against western values in numerous ways. There's a lot there we can disapprove of.
On the other hand, The West has had its fingers in Middle Eastern affairs for a while and we haven't accomplished a lot of good there. As dyspeptic as the Saud family might make us feel, they have kept the oil flowing. Oil counts for a lot. If the Middle East's main exports were dates and camel cheese, we'd have no interest in them, and they'd be too poor to annoy us.
To this:
You seem to be asking a genuine question yet omitting and inferring so much that it’s quite incoherent. Are you talking about what a select group of extremists say, general attitudes of particular sects, or religions in general?
I don’t believe anyone who says living by strict laws is the best way to live as being ‘moral’. As guidelines we can certainly hold more to some than others and laws are necessary in complex societies so people have a common understanding of how to behave in certain environements beyond their innate empathy and upbringing.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Everything the West has touched in the Muslim world - and it has its filthy paws all over it - has turned to shit. For this, the Muslim people do indeed 'owe' the West. What 'moral superiority' the West can claim is swamped by its immoral complicity.
The whole Judeo-Christian tradition is a culmination of other so called “pagan” views. It just so happens that ONE name is chosen to sell a broad set of human ideologies that have come to fruition under one common sociopolitical movement (be it more or less economic or theological it makes little difference to the fact that there is a constant ebb and flow to human culture).
Nice people.
They are not us. We don't do this shit.
That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.
And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here.
The Christchurch terrorist was one of us. He was born in a town a few tens of kilometres away from my home town. He experiences the same sorts of things as we experienced. He chose to act based on those experiences. And what he did was appalling.
If we deny that he was Australian. we lose an opportunity to address the issues that caused him to make his choice.
But that goes for @Ilya B Shambat. He (She? Possibly, but I doubt it) is not other, either.
Would that I had @Bitter Crank's humanity.
But if this view were to be accepted by Muslims, wouldn't that mean the death of Islam? Is that what you want? Or do you want reform?
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
I hear you. What would you propose to improve things? For what it's worth, I think that in practice, social stability trumps most other considerations because however immoral things get in a stable society, things are much worse once that stability is gone. For that reason, it's immoral to call for social breakdown. I think that condemning Islam wholesale is basically a call for catastrophe. Am I wrong?
I think that those societies would do well to adopt Christianity instead of Islam. That way they will have social stability without it being based on a terrible ideology that, among other things, promises boys in heaven.
That's not very likely.
Yes, in Christianity, you can have boys on Earth, at the alter. Reward minus the waiting time.
Two can play cultural pissing contest. The game itself, of course, is the worst thing about it all to begin with.
Quoting Banno
You are so out of line in every single post I see you make on this forum, it's unreal.
People everywhere do this because it hurts to admit that your own culture sucks.
But I believe the pile-on we see with this thread has to do with the OPs target. If the target had been Christianity or everyone's favorite: the USA, would so many buttons have been pushed?
I dont think so. The pile-on would have favored the OP instead. So the real issue here is that Islam is seen as an underdog in need of protection, and in some places it is that. But there is still othering going on there. It's a comfortable, condescending thing where Islam is like an innocent child instead of a very old and mature religion.
Probably the only thing that seems self evident is universal basic freedoms because there doesn't seem to be any morally relevant ground to say one or another individual has special claim to anything. The lottery of birth argument seems enough to counter any sort of counter claim. There also doesn't seem to be any fundamental justification for any restriction or constraint on freedom - which themselves would be positive 'ought's' that need to be justified. Freedom is in a way an empty term since it just refers to a lack; a lack of constraint. Obviously things like do not steal or kill are rules I believe in but they're justified by social contract, unless you can think of another argument.
What I think needs to be justified are universal basic rights since they make positive claims about what people are entitled to. I think the rawlsian approach is an excellent enough justification, but that is an argument nonetheless.
Americans continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to everyone else. It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between everyone else and the USA, and not as some relativistic doubletalk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make other nations superior to the USA.
...
Other nations are morally superior to the USA. And it is time that more people say so outright.
So we're picking on fat people now? Is that what it is?
But yeah, the USA is a large stupid beast.
Banno's post was the most nonsensical post I've read on this forum and so I feel biased towards this "othering" concept mainly because of how he brought it up. Can you explain what "othering" is and why you feel it's important to bring up here?
We often think of ad hominem as countering an argument with insults, but there's another meaning that's along the lines of "well, you would say that." So if I'm a poor person and I'm accusing rich people of crimes, someone might ignore what I'm actually saying and point to my poverty to undermine my credibility. "Of course, you would say that, you're jealous!"
This kind of ad hominem is often accompanied by some kind of psychoanalysis and it's a way to draw attention away from the content of an argument.
This is basically what Banno was doing. He tells us a story about the Ilya which pictures him as a westerner (possibly Australian) who condemns some other group in order to raise himself up. He entirely discounts the content of the OP in the process. Banno's point is interesting, and worthy of discussion. I would like to hear what Ilya thinks about it, but he seems to have left the party and I don't blame him.
What do you think about the OP?
Quoting praxis
I loathe Trump, but he's no more of a sociopath than many of the political elite in Washington. (I realize this is damnation by faint praise.) Strange hair? He's clearly too old for such nonsense. I hear he uses spray on tan. It tends to turn a body orange.
Life expectancy is not dropping across the board. It's an average, and the group that is dragging it down the most are disadvantaged middle aged white folk who for various reasons have been left in the economic lurch by the elites. They are killing themselves (deliberately and accidentally). Now, many of our health indicators are below a number of other countries--and we can and should do better. But again, this is somewhat localized. People who live in what's called the "fried fish belt" of the se United States, have a number of dietary habits (lots of fried fish, barbecue, sweet tea, side pork, and such) that contribute to an earlier demise than might otherwise be the case. Make them eat kale.
We have the highest incarceration rate because it's elite policy to have a high incarceration rate. It isn't just any old random person that tends to be arrested and convicted. It tends to be black males who get arrested. I don't know whether they are disproportionately more criminally inclined than your average white guy, but the elites prefer to stock prisons with black men.
I’d also ask why focus on Islam in particular and its radical groups without comparisons with other morally inferior regimes like North Korea, Germany, China or the US? Or is the US superior to all other western countries? I certainly wouldn’t lump all western countries into one group anymore than I’d lump all muslims or christians into the same group. As for morality being religious or not doesn’t dictate to me that one is more or less morally upright.
Banno makes a fair comment about how we disown the abhorrent rather than face that side within ourselves and our surroundings.
Are cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea “inferior” too in an absolute sense? Thee are plenty of religious people doing their best and they sometimes cause more harm than good. The political side of religion is always a problem though.
Generally speaking I don’t see how it helps to call a large group of people lesser and expect them to change their ways. I do think the international community could possibly do more to help Saudi Arabia, but I also think it is unrealistic to make severe changes in the immediate now and expect a smooth transition. This is of course of little comfort to those oppressed in the now, but it could just be that in this instance an incremental change is better than a revolution (which inevitably means war and several more generations of hatred and fanaticism).
Just be thankful such difficult decisions and knowledge lie outside out your immediate sphere of influence and encourage freedom (only if you understand freedom comes at a cost).
We should start thread on why Russians and those with Russian ancestry are huge bigots, about the detrimental effect they have on our tolerant Western society, how bad and immoral the Russian society is and how superior our West European/North American values are to their values... :wink:
No really, the OP shows clearly how difficult it is to talk about differences in culture. It shows clearly that when talking about Western values and morals etc. the tone easily gets to be condescending and offensive, especially when the contrast to Islam is discussed. Actually, I've noted that when today 'Western culture/values' are generally discussed, the narrative is typically how Western freedoms, ideals and morals contrast to ISIS and the intolerance of the present day Muslim culture. The huge elephant in the room then, China and Chinese culture are totally left out from the argument as are other Asian cultures.
Not a fan of the present day PC culture, but I still uphold some level of cordiality. And in my view Western culture doesn't need this kind of pep talk.
Western and Islamic civilizations have much in common. They both have their cultural roots in Mediterranean Iron Age. They both remember Abraham, Jesus, and Aristotle. We might call them cousins, and one is not more moral than the other.
Islam has problems with sexism and it’s not comparable to western sexism because of the obstacles to reform that exist in Islam. Those who ignorantly glide past this fact are like the white people Alice Walker describes, who tripped over themselves to support Idi Amin because they thought it was the righteous, liberal thing to do.
I don’t know what sort of problems Australia has with religious intolerance, and I’m not in a position to tell them what to do about it. But we are not going to stomp over the bones of Muslim victims in Egypt or Saudi Arabia just because there were victims in New Zealand.
In the same light that some people may sympathise with their positions they can still condemn their actions. In the UK the issue of Northern Ireland has caused deeply condemnable actions on both sides. I can sympathise with both sides to a certain degree, yet I’m still capable of condemning acts by both too. Of course such conflicts are much more closer to home than the middle east so we have at least some better appreciation of the general cultural substructures and the history surrounding it (as clouded and murky as it is due to propaganda on both sides and purposeful misuse of information to bolster position a or b). It does certainly appear that Islam needs a reformation of some kind yet due to the sociopolitical structures, the geopolitic climate, the economics (resource management), and the doctrines of the various sects and ethnic divisions, it doesn’t appear to be a religious institute that is going to come quietly into the 21st century.
From my sparse knowledge on the subject I’d say the key lies with Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi’s cannot bring about some kind of reform (and there are some signs that this is beginning to happen despite the current slump) then it will likely bolster the Iranian opposition and create another kind of horror. I don’t really think the religious institutions are to blame in and of themselves, but I’m not letting them off the hook easily either! Human societies will continue to struggle balancing secular ideas with religious ones in terms of law and order - I think they’re BOTH necessary for a productive society yet I also believe that “religion” as a whole possesses something important beyond the superficial view of some people by regarding it all as “backwards” and “archaic”; by this I don’t necessarily mean what you think I mean. I convey opposition to any authority yet I also understand a need for authority (my general need to fight back is due to my displeasure with any idea of ABSOLUTE authority be it from a “religious” perspective or otherwise).
I would say that generally speaking “western” ideals have led to great moral and economic progress. It’s been a bumpy road and much blood has been spilt along the way.
I got no reply from the poster of the OP about my replies. I asked why such obvious inferences and conflations were being made and what the point of them was. I’m assuming no reply will be forth coming but now I’ve said this maybe a calm reply will come my way?
Note: everyone writes something that could’ve put across in a more concise manner. I assume the OP may have not meant to convey message X yet some have taken it to mean X. Once that is established then we can possibly discuss and compare our views on the matter (I’m sure what it is yet!)
The post that Banno made on this thread is the most repugnant and absurd comment I've ever read. The logic used is nonsensical, the insinuation is offensive and he's leveraging a tragedy for political purposes. Clearly, we've interpreted it very differently and so let's not argue about that. I still don't understand why "othering" is important here. What accountability should non-Muslims be taking for Muslims and what is being denied by "othering"?
As for my thoughts about OP, It's not interesting. Most of the posters on this thread are just really immature. @StreetlightX @Banno @christian2017 @Maw and maybe I missed a few are guilty of the same thing as OP which is taking an extremely complicated and large thing like a religion being followed by a billion people or the West and taking a sliver of truth as using that to create venomous generalisations. I call this problem an issue of interpretative relevance and the named people don't even attempt to be balanced or nuanced, it's shameful.
Any kind of Islam vs the West is answered by interpretative relevance and I don't enjoy it. It's also the same with Islam, we all know there are millions of honest, kind and generous Muslims and we all know that some Muslims do terrible things in the name of their religion. We all know Islam has some vile interpretations (at least from a Non-Muslim perspective) but we also know that there are many interpretations of Islam which are much like reformed Christianity. I would argue that some people downplay how bad it is and many people who ignore every other factor in order to throw salt.
I believe that Muslims should be judged for what they believe and do and not the religion they follow, even if the two can be linked.
As for specifically what OP says, I am a complete moral relativist, he says the West is objectively more moral than Islamic countries and so obviously, I disagree.
It's a matter of interpretative relevance, I don't agree with his analysis but I don't agree with any of the other posters in this thread either. The issue is that there is no "Islam", it's a religion based off a convoluted book written over a thousand years ago, seemingly mostly in poetry and to this day many people make a living studying and interpreting what the Quran and the other relevant materials mean. Islamic scholars don't even agree with each other and when you break things down into further nuance, every single practitioner of Islam integrates their beliefs differently into the various aspects of their thinking and the way they live.
So I think there's no way to say what is and is not the "real" Islam and people should just give up even trying to declare there is one.
You’ve obviously led a sheltered life then ;) haha! I’m poking fun a little ... forgive me!
The “othering” goes both ways. The Muslim population says “they’re not us” and the Australian population says “he doesn’t represent us”. Either you you agree with both or neither of these statements.
