For the lost petty criminals in Europe, that’s the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
but there are a lot of common threads between many of the foot soldiers flocking to join ISIS and the Taliban's foot soldiers coming from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Whether through foreign money or through opium sales, fighting with the Taliban was a way for young men with little or no economic opportunity to make money, to potentially afford to have a family (polygamy and everything that entails prices many men in that part of the world out of marriage and fatherhood), etc etc. If they survive a few campaign seasons, they're relatively affluent, they're powerful and they command respect. If they don't do so, they're destined to be paeans for the rest of their lives.
In some ways, the same is true in Western Europe. For a variety of reasons, the economic and even marriage prospects of poor Muslim immigrants or refugees, or their children, can be quite poor. Foreign fighters go from being irrelevant in a land whose rule by secular, European forces again reinforces that impotence to being powerful, to being wealthy (at least they're told they'll be wealthy - the loss of ISIS financial resources has limited this) and to a chance at familial and temporal success. Piety/zeal is useful but not especially necessary.
So the appeal of jihadism is quite comprehensible. The lone wolf terrorists may combine this with piety or zeal, or they may simply have enough psychopathy or sociopathy and the right coaching to get them to the point where they're willing to commit suicide attacks.
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, that’s the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
That's why the Bush administration went to great lengths to label the 911 actors as drunks who hung out in strip bars.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Yes, that certainly occurs and it's certainly maddening, particularly when such people are very often the sorts who'd cheerfully jump on any bandwagon that criticizes Western religion. Even Maher's own audience often consists of people who laugh gleefully every time he chides Christianity, but get very uncomfortable when his target changes to Islam.
Yes, there are certainly many liberals who won't deign to be critical of something if that criticism might mar their conspicuous efforts to appear worldly, enlightened and sympathetic. But those people should pretty much just be ignored.
How does one criticize a decentralized religion? Â
Most often I see people pointing to passages in the Koran. Passages that if carried out in real life would horrify me. And yet my holy book, the Torah, calls for some really nasty stuff too.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
She is referring to former classical liberals (small L) that used to support free speech and now condemn anyone asking for reform on and open dialogue about what Islam teaches. Not referring the American left.
Most often I see people pointing to passages in the Koran. Passages that if carried out in real life would horrify me. And yet my holy book, the Torah, calls for some really nasty stuff too.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Deej - maybe I am missing something with your point, but hasn't Judaism gone through not only reform(s), but has it not also been allowed to have its orthodoxy attenuated through interpretations of its texts over the last few thousand years ?
If we do not support Muslim reformers looking to