If banno is suggesting that it’s okay for muslims to allow their “religion” to be sullied by the actions of fanatics but it’s not okay for others to do so, then yes, it is very reckless and detestable statement and I’d require a more fuller explanation of this position - I may have wrongly assumed he didn’t mean what you think he means; or rather what I think you think he means? (I could go on trying to guard myself but I think y’ get the idea.)
The general underlying point seems to me to be that we’re incredibly quick to distance ourselves from another’s crime so as not to face up to the fact that we’re capable of the same kind of acts (being human) and that the societal norms we’re born into may just have played a part in the crimes. The veery fact that we can consider these crimes is a good thing - in and of itself it’s little more than misdirected “action” given the form of outrage without consideration of what leading human beings to commit such extraordinary acts.
Regardless of religious attitudes it seems to me that people are just pretty confused creatures floundering around trying to make sense of something so vast and overwhelming complex that they inevitably resort to chaotic forms of madness brought on by holding to some form of “authoritarian rule” because their day-to-day interactions with the world leave them emotionally destitute for any number of complex reasons that may be little more than simply having too much or too little social interaction. Today we’re forced to deal with “others” all the time and often against our will. The weltanschuuang has a modernist form of infinitude that leads us to either face our existential being, turn to nihilism or disregard the infinitude we’re faced with and resort to a “religiosity” of some format.
And we have a winner for the "Illogical statement of the day"-competition.
Continuing with your immaturity with the "yawn", I enjoy the consistency. Australian citizens commit rape, murder, steal, commit incest, betray people, believe the Earth is flat and the list the goes on. So either it's fair to say Australia has a rape culture, doesn't value loyalty or other peoples' property and is anti-science or Australia is filled with individuals who each make their own choices and some of those don't jive well with the rest of the population or the culture. Let's actually look at his comments
Quoting Banno
He explicitly states that the PM has cuplability in the mass murder of dozens of innocent people because he makes negative comments (not exactly sure what) about Islam. Instead of "othering" a mass murderer, he wants us to what? Take a good look in the mirror at how we're part of the problem?
I agree with that your comment is not factually untrue, the problem is that the West refers to over a dozen countries with distinct cultures and your only approach to the situation is to talk about the undemocratic, covert operations carried out by a handful of people, relatively speaking. You aren't correct just because you said something true, I wonder if that will fly over your head or not.
You think that Muslims should be judged for being Muslim rather than as individuals? You can't blame an individual for your problems with the group they belong to especially when the reasons you dislike the group aren't even applicable for a specific member, surely you agree?
I do agree with both though those examples are not similar. A more reasonable comparison might be school shootings in the US because here we've got the same thing happening many times over by different people all across the country.
I'm not sure I understand or agree with how you've characterised my problem with Banno's post. I have further explained to StreetlightX.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't disagree at all with this but you're just being generous to Banno, this isn't even close to what he's talking about and I feel like that's farily obvious based on his insinuations and earlier comments in this thread.
I think you're taking a needed philosophical approach to the topic which is sadly lacking in most of the posts here. We need to take a specific problem to have meaningful dialogue about it, OP kind of set us up for a bad time I think.
Is this abhorrent to you?
Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is. And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities, immigrants, and the poor, and all the rest of it. Why is it so horrifying for you that this might be the case?
Banno, is my interpretation of your words overly generous or not? I can see what Judaka is inferring and I believe their interpretation is lacking generosity yet it does appear easy enough to view your words as being a “conflation” too.
I get the impression if people don’t reply either they missed the post, disagreed so strongly that they couldn’t bring themselves to reply, or agreed so strongly that it felt pointless remarking - I often naively assume the later to boost my ego and sense of self-importance! :D
Generally speaking Judaka I find the OP poor and have voiced my concerns about this already.
It's not a question of truth, it's a question of interpretation. I don't blame you for terrorist attacks on the West by Muslims because you are publicly talking about how badly the West has ruined things for them. People who dislike and express concerns about Islam (for whatever reason) aren't culpable for mass murder in any sense.
What I think is that you don't care whether you can actually demonstrate that the culture is the problem or not. Do you actually think you could win an argument about whether Australia has a bigger rape/domestic violence problem than the majority of countries in the world? Oh right, by the way, those things happen across the world, that's why your list of problems for Australian culture is garbage, the cause of these problems can't be found in the flaws of a single culture.
Between your response to OP and your response to me, it is clear that you are making very specific interpretative choices. Your way of thinking is not balanced, I don't know exactly why you choose to interpret what you do and the way in which you do but it is clearly pathological.
Perhaps you can point out where I said they are. Or where I spoke of a 'single culture'. Perhaps my pathology is a function of your illiteracy.
No. Just as Christians shouldn't be judged as Christian, but as individuals.
My point is that the beliefs of a Muslim, by it's definition of a muslim being an adherent of Islam, means that they follow their religion. Hence your statement earlier is illogical.
Explain this comment.
Quoting StreetlightX
So your position is that rape and domestic violence are cultural issues for all the cultures in which these things take place? Rather than just admitting that even if a culture condemns those things, they happen anyway because the cause isn't cultural? Which would be logical considering it's obvious to anyone with any sense that most of the said cultures (or at least people living in them) explicitly condemn those things? If not that, then at least in Australia.
I think we have a different understanding of what "judged" means. I was not saying Muslims don't follow Islam lol.
Get stuffed. I'm not giving you a crash course on Australian politics because you think I'm implying something that I did not. Maybe you can read up about the time that parliament here literally put forward a racist meme to be voted on. Or the time Morrison argued that the party should play up anti-Muslim sentiment for votes. Or read up on the multiple instances of race and immigrant baiting documented everywhere by Morrison and his shithouse of a cabinet (read up on 'Sudanese gangs' in Melbourne). Or how Morrison resisted for weeks before deciding to put preference votes (do you even know what those are?) of a literal racist party behind those of Labour. No, if you think that I'm calling him out because he merely 'dislikes and expresses concerns about Islam', then your ignorance is yours to deal with, not mine. Educate yourself before you spout this trash.
Quoting Judaka
My position is that Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues such as rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities and immigrants and all the rest of it. Your word salad of a translation of this is senseless and doesn't even get the subject of the sentence right (hint: it's 'Australia', not 'culture'), let alone anything else. Get the basic grammar right and maybe there'll be a bare minimum of a discussion to be had.
Yes, although I didn't realize Banno does it too. What's odd is that it's a heavily emotional thing, but robotic at the same time. I don't think the people who do it fully realize they're doing it.
I don't even know what to say before I start dealing with your post let's look back at how we got here.
Quoting Banno
You can't talk to me about how ignorant I am for not assuming your dislike of Morrison was caused by your little list when the origin of this conversation came from a post which is explicitly saying the problem with Morrison is similar to what's in OP, which is clearly nothing like your list and can be generally summarised as anti-Islamic sentiment.
You backed Banno's claim and without adding any nuance to the differences between his perspective and your own.
Quoting StreetlightX
But okay, I am not interested in a discussion on Morrison, you are right that I am ignorant about politics, mainly because I don't care much about it.
Quoting StreetlightX
What do you think the relationship between Australian culture and rape/domestic violence is?
The West has done both historically and presently exactly the same.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
So you are going to make an argument on the west supremacy, got it!
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Sure they do:
“Punish a Muslim Day” started off last month, with a number of anonymous letters arriving at the homes of Muslims in the north of England, the Midlands and east London. Four Muslim MPs received it, including at least one copy being received in parliament, leading to a security alert. The letter boasted of horrific “rewards”, encouraging people to carry out attacks on Muslims, including torture, burning down mosques and throwing acid in Muslims’ faces."
Source:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/04/love-a-muslim-day-counter-islamophobia
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
That is debatable, especially in America considering "free speech advocates believe free speech is only extended to people of a certain mindset, and in these cases usually people who are white, and right-wing conservative. That is based on social conversation, but lawfully yes we have "decreed speech" but we do not have absolute free speech. That means in an at-will state I can still get fired for expressing my "free views" on social media.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Yet, women still suffer from inequality in the work force as well as suffering socially due to rape culture, and other elements of toxic patriarchy.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Yes. Telling people of the world how to live the "correct way" in accordance to how it is done here in the western world. Yes, the west has done a lot, but it also has done a lot to usurp communities that were once peaceful.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
You just ruined your argument with the bold remark.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
We are not entirely democratic because everything in the west is not completely equal. This is why civil rights continues to become a relevant issue because western society is still continuing to evolve itself. When you talk about terms of superiority and inferiority you open up Pandora's box to critique aspects of western powers.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
This is the same argument racist whites like to impart to African-Americans: "You owe us for slavery because if it wasn't for us, you'd be living in mud huts." Your comment is not only bigoted but illogical, but continue.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Your whole entire argument is not only bigoted, but juvenile and not even put together to convince me philosophically to think otherwise.
This.
This is a philosophy forum and I would at least expect someone to construct a philosophical argument at least partially academic for their approach to the subject. But no, this is the ramblings of some nut job who most likely will go to a mosque and kill another 50 people.
Is this the right approach, I wonder? You seem to be replacing one claim of superiority with another, opposing, claim. I rather suspect neither POV can be justified, perhaps because neither of them is correct? :chin:
You seldomly don't hear (from Christians) that Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions you mean.
I agree. I largely think some of the posters on this forum are very young, and if they're not young, then they're either:
A) A college dropout failure
B) Never went to college
C) Live in a basement with underdeveloped social skills.
I think people need to stop watching Faux news for their understanding of reality.
Are you saying that Banno, StreetlightX, and Maw all live in the same basement? Or separate ones?
The OP is exactly like 'my list'. It's an effort to encourage a cultural and religious pissing contest where a full one sixth of the human population is declared inferior on the back of a destructive caricature that feeds the very flames it decries. It's as bullshit as any claim my wanker of a PM has ever uttered.
Quoting Judaka
The latter exists preponderantly in the former. It's really not that complicated.
LOOL WTF?
You're the worst of the lot. Have you ever made a post on this forum which wasn't about racism, sexism or anti-Islamic sentiment?
Rape is a part of Australian culture? :lol:
Quoting StreetlightX
Your interpretations are charming as always, isn't he arguing it's the religion and culture which is inferior and not every practitioner?
Even if Morrison was saying or encouraging others to say or think that Islam is an inferior culture and religion (isn't this covered by "disliking Islam" how did I get lambasted for that?) he still isn't culpable for an environment which creates mass murderers. He didn't incite violence, he didn't condone violence and you and others like you are just utilising the tragedy to increase the punch of the condemning of a practice you don't like.
Do I need to keep quiet any problems I have with any culture and religion? Banno said Christianity was a morally bankrupt religion while simultaneously blaming anti-Islamic sentiment for the Christchurch massacre, do you at least see the hypocrisy in that?
I would agree that democratic rule is superior to theocratic rule. We really don't have current day Christian theocracies to use for comparison against the number of Muslim theocracies. The only current day Christian theocracy is Vatican City, but that serves more as a headquarters to the Catholic Church and there are no rank and file citizens with no affiliation to the Church.
The "Western system" is a secular system. A Muslim system, by definition, is not. If you're pointing out that Muslim nations allow their religious leaders too much authority, I would agree, but I would object as much to having Christian influence imposed upon me in a Western nation. Keep in mind though that this is an argument for secularism over theocracy, which I do agree with.
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
This says more than the OP by claiming that Christianity specifically (as opposed to "the West") is superior to Islam. I'd probably guess you're Christian from this statement. I happen to be Jewish, and I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile conversation for me to tell you how Judaism is superior to Christianity, what with it's silly reliance upon a magical messiah that supposedly arose from the dead.
I'm going to further speculate that you're Catholic, which would then allow me to launch into an attack on the Catholic Church, just to show you how morally corrupt they are, which really arises out of a fairly absurd ideology that demands grown men repress all sexual desires. What I think is that you ought be Mormon actually, as the life expectancy and quality of life is far better in Utah than in Nevada, which I think owes itself to that strange breed of Christianity revolving around gold tablets or some other such nonsense that they practice so devoutly there.
You're naive in the extreme if you think a person's beliefs and ways of life are not intimately constitutive of who they are, and that comments on the former do not in anyway bear on the latter.
Quoting Judaka
Correct, I am condemning the murder of 50 people and the conditions which lead to it, as should anyone who isn't a complete wanker. Which includes enablers like Morrison and his dog whistling fuckery. But of course, this isn't a conversation you're capable of having, having proudly flaunted your deliberate ignorance of politics, as though this was not a mark of deep shame. What you say about Morrison has no standing. You kicked your own stool away from yourself.
Quoting Judaka
Not at all. All religion should get fucked as far as I'm concerned, including Islam. The problem with the OP isn't that it 'has problems with a culture and religion'; it's that it conceptualizes them in ways so thin and shallow as to be not only useless but actively harmful. Anyone who wants to talk about religion and culture without at the same time talking economics, politics, and social conditions is a priori ruled out of having anything meaningful whatsoever to say. The OP presents a shallow story for piddling minds.
Do you really think it's "most likely" our poster is a Christian terrorist, or is this post just more hyperbole devoid of philosophical or academic value?
I say this largely disagreeing with the OP, feeling it's really knee jerk reaction to well publicized accounts of Muslim terrorism on Western targets and the obvious observation that many Muslim nations are in undeveloped parts of the world. I think we can blame our poster for having an emotive and not fully nuanced view, but I think we shouldn't be dismissive of the question of whether there is something about Islam that has left its followers in nations centuries behind the West in so many areas of development. A woman's role in those societies, for example, is not at all acceptable to us in Western countries. We can't just shrug that off without accepting a problematic moral relativism.
My point here is that I agree with you that it's a waste of time to shout "My religion is better than yours!" and expect any change. I think it's also a waste of time to yell back at them calling them murderers. Our poster poses no threat to anyone.
Quoting StreetlightX
Okay, but all the same, it's your own personal interpretation that it "bears on the latter" and you've interpreted how it does that for them and as usual in an uncharitable way. I disagree with the beliefs of many people but I don't use that as a basis to claim superiority over them. I disagree with the way of life of many people but I don't think those people are inferior to me. You are just being unreasonable to hurt those you disagree with, as usual.
Quoting StreetlightX
I'm satisfied that I know enough to vote my values, what's your list of great accomplishments? Decrying rape culture in Australia and showing up at a few far left rallies? I'm glad you're condemning the massacre, good on you, gold star. Stop using it politically and talking about conditions and causes without sufficient (or any) evidence.
You know what, you actually think there's a rape culture in Australia, I am done wasting my time talking to you. Fxdrake or whatever his name is, another mod on this forum is a similarly poor thinker who utilises unreasonable, hostile interpretations for political leverage, just like you. I can't help but think there is an explanation but maybe it's just a coincidence.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well, at least we agree on something.
That's me! :D
Really? Name several threads I've created talking about racism, and sexism? I'll wait...
But I'd tread carefully on speaking about who is worse because you're certainly not philosophical material when it comes to explaining and defending one's position.
Terrorist no. But it is the type of sensationalist asinine approach to another faith that can develop extremist tendencies or attract others with extremist tendencies. This "we are better than you mentality" is the kind of element extremists especially those on the right side of politics love.
Quoting Hanover
Fine, but the sensationalism behind the approach using the construction of " I am better than you" argument is quite dull and repetitive. Unfortunately a lot of people very often conflate western ideals with U.S. American ideals (I have been guilty of this) and tend to impart the common uneducated misappropriate rant that Americans here often do.
Quoting Hanover
No, but the approach should have been less aggressive and more constructive to where we can all engage collectively to where we can value his opinion. It is almost like asking Andrea Dworkin to talk about patriarchy without vilifying the male persona. The whole "the west is better because" then followed by redundant and rhetorical reasons is not an attractive approach. In addition, to castigate an entire faith for the actions of a few (out of 1.8 billion Muslims Muslim terrorism is a few in comparison to the hundreds to the billion) leaves open to the whataboutisms for other faiths.
Now, I don't like to do a kill count but I'm quite sure both historically and presently, Christianity has killed more than any other faith in the history of mankind. But alas, this isn't about Christianity but considering many evangelicals tend to tout that Christianity has its foundations in the west, then we cannot help but to discuss this faith as well. More importantly, in order to have a viable discussion about Muslim extremism we need to consider the confounding factors that lead up to why some muslims go to the extreme lengths to indoctrinate themselves with extremist ideology, and why such extremist ideologies are attractive.
People forget that Western powers have a hand in influencing whole governments to rebel against their leads and there have been western powers that have abandoned people (the very people they originally had supported) and leaving them like lambs to the slaughter. Look at the case with Saddam Hussein. United States originally supported him then all of a sudden a political shift happened and now he is the bad guy. The same when the United States militarily supported Osama Bin Laden. So yes of course we need to talk about extremism but we need to also address the elements of how extremism happens, why it continues and why there is continued underdevelopment in the Muslim world.
BTW a few underdeveloped countries does not mean the entire Muslim community is poor so I think we need to make that distinction clear.
Quoting Hanover
The same is like that here as well. Whenever we discuss women's rights online a lot of white men seem to be up in arms about why we need to discuss women's rights then most certainly it turns into a shouting match of who is the most oppressed or why we can't force a women to have a baby when she wants an abortion because she was raped and so forth. Yes socially we are improved but we are in no moral position to wag our finger at someone.
Quoting Hanover
I said: Quoting Anaxagoras
Let me rephrase....
What I meant was these beliefs, the whole "we are better than you" motif are the elements of those who have extreme worldviews when it comes to religion and culture. When that coward decided to kill those people in that mosque he held similar supremacist beliefs (of course he was a white nationalist) and one of the elements of these beliefs is the fact that he demonized an entire community and felt that this community was an immediate threat and decided to take it upon himself to do something about it. But in no way am I saying this guy is the same as him, I don't know. What I do know that the key element to extremist views is having a supremacist mindset.
I can't excuse terrorism, regardless of whatever excuse a terrorist might provide, including the unpersuasive "you made me do it with all your hate" argument.
Quoting Anaxagoras
In a single breathe you condemn small minded stereotyping while also stereotyping how Americans tend to act.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I'm not talking about the small number of terrorists, but the rather large number of Muslims living under theocratic rule.Quoting Anaxagoras
It's been quite a few centuries that Christians killed in the name of Christianity, which was my point in referencing the fact that many of the Muslim nations are culturally primitive in terms of acceptance of basic human rights.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I don't think it's forgotten at all, but it forms the common basis for blaming the West for the terrorism exacted upon it by Muslims when it does occur.
Quoting Anaxagoras
You'll have to explain to me why a white male's opinion as to the treatment of women should be discounted because of race and gender. It sounds patently racist and sexist, but perhaps you meant something else. I also don't fully appreciate why women are in a superior position to know when human life begins and why women ought be the final authority of when an abortion is appropriate fetacide and not inappropriate infanticide, so that too needs further explaining.
Regardless, what you describe in terms of Western sexism is child's play when compared to the relegated status of Muslim women in the Muslim world. It's one thing to debate the complex question of when life begins and quite another to institutionalize male superiority through law.
It is entirely possible to separate this out between primitive culture versus primitive religion, with the West's adoption of Christianity making Christianity appear more sophisticated simply because it is the ideology of the more sophisticated peoples. The same holds true within Christianity as well, with the religious views of those in uneducated and unsophisticated regions of the US being far less sophisticated than their more urbanized counterparts. It's why you see snake handling and speaking in tongues in one region and an intellectual approach in the other, despite their reliance upon the same sacred documents. That is to say I'm willing to grant that Islam itself is not the problem, but we can't deny the obvious superiority of life in the US than in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan and those people's reliance upon their religion to support their continued way of life.
What you hear about is of a Judeo-Christian heritage from Christians.
Perhaps some Finnish Bishop might talk about both being Abrahamic religions, but then again he (or she) is here a semi-official here as there is no clear separation of Church and state.
I don't think all Saudi's have it so bad.
An idea for another thread, perhaps: even allowing for substantial feedback between the different levels of inquiry, does it make more sense to look for explanations about "economics, politics, and social conditions" in the study of "religion and culture", or vice versa?
I'm an American. I've observed Americans at their best and their worse. In the United States, many citizens are guilty of this. For example, shortly after 9/11 U.,S. citizens were targeting people of Indian descent because they felt that Indians from India who wore turbans were Muslim. The Indian community had to explain, listen, they had to explain that their turban was a custom in their faith and had no barring on the Islamic religion. All because Americans thought with one broad stroke of a brush assumed people who wore turbans were Muslim. So yes, I do stereotype on a behavior that is quite common here in the states.
Quoting Hanover
Be specific. Can't presuppose a plausible statement if you cannot substantiate that with evidence. There are plenty Muslim dominated countries. But, to help you out, let look at countries with theocracies:
Vatican
Mauritania
Iran
Sudan
Yemen
Afghanistan
highlighting the bold are you saying those five Muslim countries sponsor terrorism because they're theocratic, if so why isn't the Vatican not a part of it? Or were you inferring something else?
Quoting Hanover
Are you implying that there isn't a continuance of killings in the name of Christianity? I can name several white nationalist organizations whose Christian faith is a proponent of their beliefs, and they tend to commit criminal acts, and religion is among those as the reason for their acts. But I'll wait for your interpretation of the above quote.
Quoting Hanover
Which nations that are Muslim are primitive or are you generalizing? Can you specify which country? Let me help you out, there are approximately 50 Muslim countries. Which among the 50 are primitive and what makes them primitive? That is your homework for today.
Quoting Hanover
Because the West does have some sort of blame in all this. I believe the Iranian president made the remark today regarding the Iranian guard being labeled terrorist to the extent of:
"How do you label a nation's military a terrorist organization when you commit terrorist acts yourself? Shall I remind you how an American battleship shot a missile destroying Iran flight 655?"
Of course I was paraphrasing but there is an article on yahoo with the exact quote. Point is, when the United States supports regimes other groups are oppressed by, when we back governments that harm people you create enemies. When you create enemies and these enemies are poor and have no other options you create the perfect recipe for extremism. A great example of this is the Nation of Islam. Due to racism and racist laws many black Americans had no voice nor any rights or protections under the law. If you live a life of oppression all you need is a charismatic leader to influence you that the "white man" is the devil and that you are a divine people. Train a distressed people with discipline, pervert sacred texts for one's own gain, and demonize a target you can create an extremist organization. So yes the western powers do have a hand in this indeed and yes this is why many Muslims even those straddling the moderate to extreme fence believe.
Quoting Hanover
I was making an example but here in the United States and elsewhere, the system of patriarchy was largely white and influenced by white protestant men. Which is why many women's rights groups today are basing their arguments on when it comes to social inequity. When feminists of color argue that white male patriarchy hurts them it doubly affects them on the race as well as gender front. So when men (largely white men) take issue of women fighting for social equity it is something to the effect of:
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Which is the response to a lot of issues concerning women speaking out on sexual abuse, the gap in gender pay etc and the typical male response. That is not to say white male's opinion is not valuable but when it comes to our worldview for a long time we have seen the world through the lens of the white male for far too long and this includes Muslim countries. So yes, when we talk about looking at the world from a different perspective the response from the white male (not all but those who have have the typical patriarchal viewpoint), it is like taking a toy from a toddler. The result is having groups like MGTOW and the like.
Quoting Hanover
Reading is indeed fundamental. Stop reading into things with cognitive dissonance and read, if I wanted to be racist and insult the white demographic I wouldn't use jargon nor waste time writing an entire paragraph. Jesus, read.
Quoting Hanover
Who said this above bullshit? I didn't infer such things. Bro, on another note a woman's body is her body she ultimately has the final say so. until we men start giving birth through a a potential third canal or something crazy we have no say so on what a woman should do with her body no matter how unfair it seems. When you have a full breathing human come out of you then you can determine the fate of such a human. but again we are getting away from the subject.
Quoting Hanover
Although you disagree with the OP (as you said) you sure are going hard in the paint for it....Anyway, yes some of the Muslim countries have a lot to do when it comes to their social order, but hey I'm not concerned about their government I'm concerned about the monkey in this administration who is ruining the image of the U.S. This so-called leader who espouses in glee that he grabs women by the genitalia and that we still have a base that sees nothing wrong with this is alarming. With that being said the finger wagging towards Muslims and their respective countries is like our way of introducing pot and kettle.
Quoting Hanover
Ok.
Quoting Hanover
See, you're no different...So miss me with the "I largely disagree with the OP bullshit. You're full of shit just like the author that wrote this. Christianity is sophisticated huh for sophisticated people? The fuck out of here...I need not responding to the rest of the bullshit you wrote.
Perhaps. The only time I hear about the relationship between all three are usually from scholars from all three faiths.
See the issue with common Christian ignorance when it comes to Islam came to ahead when many evangelicals were calling Allah a "moon god," but they had to readjust their argument when they began to realize that there are Christian Arabs who refer to God as Allah as well just as there is a long history of Jews who re Arab who refer to God as Allah because Arabic is a semitic language among the same language that Jesus himself spoke./
My point was that it was logically inconsistent to blame Americans for the sin of stereotyping when it comes to Muslims and then for you to openly admit to the sin of stereotyping when it comes to how you think Americans stereotypically behave. My objection was that you were being logically inconsistent, something you now admit to.Quoting Anaxagoras
I didn't say anything about the theocratic countries sponsoring terrorism. I objected to theocracies as a general proposition, regardless of whether they were terrorist. Theocratic rule is antithetical to the Western democratic norms, which I do believe superior to Muslim theocratic norms. And, as I noted, and which you didn't respond to: (1) I view Western morality objectively superior because to allow otherwise permits a problematic moral relativism, and (2) the Vatican is a tiny administrative state without any inhabitants that don't choose to be there, so there is minimal oppression there. Quoting Anaxagoras
I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism, but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. My reply was specifically to your comment where you said, "Christianity has killed more than any other faith in the history of mankind," and I correctly pointed out that is very much a historical artifact, referencing the Crusades and the like.Quoting Anaxagoras
As I already noted, those Muslim nations that are theocracies are more primitive the Western democracies, simply by virtue of their deriving their authority from the general will of the people as opposed to their claims their authority comes from God.Quoting Anaxagoras
Sure, and the murderer on the inner city street grew up with nothing and had no other options but to murder, so I'll excuse him as well. The vast majority of those who grow up in difficult situations don't become terrorists, so I'm going to allow for a certain amount of free will here, accepting that there are always two paths one can travel, and holding those responsible who choose the worse path.Quoting Anaxagoras
I'm pointing out you were racist and sexist in your comments, regardless of whether you could have been more blatantly so. You specifically discounted the opinions of white men due to their being white men. You may think your discrimination against those based upon race and sex is justified, but all racists and sexists do. I'm not just hurling an insult at you by calling you names. I'm pointing out that your comments intentionally or not are in fact racist and sexist.
Quoting Anaxagoras
You specifically brought up abortion and indicated that a woman has the right to decide whether to abort or not. So it was you who brought up what you now describe as bullshit. You didn't imply it, you explicitly stated it, and you do so here again. The idea that an expectant mother can choose to abort at the 8th month, for example, is a radical view that you're taking. If you don't think you've presented that as your position, re-read what you've said. My point remains: the question of what is a protectable human life is a question both men and women have the right to answer. Even Roe v. Wade permits this,Quoting Anaxagoras
You're claiming logical equivalency between the Trump presidency and Muslim theocracy?Quoting Anaxagoras
Yes, the Christian theology being taught at Harvard, for example, is quite different than the Christianity being taught in the hills of Arkansas. The Islam being taught in Harvard is also quite different from that being taught by Hamas.
As to your last comment, is throwing yourself on the floor and having a temper tantrum effective in other aspects of your life?
Terrorism and Radicalism are phenomena of the last two centuries. Islam has not been like this always.
Henceforth, you cannot leave aside all the political, geographical, historical and social issues when you describe Islam and Muslims.
I do not doubt that the ideology and values of Islam differ from Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, but I do not know how we can build a discussion on Muslim values, when so many other things are going on on the Muslim world.
Facts:
The most dangerous region in the world (if you exclude war zones), according to CIA Facts Book, is Central America (where 98% of the people believe in Jesus Christ).
Pollution and destruction of the global natural resources have been caused mostly by the West.
Ok. I misunderstood you, this I understand.
Quoting Hanover
Well as a general rule wouldn't you say without singling out a single theocracy, that generally theocratic rule itself is antithetical to democracy?
Quoting Hanover
I missed it.
Quoting Hanover
And you know this because its not in the news or have you been there? It is still a theocracy and going by your position regardless whether there is a presence of oppression isn't theocracy socially and politically against the foundation of what democracy stands for anyway?
Quoting Hanover
Really? You seem biased:
6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups our media conveniently ignores
1. The Army of God
"A network of violent Christianists that has been active since the early 1980s, the Army of God openly promotes killing abortion providers—and the long list of terrorists who have been active in that organization has included Paul Jennings Hill (who was executed by lethal injection in 2003 for the 1994 killings of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett), John C. Salvi (who killed two receptionists when he attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts in 1994) and Eric Rudolph, who is serving life in prison for his role in the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996 and other terrorist acts. Rudolph, in fact, has often been exalted as a Christian hero on the Army of God’s website, as have fellow Army of God members such as Scott Roeder (who is serving life without parole for murdering Wichita, Kansas-based abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009), Shelley Shannon (who attempted to kill Tiller in 2003) and Michael Frederick Griffin (who is serving a life sentence for the 1993 killing of Dr. David Gunn, an OB-GYN, in Pensacola, Florida)."
2. Eastern Lightning, a.k.a. the Church of the Almighty God
"Eastern Lightning members Zhang Lidong and his daughter, Zhang Fan, were convicted of murder for the crime and executed in February. In a 2014 interview in prison, Lidong expressed no remorse when he said of Shuoyan, “I beat her with all my might and stamped on her too. She was a demon. We had to destroy her.”
3. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)
"The LRA, according to Human Rights Watch, has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings—and along the way, its terrorism spread from Uganda to parts of the Congo, the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan. The word “jihadist” is seldom used in connection with the LRA, but in fact, the LRA’s tactics are not unlike those of ISIS or Boko Haram."
4. TheNational Liberation Front of Tripura
"India is not only a country of Hindus and Sikhs, but also, of Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants. Most of India’s Christians are peaceful, but a major exception is the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT). Active in the state of Tripura in Northeastern India since 1989, NLFT is a paramilitary Christianist movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government in Tripura."
5. The Phineas Priesthood
White supremacist groups don’t necessarily have a religious orientation: some of them welcome atheists as long as they believe in white superiority. But the Christian Identity movement specifically combines white supremacist ideology with Christianist terrorism, arguing that violence against non-WASPs is ordained by God and that white Anglo Saxon Protestants are God’s chosen people."
6. The Concerned Christians
"In 1999, Israeli officials arrested 14 members of the Concerned Christians in Jerusalem and deported them from Israel because they suspected them of plotting terrorist attacks against Muslims. One likely target, according to Israeli police, was Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque—the same mosque that was targeted in 1969 (when a Christianist from Australia named Denis Michael Rohan unsuccessfully tried to destroy it by arson) and, Israeli police suspect, was a likely target in 2014 (when Adam Everett Livix, a Christianist from Texas, was arrested by Israeli police on suspicion of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem)."
Source:https://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/
I know, I know I'm sure you'll move the goal post after learning about this...
Quoting Hanover
No True Scotsman now?
I can tell you don't do research.....To much "I don't think" and "I believe" usage. Next time come with facts to substantiate your claims. you're talking to a researcher not some armchair scholar.
What you said is all facts. Ironic people don't do the research to see this.
No matter how academically intelligent someone is, they are still susceptible in developing or lack thereof poor social skills. Now, this ONE encounter I'm sure left a bad taste in your mouth. After all, if some south east Asian told me according to their faith anyone who wore a Cowboys sweatshirt needs to be decapitated I'd be disturbed.
Quoting tim wood
So you drew your opinion regarding Islam from one encounter? I'd hate to see what you think of other people in the world if you encountered someone of a certain demographic and the encounter was negative.
Quoting tim wood
So wait, did you draw the inference that because he was intelligent academically this somehow traverse to be knowledgeable and accurate socially? My friend this is the wrong time to draw these types of parallels. I am no scholar in Islam but I know enough of the basics of Islam plus kalam plus parts of Hadfith and Shari'ah Law to know that killing someone unjustly and without provocation nor in the interest of defending one's property is a sin in Islam. your Pakistani friend is for the lack of a better word, a dumbass and I'm sure if I met him and challenged him to recite Suratul Al-Ihklas off the top of his head he wouldn't know it.
Quoting tim wood
The problem with your story is you took the example of one dumbass Pakistani who is more than likely Muslim by culture than Muslim by spirituality. Averroes the philosopher believed that using one's intellect is central to the tenants of Islam. Your friend, whom you referred laughably as intelligent said that if he was obliged to kill you, he would. Obviously he isn't exercising the most important faculty of the brain which is his frontal lobe considering that off the impulse and encouragement of another, he would take the life of a human being. When in fact the Qur'an says the following:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God does not love transgressors” (2:190).
Which means to defend yourself against those that mean you harm, but if they stop then you must stop and not transgress.
"take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that you may learn wisdom" (Koran 6:151).
"that if anyone killed a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land" (Koran 5:32).
Yes, for all intensive purposes your Pakistani friend was an idiot of his own faith and not as smart as you thought he was. Like I said before, there are plenty of Muslims who are Muslim by culture and not by spirituality or religion. I'm no Muslim, but its funny how I see so many Muslims saying dumb shit like your friend all the time as if they know their religion but what they are doing is parroting shit they learn from either their family, or their immediate community.
I know what the Vatican is because I am generally educated, not because I've been there. As to my claims that it is tiny (it's 110 acres), it has a very small population (approximately 1,000) and there is no rank and file involuntary citizenship (citizenship is obtained by selection and service to the church), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Citizenship. Comparing the Vatican to Saudi Arabia, for example, to prove that Christians similarly have theocracies seems quite a stretch.
You then cite the following from my prior post:
Quoting Anaxagoras
In response to this, you cite 6 instances of terrorist groups that use Christianity in support of their terror.
Anticipating that I might not find your examples persuasive, you state:
Quoting Anaxagoras
The problem with this line of discussion is that it is terribly disingenuous because it inaccurately cites me and then it accuses me of changing facts to support my claim. What I actually said was:
Quoting Hanover Emphasis added
What this means is that I didn't move the goalposts, but what I did was admit that there are Christians who do unChristian things in the name of Christianity, and I didn't deny that occurs with Muslims as well. What you've done is to remove a critical part of my post and then prove to me that the critical part of my post shouldn't have been removed by you.
Quoting Anaxagoras
This is all ad hom. Your analysis of me and of yourself, even if correct, is irrelevant, designed only to self-congratulate and offend.
Morrison, Dutton, the Liberal party, et al, have been terrible with respect to the postion of Muslims in the Australian community. Their rhetoric and understanding of Muslim has been postioning them as an outsider and a threat for years. Parts of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto read exactly like comments our politicians have made. They been drumming up and trading on anti-islamic sentiment for years.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What exactly are you referring to?
The various comments the Muslim community being distinct from the Australian one, dog whistles about our identity bring lost to migrant (and Muslim) interlopers, the underlying notion we are a superiority Australian community to which the Muslims living here do not belong. They've been barraging us with it for years.
There are 50 Muslim countries. Your position was generalized towards other theocracies but you are only talking about one theocratic government.
Quoting Hanover
Because in reality I knew you'd move goal posts. In addition to that I knew you were heading towards the "No True Scotsman" argument as you emphasized:
Quoting Hanover
Since the emphasis was added, can we also emphasize that out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the government including some of the Muslims in political power we can say the same for the particularly misguided ones or do we not extend that same favor?
Quoting Hanover
You didn't deny but you did not affirm the position either. you're affirming the position of Christians yet you're not doing it for Muslims which leads me to believe you're leaving it ambiguous. I was very clear in my position that there are Christians who do commit to violence using their religion just like any other faith in the world.
Quoting Hanover
Because when I am going to substantiate a claim I rather use evidence to substantiate a claim as opposed to using dialectical arguments to support my position. If I'm going to say X is true, i need evidence to support that X is true. I do not mean to offend you but it is quite frustrating that you've taken over the OP's position right after you proclaim to have said that at most, you disagree with the OP, several responses later, I find myself thinking that you're position and the Op's position is the same, you're just articulating it differently using conjecture and jargon.
It is distinct in some ways obviously, what that should mean is another thing entirely. Muslims living abroad is another matter than Muslims living here now and "underlying notions" too vague to take at face value.
I've heard the anti-Muslim immigration and to be honest, I support it, I don't think the West has been even remotely responsible with it so far. It's a very difficult situation. I would not agree with treating Australian-Muslims differently based on their religion but here's the problem with rhetoric in politics, attacks on individuals and beliefs are interpreted as assaults on the group.
Rooting out Islam extremist, preventing terrorism, handling immigration responsibly and with the intention of assimilation, criticising aspects of Islam like sharia law and many negative interpretations. All that and more is valid and necessary and if it makes Muslims feel like they don't belong here or non-Muslims feel that Muslims don't belong here then the solution can't come from failing to do those aforementioned things and much more, which is all necessary.
It probably happened that the liberal party has overstepped what was necessary or failed to do that which was necessary to protect and integrate Australian-Muslims. I do not think it is as bad as you say.
In understanding obligatory Jihad, one must understand what Jihad means in context to hadith/Qur'an. I'm no scholar, but from my limited understanding of Jihad which means struggle, the greater Jihad is the spiritual maintenance of oneself when they are engaged in the world. Maintaining their duties as Muslims such as prayer, paying the "poor rate," being kind, going to work, having the right mind and mentality etc. An argument could be made being a Muslim of sound mind and that is rightly guided means one is in a struggle for Jihad. Military campaigns are minor when it comes to the concept of Jihad as opposed to the greater Jihad which is the struggle within oneself:
"Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment."
Source:http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
Quoting tim wood
There are only two conceptually, the minor (military, diplomacy, economic etc) and major (struggle with oneself spiritually and religiously).
Quoting tim wood
Unfortunately, fatwas or religious edicts have been the subject of controversy, and even some are just downright abnormal. I was actually looking for some popular ones but came across a New York times article that discusses some ridiculous ones:
"CAIRO — First came the breast-feeding fatwa: It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times. Then came the urine fatwa: It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing........
For many Muslims, fatwas, or religious edicts, are the bridge between the principles of their faith and modern life. They are supposed to be issued by religious scholars who look to the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad for guidance.
While the more sensational pronouncements grab attention, the bulk of the fatwas involve the routine of daily life. In Egypt alone, thousands are issued every month.
The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued and many rely on ideology more than learning."
Source:https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/africa/11iht-fatwa.4.6098135.html
So as you can see, a lot of these so-called religious scholars trying to bring people back into the fold of Islam largely are seemingly influenced by their own self-perception of the world and by politics. Much like how local mayors can present a city ordinance, similarly the same is said for the so-called scholars, the problem with that is the people in various Muslim countries are under obligation to observe them.
Quoting tim wood
That is debatable. If we are talking about reason, then where is the reason behind right to life and death penalty? What is the reason behind evangelicals thinking a zygote is a human and has the capacity and same rights as a human? Much less the capacity and rights like that of a new born baby? What about Christians who drink poison and handle venomous snakes? Does that sound reasonable to you, or are you making an anecdotal reference to the Christians you know versus the Muslims you barely or don';t know?
As someone who has grown up Christian for most of his childhood into adult life I've been subjected to some strange behaviors of Christians who didn't seem to reason. Very often many Christians seemed to have castigated others simply because they are not of the faith. How is this reasonable? You'd find many Christians and Muslims who are conservative are very much the same.
Quoting tim wood
Muslims are like you and me here in the states. They go to basketball games, and do daily activities all the damn time and you rarely hear about it. Crime in the United States are committed by more Christian Americans than any other religious group. Sure there are more Christians here in the states but going back to what you're saying about reason, it sounds like more American Christians act more unreasonable than there Muslim counterparts. Arguing otherwise comes from a position of bias because the research does not lie:
Americans are more likely to be attacked by far-right terrorists than Islamists
"(According to the Investigative Fund, an independent journalism organisation, “far-right plots and attacks outnumber Islamist incidents by almost two to one.”)
And the reason for Trump’s PC position? It’s straightforward – if scary. “Radical Islamic terrorists” aren’t part of his base. “White supremacist terrorists” are."
Source:https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/03/americans-are-more-likely-be-attacked-far-right-terrorists-islamists
Quoting tim wood
Well, I'm not Muslim but I believe I grow as I learn and continue to exist in life. I believe the average Muslim at least from my personal experience as well as in the religious text, are responsible for their own soul which is why they are full aware of their own religious eschatology.
Sorry the long post.
Your debasement does though!
I more or less agree with this.
Quoting Maw
But this is wrong. Can one criticize the West as such? Can one criticize Islam as such? Even though I may have indulged in both in the past, in the end I think both kinds of criticism are pretty stupid. Notice that both of these stupid criticisms have appeared in this discussion.
Why ignore the point made? Show some balance or forever look a fool whose own words harms his position.
It is kind of backwards to espouse views about conservatives being mostly bigoted and homophobic on one hand yet defending a religion, the members of whom applaud terrorism quite openly in numerous countries with high muslim populations, yet you’re willing to lump together others to suit your agenda.
I do imagine that the vast majority of muslims in western countries are perfectly respectable people with perfectly respectable ideas and views (firsthand experience would back this up). As for views and actions in other nations ... nope! In Brunei the sultan has just brought stoning of homosexuals back. You seem obsessed with viewing all human affairs through a US lens.
If one wants to criticize either, they should point out moral flaws and historical failings, but that would inevitably entail acknowledging a multiplicity of moral values and historicity, if one wanted to be intellectually honest, and given the context of the thread there is no intellectual honesty that can emerge from this conversation.
Why and which part of it? What things have been done and were left done that you consider irresponsible?
But politicians know quite well how their words will be interpreted by most. A lot of people think Muslims are the problem, where before 9/11 it wasn't Muslims but Johnny Foreigner in general. The discourse changed and so did people's attitude to groups. Nuance dies a quiet death in most discussions about this subject.
Why must it be assimilation? If I were to move to Saudi-Arabia or Abu Dhabi am I supposed to give up my cultural roots? I'm not supposed to listen to Dutch music, not go to church but should go to a Mosque? Not eat potatoes but couscous instead? etc. etc. There's examples of "ghettos" that are very successful in lining up second generation immigrants to participate (more) fully in the host country, without significant loss of cultural heritage.
As to Sharia. There's an interesting discussion to be had about freedom of choice, contract and religion here as well. Why should I not subject myself to a Sharia tribunal if I were to choose that freely? There's certainly an issue where people are forced or coerced to accept a Sharia tribunal but that is not the same as having issue with the application of Sharia to begin with, which you seem to do.
I mean, is it really so different to enter into a contract between two Dutch persons (where I live) and elect a Hong Kong tribunal and Hong Kong law to govern the contract? This is entirely possible now. Why is Sharia to be treated differently than Hong Kong law? If the result isn't contrary to ordre public there's no reason for the local legal order not to accept giving effect to it.
As to not feeling like they belong; I think the foreigner, irrespective of his religious persuasion, belongs in the Netherlands if he got here legally. Why should the feelings of people who feel this foreigner doesn't belong be taken more seriously than my feelings? It's all well and good you think Muslims shouldn't belong in Dutch society but I happen to disagree.
I think what is needed in, for instance, Dutch society, is a broad discussion on what we think a fair and just immigration policy should look like. I don't think that should focus on Muslims but should be general and true for anyone wishing to permanently settle in the Netherlands from outside of the EU. What's too much and what isn't? What about fugitives?
I've already had multiple arguments on this thread about interpreting what politicians mean, it's not black and white and amateur thinkers believe their interpretations need to be contended with like facts. Even interpreting what I mean is a struggle for those who are overly sensitive about this topic. Islam gets special treatment from a lot of people, to protect and demonize, it isn't treated for what it is.
What is absolutely clear to me is that Islam can be a religion of peace and charity, promoting good values IF you meet the person who interprets Islam to be that way. That is not what Islam is but it is what Islam can be (and thus is for that person) and when Islam is fine then it's fine. Take away Islam, forget the reasoning for their beliefs and if their beliefs are within the realms of acceptability in Western society then we're 99% of the way to not caring about this person's Islam.
Assimilation means intermingling, shared language, shared core values, integration into workforce and communities. If you moved to Saudi Arabia and moved into a Dutch-neighbourhood and never learned proper Arabic or shared any values with the people living there, yeah, you're not even part of the country as far as I'm concerned.
I don't care about music or what you eat, this is where context is important because there's no value in overexaggerating how similar "Australians" and then contrasting it to Muslims. I watch anime, listen to all kinds of music but dislike generic Western music, most of my hobbies are not well regarded such as even philosophy and I disagree with people politically on a far more profound level than I disagree with peaceful interpretations of Islam.
Small cultural conclaves seem harmless but once they become large enough to be a political force and cause social problems, the lack of assimilation starts to show itself as a serious problem. Many countries in Europe have let in too many Muslims with no attempts to even look at their interpretation of Islam or assimilate them. I don't care that it's nihilistic and relativistic to a fault and just pretty careless to say they belong in the country when there's literally no assimilation going on, it's just entirely unpragmatic.
The problem specifically with Islam is that it's clear that either the religion or the culture of many Islamic countries allows for or encourages interpretations of Islam which are not within the realms of acceptability for Western values. Refugees should be helped but by trying to figure out solutions for the countries they lived in and seeing how the West can assist there. There are lots of poor and unfortunate people across the world and most of them don't carry the same religious and cultural risks as Muslims but of course, the solution to the world's problems isn't getting 0.0001% of them into Western countries.
The Australian government's job is to look after the Australian people and Australian interests and I don't see how the irresponsible acts of the German and Sweden governments and others can be explained from that perspective. The purpose of immigration shouldn't be to save people, foreign aid and being a helpful global community is important and that's where the focus should be.
As for Sharia law, if you just remove the fact that there's this thing called Sharia law and get rid of Islam. Look at what is actually being believed and forgetting why and then asking, is this something I want in the country or not. As far as I am concerned, most of Sharia law is absolutely ridiculous, anti-science, misogynistic, intolerant, 10th-century-logic nonsense and even if you decide you want to live like that, I don't see why it should be allowed. If you somehow are ignoring every bad aspect of Sharia law then I suppose I won't even ever know you follow it. It comes down to what the actual beliefs are and not the name of "Sharia law".
Quoting aporiap
I wasn't thinking of self-evident proposals. Rather, there are some propositions, the denial of which tells us about the denier.
It’s part of the nature of ought propositions. Because they set out how the world ought be, they tell us the attitude of those who accept them.
So if someone rejects, for example, religious freedom, they ought explain why.
Same for human rights. They do not need justification. Rather, their rejection requires justification.
Yeah.
Islam is also imagined as monolithic; any sort of nuance would make it more difficult to maintain the bigotry.
Acts are performed by individuals, not by conglomerations. Individuals are the actors in moral narratives.
Neither Christianity nor Islam can sensibly be treated as individual; hence neither can validly lay claim to moral superiority.
I had in mind Arendt, judgement as a social act and the banality of evil.
Treating folk as other is excluding them from a role in our making a judgement. Their view, their needs, are not significant in our judgements. This sort of stupidity Arendt attributed to Eichmann. It seems to me to be the same unoriginal stupidity evident in the OP.
In a sense, Ilya does what Arendt attributes to Eichmann; so there is something to Frank's reading.
What I am at pains to point out is the stupidity of treating Islam as one.
I'm so pleased!
Quoting Judaka
There was a recent exposé in which this phrase was commended to a right-wing Australian political party - One Nation - by no less an authority on mass shootings than the NRA.
It's a piece of rhetoric that ought leave one cold. As if there ought not be a political reaction to a tragedy such as a mass shooting.
Ah, but then, that's America. Where there cannot be such a reaction.
In New Zealand, the political action was swift, appropriate and all but unanimous. Assault rifles are no longer legal.
That's a good thing.
Now if you had said that people ought be judged for what they do, we might find agreement.
There was a thread on this, No?
What is it?
Yep, that's it.
- SMH
What to make of this? If the terrorist is not human, then he is not one of us, and we do not have to consider how our actions contributed to his actions.
That's unacceptable.
Not bad for a fellow basement-dweller.
Of course, OP is taking everything out of context and blaming Islam, you can see many things he lists occurring in countries that aren't even majority Muslim and of course, countries are affected by more than just their religious persuasion. Interpretations of Islam are different in different places and for different people but this "othering" concept is still stupid. Everyone is an "other", I am sure a better way of thinking and a better term to describe a similar problem is more appropriate.
Quoting Banno
I'm completely in favour of the banning of assault rifles, wasn't aware that NZ even allowed them to be owned legally lol. I am not saying every reaction which requires political change is utilising the tragedy politically. I think that gun control is a bit of an unfortunate example because we don't need to see them killing people to know that they are going to be used for that. The AR is completely absurd because of its destructive power and how out of place it would be for defending a home with an AR or having a hobby of shooting things with an AR. Nonetheless, we've got a clear connection.
Trying to say the political leader of a country is culpable for mass murder and using the kinds of arguments that StreetlightX and you employed (ot lack of arguments for you) crosses a line. The interpretations you guys are utilising to blame the Australian PM and Australian culture are pathological as far as I am concerned. I put it on the same level as saying Australia has a rape culture. You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath.
Pathological to the extreme, taking things to mean what you want them to mean in order to make the arguments you wanted to make. Gun control has a serious and obvious causal relationship with mass shootings while the PM using anti-Islamic sentiment for votes, "dog whistling" and whatever else cannot be now described as "mass murder causing behaviour" because one guy who may or may not have ever given a shit about anything the PM did or said, murdered the same group of people that the PM has utilised for political purposes or "attacked".
Quoting Banno
This is a philosophy forum, I judge people on what they believe all the time and I don't see a problem with it. If someone told you they hate homosexuals and they think it's disgusting and immoral would you brush that off as nothing? Would it matter if they were Muslim and based their views on their interpretation of Islam or an atheist who hated homosexuals for some other reason? I imagine not and at least for me, certainly, it doesn't matter.
Quoting Banno
That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means. That meaning is used as evidence in arguments.
To even begin to compare the West to Islam, how do we evaluate them? For Streetlight X, the West has caused a lot of problems historically for the middle east with their imperialism and so, we cannot say the West has moral superiority. The West doesn't just have problems historically and it has way more than just that, it has problems now and you can take any one or many of those things in isolation and say "this means the West isn't morally superior to Islam". You can also take the goods things about the West and say "this means the West is morally superior" and vice versa for Islam.
Of course, none of these perspectives are balanced, they're ignoring mountains of facts and interpretations to arrive at an answer. It's something that you and Streetlight X do constantly and continually arrive at similar conclusions which are detrimental to Western countries and culture (so far this hasn't been to the benefit of Islam but that's irrelevant) while OP does the same for Islam. The result can only be described as a pathological way of looking at the world.
What was interesting was the parade of hypocrisy it elicited. I told Judaka that the robotic character of it indicates the folks who do it don't realize they're doing it. It's all reflexive. Unconscious. Beast-like.
This puts rather an extreme strain on what was actually said; which was that making anti-islamic police and rhetoric part of the realpolitik will inevitably lead to violence.
Nor does pointing out misogynist culture in Australia imply that one thinks all Australian males are rapists.
My first post pointed out that Islam is not monolith, and predicted the inevitable posts from Christians who assume their own moral superiority.
That is the opinion you, and perhaps under you influence @frank, attribute to me is quite wrong.
Perhaps we can agree that there is a fundamental error in the OP in assuming that there are such things as Christian or Islamic morality, that they might be compared.
To my eye that is no more than yet another pissing competition. The philosophical significance of the OP is that it assumes that western and islamic morality are some sort of thing that can be directly compared. The social significance is the wider acceptance of such a myth.
The Christchurch terrorist's manifesto, blather as it was, was not dissimilar to the OP, as was the rot espoused by Anning.
I think Arendt shows a way to understand the human stupidity going on here, including the complicity of mainstream Australian politics.
This post you're proud of does exactly what I said it does, illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons.
Quoting Banno
Quoting StreetlightX
The shooter is an Australian, what you interpret that to mean is without evidence, unreasonable nonsense. You look to find blame in his Australianness for the crime, you look for fault in the mainstream culture. Is there a case to be made? Probably not but I haven't seen one if it does exist. It doesn't matter for you that everyday Australians find murder abhorrent or the murder abhorrent. Just like StreetlightX who I think is actually worse than you, which is an unexpected twist.
Don't compare a prejudice against women to rape, one might also again bring into question this inherent claim of these things being solely nurtured, given that misogynist views exist worldwide without exception. Do you agree with StreetlightX that Australia has a rape culture?
Quoting Banno
No, you joined in. You started arguing with OP about how Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion, you started your own little "pissing contest" on the side. I am surprised you are even saying now that you wish to come to an agreement that there's no such thing as Christian morality, given it makes no sense with what you've said earlier in this thread.
This is the thing with talking to people about the past, you've got your own perspective about what you've written and you've perhaps got an understanding of yourself as a certain type of person. This is a bit more of a comical example because I can actually show that you're on the wrong side of this. I'm happy for you to start taking your comments back, I want you to do that in fact.
Christians first identified Islam as evil about 1000 years ago. It was mostly fear of the unknown, which is a primal thing.
Isn't there an interfaith movement in Australia?
I've got a long post to finish, but I'll just point this out now: by the measure being applied to Muslims in these sorts of threads, Christianity, or rather Christian cultures, have been morally bankrupt all over the place. Many of them in ways similar to instances of Islamic cultures people criticise (e.g. gay rights, women, etc. ).
Argument by label.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion here?
Do you think that what the terrorist was exposed to as an Australian had nothing to do with his actions? of course not.
So perhaps we might pursue the question of how much Australian culture has responsibility for producing a terrorist?
Neat. Might adopt that.
The fact that Christian clergymen identified Islam as Antichrist 1000 years ago indicates that there is a long tradition of judging Islam wholesale. You can't claim that it doesn't make sense to do so. In fact, that sort of thing can make plenty of sense:
Assyrian culture was unusually brutal.
Am I saying that every single Assyrian was brutal? No, I'm highlighting the way culture influences individual actions.
But mostly, I was telling you that when people blow up Muslims or World Trade Centers or whatever, it's not the result of a logical flaw. It's because of fear and anger (of the type your foaming at the mouth pet dog has).
Sure, one can so do. But the question remains, is it correct to do so?
Refer to my previous post. The question then becomes, to what extent can Islam be considered an individual, that we might judge it's morality?
The OP fails on this account.
But that does not make such a discussion impossible. For example,, I find the notion of submission moral repugnant. The notion is that one must bow to the will of god, regardless of its morality.
Logically the one who has moral culpability for what is done is the individual who is doing the doing - the actor. Abraham is willing to sacrifice Issac as an act of submission. But it is Abraham, not god, who is the actor. He, not God, bears the blame. Abraham ought have spared his son from binding.
Now because of the role of submission in Islam, that's a line of discussion that might be worthwhile. Doubtless there are those who might explain to me why Abraham ought submit.
But such a discussion is a ling way from the bigoted diatribe of the OP.
OK. But it appears the OP's first language is Russian, so maybe it was a translation problem.
Quoting Banno
Arabs were tribal people who did a lot of trading, which involved travelling in caravans stuffed with precious stuff like metals, fabrics, and perfumes. The Prophet was such a travelling merchant. Raiding caravans was part of the culture. If I raid your caravan, I might give you an opportunity to swear allegiance to me. In return, I promise not to raid your caravans in the future.
This kind of arrangement was known as submission. The emergence of Islam involved the rise of one leader who demanded submission from all the Arabs. He united them in brotherhood. But by ending raiding, he created an economic problem that resulted in an explosion of Arabs into the Iranian world. This is why Iranians were originally not allowed to convert to Islam. If they converted, then no tribute could be taken from them.
The Iranians eventually retook their own territory. Now Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists have all converted to Islam. From this time onward, Islam will mostly be spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.
Somewhere along the way, somebody tweaked the meaning of submission to have something to do with submitting to God. Sounds good.
I see that as taking the principle of charity too far. I am all for making allowances for language difficulties in civilised discussion, or even for different intentions of meaning from someone whose first language is the same as mine. But extending it to someone handing out condemnations is twisting the principle beyond any recognition of what it is about. Somebody handing out condemnations need not expect charity from any quarter. I certainly would steer very clear of making condemnations in any language in which I was conversant but not expert. In fact, I am expert in English, and I try to avoid making condemnations in that language too.
Me, too. I wondered if he might have been in the pay of Mr Putin.
Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience. That's what I would say to anyone who wasn't so far gone as to say Australia has a rape culture, I don't want to hear anymore out of you. I'm giving Banno every chance to start making sense, I've given that chance to everyone who has argued with me in this thread.
Okay... I didn't defend Christianity or make any comments about it, I just pointed out Banno is not being truthful when he said he condemned and never took part in the comparisons between Islam and Christianity/The West.
Labels? I'm describing your interpretations and pathology, which has been demonstrated in this thread. What do you want me to add to your comments? There are troubled kids at school, criminals who work in different industries and citizens of nations do bad things.
You didn't try to demonstrate a connection between Morrison and the shooter, you didn't try to explain why you thought the culture or the "experiences" should be blamed for what the shooter did. You failed to show that the shooter isn't an "other" and really, that's the biggest claim of all in my opinion. He's done something extraordinarily unusual and it's been condemned across the board in Australia but to you, he's what, what you could have been?
I think that one person, regardless of how bad of an apple he is, shouldn't poison our opinions of the bunch. Perhaps he never would have committed this crime if there wasn't any anti-Islamic sentiment in Australia but that doesn't mean we should condemn anti-Islamic sentiment for that reason. Just like how our society frowns upon sex offenders but that frowning upon them and murdering them, different things, do you see the difference?
Individuals need to take responsibility for their crimes and instead you are using an individual's crimes to attack anti-Islamic sentiment and although I don't know what form that takes right now from you, I do think there are valid concerns about Islam and I don't want any of them to be silenced because of the actions of a homicidal maniac and the low-quality ideas he had.
Interpretations of what? Of a political scene which you proudly professed your ignorence about? No, it's not my job to educate an 'audience' who is simultaneously proud of their ignorance yet happy to pronounce other's views as 'pathological', despite that self-same self-confessed political illteracy. You made your bed in mud: you don't get to fling it about as you attempt to crawl your way out.
What?
Unfortunately you can paint an ugly picture of Islam (and many are extremely willing to do exactly that), but then you could do that with Christianity too. I remember this Dutch documentary about the Religious Right in America with the female reporter starting her documentary with the words: "In the Netherlands where I come from, I had grown up thinking that Christians are nice, tolerant people..."
Unfortunately biased sensationalism, alarmism and spreading fear sells. Views that try to be objective and while stating the good and bad sides try to put them into perspective are found to be confusing.
Perhaps you should start an organization called "Muslims for Trump" and go on Fox News. :joke:
Fox News would love that (if they haven't got that person already).
Religion is just one example of such ideology, culture plays a role, often ideologies are begot by cultures, and as Gramsci noted, ideologies beget (and construct) culture of their own. All of this is ideology, and intersubjective. It is not objective, absolute, or eternally universal/material in any sense. It is not subjective either (usually), felt only by the qualia of the experiencer. It is created among people's intersocial interactions, and exists to these subjective individuals involved in these interactions, seemingly objective to the individuals as well.
Which ideology is more "moral" is therefore a ridiculous question, seeing as it is just that, relative and intersubjective ideology, there is no 'true' value, and there certainly is no real comparison between any. They are all ideology-what other implications could there be?
To be fair, you didn't exactly moot my point. All I was doing was highlighting the prevalence of ideology. Commitment to anti-ideology is, as you pointed out, undeniably is its own form of meta-ideology. I'm not sure myself how to escape this circular trap, maybe enjoyment/participaition of ideology ironically? Like enjoying in spite of it's relativity?
Never claimed to take you into the light. Perhaps there is not a light to be taken to? If man cannot exist asocially, that is, outside of intersubjective reality, then yes, perhaps ideology and all it entails; forms of religion, culture, is inextricable from humanity. But still, my overall point remains, what is the point over quibbling? Religion at least, if you want to involve a ranking system, is the most obtuse, and ridiculous of the ideologies that constitute human society. The fact that individuals still hold onto it into the twenty-first century baffles and alarms me.
Very recently the sultan of Brunei managed to focus the world's attention on the barbarity of large part of the Islamic world. His law about stoning to death gays and adulterers raised anger and boycotts in the West. But the sultan is not unique in this respect. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not far off.
The treatment of LGBT and the status of women are the current litmus pap test for civil society.
That one definitely gets one of these: :100:
I love how it brought this out of the woodwork:
Quoting Ilya B Shambat
Yet those damn dirty Moslems be evil, I tells thee! :lol:
What's with the title? Islam isn't a region. Islam is a religion, like Christianity, from which it is derived, much like Christianity is derived from Judaism. Islam has adherents in the West, some of whom I know personally, and they are lovely people, far from morally bankrupt.
I have no agenda. With respect to terrorism, white nationalism is more of a danger than terrorism espoused by Muslim extremists:
"On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League released a report finding that attackers with ties to right-wing extremist movements killed at least 50 people in 2018. That was close to the total number of Americans killed by domestic extremists, meaning that the far right had an almost absolute monopoly on lethal terrorism in the United States last year."
Source:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-terrorists-2018-were-almost-all-right-wing/581284/
Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism
"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100......
The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”
Source:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html
No agenda necessary, just speaking facts.
Quoting I like sushi
So I take it, if they're not in western countries they're not respectful of others views?
Quoting I like sushi
You seem to lack the intellectual depth at providing a correct worldview of religion. This is not just anecdotal its facts a common trait by someone who has never traveled outside their own house let alone to another country.
Of course I knew this, my point was merely to show how stupid evangelical Christians were/are.
This is why such individuals who think like this fail at life...
:up:
You’re providing “facts” to evade. You say on one hand that most, if not all, conservatives are bigoted homophobes yet complain about others saying something akin to this even when they’re not actually saying such a thing (anyone can look and see above what you’ve posted; insinuation and either purposeful misinterpretation (for reasons unknown), non-purposeful misinterpretation (due to underlying personal agenda that has blinded balanced thought), or plain bloody-minded stupidity.
I’m leaning hard toward the latter (maybe due to nothing more than human ire I hope) considering I said it seemed like you were only able to see things through a US lens and then you reply talking about home grown terrorists (US),reports in the NY Times (US) and some other talk about “Americans killed by domestic terrorists”. Please consider this gives reasonable weight to my comment about your view being through a US lens only. What is more bizarre still is this as a direct response to my remark about you seeming to view this through a US lens:
Correct me if I’m wrong but are not ALL of your responses in that post viewing terrorism ONLY through a US lens. I can only assume you accidentally deleted some of the text you meant to post in the quote above? I ask because it doesn’t make much sense, but you seem to be trying to insult me? I do most certainly lack the intellectual depth to provide a correct worldview of religion as does everyone. The second sentence is missing punctuation or words.
The truth is the pursuit of laws here in the United States (conservatives are trying to create legislation to make it illegal for abortion just recently they're trying to make having a fetal heartbeat grounds for one to not have an abortion). In addition this is the political lean which tries to move goal posts by arguing about terrorism but statistically its adherents are the main proponents of domestic terror. So no, it is not deflection it is speaking fact. Where it becomes a problem for you is whether it is logical to say most, all, or some.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes because I am speaking from an American position because from where I sit in the media, Americans are the ones with the issues concerning so-called "Islamic terrorism" yet turn a blind eye to the domestic terrorist. Now even if you were to take away the American position and speak generally you'd understand that the mathematical numbers do not support the general presupposition of that morally speaking the West is superior and that there is some intrinsic issue with Islam. This is just downright bigoted and not supported by facts.
Quoting I like sushi
Because I'm an America like I said previously and I live here. If you're not going to supply a general worldview that gives weight in support of the OP then I can only go by my own perspective just as you are doing yours.
Quoting I like sushi
Huh?
Quoting I like sushi
No. What I'm saying is that the general consensus about what we think about the West with respect to the world and more specifically with the general Muslim community is largely due to the fact that many of you have not traveled outside your respective country to actually get to know other humans on the side of the globe as I have. I've learned long enough that our cultural perceptions regarding Muslims and other minority groups are largely due to media skewing facts and fear mongering.
Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but your worldview regarding people of different cultures and religions is very shortsighted not to mention the slightest bit correct. Are there extremist who call themselves Muslims and are there issues within the Muslim community outside the United States and other western countries? Yes. But the fact of the matter is, is that the OP has an agenda and judging by the Op's fascination with talking about Islam, I'm willing to bet they have anti-Islam sentiments and not some real philosophical issue.
I don't think so. At least the government doesn't.
Actually the security apparatus of the US government has taken a well balanced view on what are the terrorist threats to America. The FBI looks at various groups irrespectively of their political stand. Hence starting with Al Qaeda or right-wing militias, you have animal rights groups also followed. You have pro-gun movements and anti-gun movements kept tabs on. It's actually quite different from what the media, especially outlets like Fox News center on. And they know what the actual threat is.
(See Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism)
Shortsighted because I’ve questioned the intent of the OP and the wording (no reply from the OP btw)? Shortsighted because I look at the state of things on a global scale compared to just the US? I’m shortsighted because you’ve traveled somewhere? Shortsighted because I am well aware that “Conservative” doesn’t mean mostly homophobic, bigoted and/or anti-abortion?
I’m not the one making sweeping statements about groups of people here YOU ARE. Furthermore I commented because your nonsensical reply to that frake? Drake? Whatever named member was purposefully skewed to make out he was saying several things he wasn’t.
I think these videos with Imam Tawhidi are well-balanced.
I just posted an article regarding this but let me show you again:
"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100."
When it comes to double standards in the United States, it seems that the goal posts tend to move when proponents of terrorism or terrorist acts are broken down by race. In regards to the Huffington post in the media there is the phenomena of categorizing acts in relation to terrorism based on the race of the individual. The Huffington Post cites such contradiction in the following:
"Early Sunday afternoon, Devin Kelley, a 26-year-old white male, walked into First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas with an AR-15 rifle and killed 26 people while wounding 20 others. Victims ages ranged from 1 to 72 years old. The scene was horrifying and heartbreaking but familiar.
According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, it was the 307th mass shooting in the United States this year......
If the attack is perpetrated by someone of the Islamic faith, the president immediately labels it terrorism and calls for new laws to be instituted and old ones abolished in order to make sure no more evil brown people worm their way into our pristine utopia. When the mass murderer is a white person, which is the most common scenario, it’s nearly always framed as a mental health issue. It’s never terrorism. Terrorism is something brown people do. And there are never any solutions proposed. Trump acknowledges the tragedy, sends his thoughts and prayers and then essentially says, it was a crazy guy ? what can you do?"
Source:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-terrorism-if-youre-brown-its-mental-health_b_5a0098bce4b076eaaae271a6
Quoting ssu
That is the problem from my vantage point the American government doesn't. Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. Citing my source, you don't realize that this administration is pouring more resources into international terrorism more specifically terrorism carried about by Muslim fanatics than white nationalist. Did you not forget what Trump said after 50 people in both mosques were killed when asked the question on whether white nationalism was a growing issue?
Apparently the focus of this administration and its concern in the media does not reflect the FBI opinion. If Ahmed went into a Catholic church and killed 50 people, the court of public opinion in the states would most certainly view this as terrorism due to the fact that there is a suspect and his name is Ahmed. White guy who is a right wing nationalist does the same, we are looking at his mental status.
did you mean " Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international?
or
Quoting Anaxagoras
But this dodges the glaring problem of grounding. I agree it seems more than callous to deny basic rights, it feels disgusting, but that doesn't provide a formal grounding or justification.
"lol are you seriously recommending the news as a source of vital information in order to understand a group of people? haha, imagine if someone asked me where they should research what the right wing believe, or who the 'alt-right' was. If I pointed them to the news as a valid source of information on the topic they're likely to think everyone's alt-right and they all hate everyone who isn't a white cis-gendered male with a trump tattoo and a 'make America great again' hat."
Oh yeah, and I'm exactly like those people.
We're having a discussion and therefore if you're postulating a claim that is meant to be plausible, you could at least substantiate your claims with evidence, not jargon. If you haven't noticed we're beyond the realm of having a complete philosophical discussion filled with dialectical arguments and jargon and word manipulation. So far your claims which are general are postulated under the supposed premise that globally, your position regarding the greater Muslim community is correct. I've challenged you and the OP to prove so and to no avail have you supported your arguments with actual evidence. Instead you want to maintain your dialectical stance.
Quoting I like sushi
No, you're short sighted because you haven't traveled, doesn't matter what I think however when you travel and actually meet Muslims from abroad, your position is wider than the localized viewpoints that you have of the world.
Quoting I like sushi
I never equated the two, although there are many members among that base that hold those viewpoints. More importantly this senseless back and forth I am having with you is nonsense, so you're right. Once you begin to substantiate your claims with evidence outside using dialectical arguments to form your own "truism" then we can begin to have a productive debate otherwise I'm done with the back and forth arguments that cannot produce substance from your end.
I love the correction. I wonder why some of you are so busy correcting members on online discussion boards when you could be taking professorships at esteemed universities. But yes I did mean:
Quoting christian2017
Word manipulation? Jargon? You’ve challenged me to support what argument?
Have you provided “evidence” other than posting articles from the US? No. Then you accuse me of being “shortsighted”?
Did I say I haven’t traveled? No. You assume SO much it is a VERY bad habit you have. Please attend to it. I’d be glad to hear of your experiences with muslims abroad if you’d be willing to share them? I won’t dismiss it as “anecdotal” evidence so don’t worry about that. I a genuinely interested in people’s views. I’m not massively interested in engaging with people who assume a whole lot about others but my patience is something I’ve been working on over the past few years.
Either you’re lying or forgetful. I asked you to amend your words in another thread where you said “conservatives are homophobic” which you then amended by saying something along the lines of “mostly if not all, in my experience”. Now you’re tagging on anti-abortion, which is generally an attitude taken on by “devoutly” religious people - following this line should I now start saying all muslims are conservatives as they’re religious or is it only the homophobic muslims that are conservatives? See how silly that is, yet you accuse me of manipulating word!?
You also seem to think I’m siding with the OP? I asked on the first page what the intent was of conflating Jihadists with the larger Muslim population. I asked again and received no reply. Just because I point out your foolery it doesn’t mean I am on this or that side of the argument.
The premise of the OP is deeply flawed. Somewhere it turned into a view of terrorism based on the US only when the comparison is between The West and Islam. It is an unfair comparison imo. The issue with Islam is its transition into secular society which has been antagonised by war in the middle east. Without a shadow of a doubt the most dangerous and brutal terror acts over the past few years have been surrounded by Islam BUT far more people have died at the hands of acts of terror based around Catholicism (IRA) yet that is also wrapped up in independence. The infighting in the middle east has a long history between different sects.
The OP is badly written and thought out; no argument from me there! I am addressing the statement in the title as a question. I would say any religion is less moral if it exists outside of a secular system - I don’t see how dogma can be moral.
Because I said the muslims I’ve met in the west have been reasonable it doesn’t mean that I think all muslims elsewhere are unreasonable (again, a habit of assuming the very worst you have - why is this?) What is apparent is that many hold the same views across the world:
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
As for the moral comparison with what is being loosely termed “west” and “muslim” I would suggest you take a quick look at how widely accepted so called “honor killings” are?
Here’s some more stats:
https://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/chapter-3-views-of-religion-and-morality/
Note the overwhelmingly skewed attitudes towards homosexuality among predominantly muslim countries compared to western countries (the US being a exception in the trend probably due to the bible belt). On the next page of that survey you’ll also see a telling correlation between religiosity and poverty - and maybe this plays into the extreme views shown in Africa too regarding homosexuality?
Of course you could then dismiss the data and say the stats have been manipulated too. I imagine you’re happy with the stats that actually show how muslims are pretty much like everyone else except in regards to the extremists attitudes and “honor killings” (which is something more embedded in “culture” than just religion; meaning I’m not sure how much religion plays a role in family honor and that the religious justification was probably tagged on later).
Be Kind, well-balanced might be too strong a word. Tawhidi whitewashes islam to a big extent but at least he's doing it for the right reasons and also tries to be somewhat critical of his own tradition. That's probably the most you can ask from a muslim in this day and age where anything critical is automatically labeled as islamophobic.
'Tafsir' is just interpretation. Different people have different interpretations. I suggest Robert Spencer's 'The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran'. If you want to familiarize yourself with the book, there are videos on youtube. Robert Spencer's 'The Basics of Islam' series is also available.
Also, be suspicious of people who want to school you in private, where no criticism can be applied. That's not too far from indoctrination, which is also typical of islam today; a look at islamic schools should convince you of that.
As for how individual “westerners” and/or “muslims” act and talk, in moral sense, I wouldn’t make many sweeping generalisations other than to state that intolerance goes hand in hand with harder religious positions.
Maybe we can have a reasonable exchange here, but I’ve a feeling that we’re likely to agree for the most part. I’ve expressed before my view of “religion” as being similar to “patriotism,” and it that light I’d even say that “nationalism” (not necessarily White Nationalism), just plain old hyper-conservatism, bears little difference to “patriotism”.
Note: someone has a thread asking about the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism so maybe we’d be better suited to talk about that there if you fancy.
Link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5464/patriotism-and-nationalism
There's nothing sectarian in this 'fatwa'. That Tawhidi is sectarian is a lie. He's critical of Iranian clerics and other Shia.
As I said, one can't be critical of islam without becoming 'islamophobic', 'controversial' or something similar. I've given the views of a muslim who tries to be critical to a certain degree and then I've offered the views of a non-muslim who is critical of things that Twahidi tries to whitewash (for good reasons, but it's whitewashing nevertheless). Be Kind can judge for himself.
There's nothing sectarian about that. He even says 'hardline interpretation', implying that there are other interpretations. Since the teachings he refers to are the things jihadists quote (when they don't quote the koran) he's right to point out that they have everything to do with them. He just doesn't go far enough because he tries to save the day for islam.
With evidence like a research link or two, or three or something that I can read that may substantiate your claim not "well I think you're wrong because of X, Y, and Z."
Quoting I like sushi
Would you prefer research articles? So i provide evidence but because it is from America (more specifically the FBI that looks at global data) it is no good. So you tell me which source do you prefer? difference between you and I is I can actually get the material to provide which would validate my viewpoint, you on the other hand have words which in the case of plausibility is not going to help you here.
Quoting I like sushi
Have you been to a Muslim household? Have you ever been to a mosque? Have you ever discussed with an Alim, or an Imam or a Shaykh about the general principles of Islam?
Quoting I like sushi
Because your behavior in your words have demonstrated a slight bit of ignorance on worldly cultures.
but I'm done...
You can be critical of a religious faith without proclaiming pejorative remarks about it. It's called constructive criticism, the problem with discussions like these is the idea of a person's constructive criticism. If by being constructive you believe by talking about all the negatives of a community without making distinctions and isolating them from other members then it is problematic. then there is also personal bias that comes into play.
Sounds like your a liberal elite. I like liberals quite often but the liberal elite are the real problem.
"Because more people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international?"
No way. People are killed in Israel all the time by terrorists. People are killed and maimed all through out europe by terrorists all the time and in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes or gang warfare. Try again. You are seriously delusional.
You don't know me in real life but okay.
Quoting christian2017
Do you have anything to substantiate this claim of yours? Meaning, since you are saying more people in Israel are dying more than U.S. Americans, can you substantiate the claim using an objective source?
Quoting christian2017
What is your point? I clearly said people in the United States are killed more by domestic terrorists than international ones.
If you scrolled up you'd see that I listed a link which headlined:
Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism
"The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out. “Sometimes, it’s the violence that motivates someone more than any particular ideology,” an FBI official told the Post. It’s a theory that certainly applies to the most recent high-profile case of domestic terror: Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Hasson, who was arrested for stockpiling weapons for a domestic terror plot targeting journalists and politicians, including Chris Hayes, Ilhan Omar, and much of the 2020 Democratic field. “I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the Earth,” Hasson allegedly wrote."
Source:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html
If you weren't so lazy you'd see this link to a couple individuals I responded to here regarding that, so congratulations on looking stupid. Because I'm not disagreeing with you when you said:
Quoting christian2017
Which is why the position I took at least from the American position is that the media in the United States highlights so much regarding Islamic extremism yet we are dealing with domestic issues. I, in addition to that, stated that if we look at 1.8 billion Muslims at least 0.00001% of that population is committed to terrorism (these are just guessed numbers). Since you mentioned Europe and around the world according to this article by the Pacific standard:
"In 2017, researchers with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START (which is hosted at the University of Maryland), told ABC News that Muslims are "absolutely" the most likely people to be victims of terrorist attacks worldwide."
Source:https://psmag.com/news/most-terrorist-victims-are-muslim
So in actuality everywhere Muslims are more victims of terrorism, it is just that on the west we tend to show significance when it happens on our soil.
You even addressed in that long statement that there are supposedly more people apprehended in this country for possible (keyword possible) terror acts (not actually carrying them out). This proves my point right there. And this assumes your article is right in the first place. Heres the article i'm going to put forward.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/
"The statistic shows the number of deaths due to terrorism worldwide between 2006 and 2017.
18,753 people were killed by terrorists in 2017. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide declined between 2006 and 2017. In 2006, about 14,371 terrorist attacks were counted, while in 2017, 18,753 terrorist attacks were counted. "
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
Study Says White Extremists Have Killed More Americans in the U.S. Than Jihadists Since 9/11
"They found that 48 people were killed by white terrorists, while 26 were killed by radical Islamists, since (keyword since) Sept. 11."
Please Please Please analyze the two quotes above carefully. White terrorists are cowards 99 out of a 100 times that being said over 10,000 deaths is a much larger number than 100. Please don't try to twist these two articles against me. Jihadists and white nationalists are a huge problem. Nationalism is a good thing to some extent or atleast can be at times.
That appears to be a complete lie unless I missed a link/quote you gave that didn’t refer to domestic issues in the US in this thread.
The source isn’t the main concern it is the US lens - something you don’t drop in any thread and assume everyone else sees with your eyes too; I remember well you doing this before after I had to explicitly state to you in another thread I was talking about issues on a global scale, yet you blind to this so I repeated and you remained blind.
I think the assessment of the post above referring to you as “seriously delusional” is pretty accurate. I can only hope that others find, or have found, this out too to stop feeding your skewed perspective because you don’t seem to be able to listen to criticism and see hostile intent where there is nothing more than an attempt to communicate ideas and share opinions in an open format.
It would be more useful for these kinds of statistical sites if they made the terms being used more explicit and forthright.
Regardless you could just as easily have pointed out to Anaxagoras that from 1% of the US population x% of terrorist acts were committed compared to 99% of the population committing x% of terrorist acts as his view is usually one skewed more towards demographics that only suit his myopic view of the “world” (the US). To be clear, if some minority of the 1% calling themselves “muslim” are committing 26 murders and the other 99% are committing 100 murders it’s hardly comparable. Of course I’ve purposely presented a highly biased perspective by selecting stats to suit the intent there - to make a point. The question then becomes, in regards to terror threats, whether or not these extreme acts are indicative of an overarching ideology, what these ideologies are, and how prevalent such ideas are in the public domain? How do we then compare “muslim” to “muslim radicals” and “white nationalists” to “white supremacist terrorists”? How fair are these comparisons? We can skew the stats to suit some hidden agenda by presenting a ratio of all white people in the US to the number of “white terrorists” but it hardly seems sensible to refer to a ideology skin tone anymore than it would by eye colour. I find it telling that the term “white terrorist” is used at all and I wish I could say I was shocked.
He has insinuated he’s visited muslim countries though and spoken to religious figures in these countries, as well as visited households in these countries, so maybe he’s got an important point to make (I’m feeling generous to assume he has.)
Note: NONE of this does much to address the point if the OP which was basically asking, underneath the hyperbole, whether the muslim world is currently at the same moral level as the western world. It is a misguided question. If we’re judging liberty as a sign of morality then it’s clear enough to me that MUCH more freedom is apparent in the western world than anywhere else - be it Africa, Asia and/or South America. Are they “perfect”? Far from it, yet certainly there is greater equality in the western countries generally speaking.
The trite comparison of “west” to “muslims” is nonsensical. That is why I remarked earlier about my experience of muslims in the west as being incomparable to elsewhere (they live in predominantly free societies). For instance the bias in countries like Malaysia in favour of muslims - meaning you’ll be passed over for position at work due to being non-muslim, your children won’t be allowed into certain schools unless they’re muslim, and the police will allow you to bypass checks simply because you’re muslim. Just to be clear, if you are NOT muslim in Malaysia then your legal rights are NOT equal to a muslims.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia)
There are opinions held by people who don’t have firsthand experience of a country. For example in the Philippines the west acted with outrage towards Duterte, yet do they actually understand the problems and history of the Philippines to make such snap judgements? By western standards of freedom it looks dire. It doesn’t help to understand the situation though if the current - and very different social problems - are ignored.
Or we could look to Brasil where there has been scandal after scandal. If we’re talking about the attitudes of nations they are not necessarily complete reflections of the people who live there. I by no means assume all muslims are evil or good. People are people. It is frankly idiotic to assume that all countries and regions around the world have the same kind of freedoms and moral constitutions - it just isn’t true. Then it can become a question of moral relativism and the various degree to which you are willing to hold to that; ie. Honour Killings (note: well aware that such acts are not the sole property of muslim communities!) are moral for some and not for others, yet rationally and as a human being I cannot say such acts are “subjective” because I don’t believe murder is inherently “good” - but I can understand it’s necessity in some given circumstances.
Quoting I like sushi
for the post labeled the above there is alot i could say to that. There is a tremendous undertone of political correctness on forums such as this and across much of social media. I'll avoid a confrontation right now do to that. You responded to my statistics. There is alot more i could say about those statistics but i'll refrain from that right now. If you are interested in hearing my opinion on this touchy subject you can send me a private message. I don't want to be accused (keyword is accused) of being a troll or a bigot as people of my background very often are on sites such as this. I don't expect you to send me a private message but i did offer.
Of course some people will wish to frame you as X or Y rather than deal with your points though. I prefer points made and opinions expressed as succinctly as possible. My comment was neither an attack or defense of anything you’ve said. I merely pointed out how anyone, me, you or Anaxagoras can easily enough - purposefully or not - present stats that suit our views. I look for stats both for and against and assume they are only part of the full story. I’m more interested in the term used (hence my comment about the ‘white terrorist’ as opposed to ‘black terrorist’ or ‘asian terrorists’? Point being I find it typical of the kind of rhetoric flying around today and it lacks any clear definition because being from a country, speaking a certain language and/or having a particular skin tone don’t in any way convey a particular ideological position - although admittedly the country you grow up in does often represent some loose ideas upon which you venture out into the wider intellectual world if you so wish to.
Note: I was not disagreeing with anything you said merely offering the sort of counter argument I have seen from others in regards to the use of stats - when it suits them it’s fine, when it disputes some stance they hold too (consciously or otherwise) they are all too ready to question the source. I’m not omitting myself from this because I have erred before and will again; just hopefully less so than in the past :)
I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?
You probably are open minded. But the fate of western civilization doesn't depend on me making a great post on a forum. Are you willing to do a search on just how many countries on this earth that are already essentially Islamic theocracies? Are you familiar with the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with Sharia law? I could go on and on but i like being on this forum. At this point in time i don't want to be accUsed of being a troll or a bigot.
Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. The scales are by far more in favour of reason and science though because they’re fully established in secular societies. And don’t forget too that China is secular, yet it would be difficult to claim they don’t have some very serious issues in their nation. Russia is also a global threat as well as the US. I’m not massively concerned with some big nasty perverted version of “Islam” consuming the world.
thats fair.
That brush is too broad in both cases.
I see what you mean though. I’m just not in the habit of adding footnotes to every sentence I write and must generalise here and there.
I would still argue that in terms of theocracies Christianity was quite obviously a threat to reason and science - witch hunts and the burning of “heretics” for questioning dogma are quite apparent pieces of evidence there. That said I find it hard to deny that theological discussions helped in part to the progress of science and reason, but I’d still be dubious of anyone suggesting they were the primary force for science and reason unless they meant as an opponent of science and reason that helped propel the human intellect above superstitions.
Also, if we equate science and reason with liberty (which you may not), then it is quite apparent that Islamic theocracies don’t stand as being in support of “reason and science”.
I wish to be treated as a human not as someone of a particular religious ideology OR to be forced to live by views I oppose. By all means people can believe what they wish but that doesn’t give them the right (by law in theocracies) to tell me what I can and cannot do and say with the threat of punishment used to have me adhere.
Religious views most certainly conflict with scientific research. Evidence based study is not the forte of religious attitudes that base, in part, their world view on books (hence the term “dogma”). Just because it’s written doesn’t make it factual. Science cares not for claims of truth whilst religion does.
You don’t have a leg to stand on here. If you want to be upset be upset, but it doesn’t change the reality of history and how theocratic states have killed men of science over the centuries due to “blasphemy”. No thanks, not for me!
While men of science have never killed people over the centuries due to criminalization of opinion?
What criminalized “opinion” are you talking of?
I assume you’re not suggesting a non-religious person would accuse someone of “blasphemy” yet I will grant that many adherents of both the scientific method and of religious inclinations have killed others due to a misguided belief that they were “blasphemers” - kind of ironic given that they too would likely have been killed themselves a few centuries before.
The "religious x scientific" divide is, itself, an ungrounded opinion, which often rises to fanaticism. (You choose whether fanaticism is "religious" or "scientific" :D).
This is demonstrably false. They've also been patrons of science and started many universities and schools. Your interpretation is reductive and results in a caricature of religion that isn't warranted.
Personally, I don't like institutionalised religions because such structures can be co-opted for political indoctrination. But so can any set of belief systems. Technology = civilized = good reason to colonise barbarians. Misguided nationalism = ubermensch = good reason to take what's rightfully ours. Etc. They're all equally shit.
Okay, show me how then? In the mean time how about listening to a Nobel Prize winning physicist about the state of science in Islamic sphere:
https://physicsworld.com/a/science-in-the-muslim-world/
And people were burnt alive and tortured.
I’m not making a caricature just pointing out that it is nonsense to suggest that religious persecution has not inhibited scientific research. I am not lumping all religious individuals together but I am stating that science is only ever backed by religious institutes when they’re forced to or when it suits their dogma.
You can continue to pretend otherwise if you wish but you’re not likely to het much more of a response from me here. Sorry.
Quoting I like sushi
You already did. It's glaringly inconsistent to me but if you don't see it, that's fine.
I actually said these:
Saying that Plato and Aristotle played into the construction of Rome and western history is hardly the same as saying Christianity was for science. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks were “scientific” in anything like the way we talk of today.
It helps if you don’t muddle up what you say with what I say to understand my position is nuanced. Regardless it is crystal clear that the evidence shows how religions have inhibited science - that is not to say always given that when it suits a particular interpretation of scripture religious folk are all too ready to jump aboard (eg. Buddhists associating quantum phenomenon with their cosmological view).
Thanks
Why don't you enlighten us about when "men of science" have killed people. Science is just a method, you know.
I would call Joseph Mengele more a nazi than 'man of science', if that is your argument.
I never actually said that was my view. The other person said that not me. It happens a lot on forums, no big deal.
I would say that scientific method and religion are opposed, quite obviously, in some areas which I outlined here somewhere or in the other thread? They are hardly comparable in many ways with people often mistakenly equating “faith” with scientific fact verified and intricated through repetition and refinement.
This is hardly on topic with the OP though and not something I’m massively interested in discussing tbh. I have a hard enough time getting non-religious people to grasp the idea of “prescientific man” and what Husserl framed (extended from Nietzsche it seems) as “pretheoretical” - problem is Husserl’s last work wasn’t completed before he died, but it’s clear enough to me he drew a lot from Nietzsche as did many of that era.
I’m not engaging in some science versus religion nonsense so I’ll it there and post NOTHING more in this thread.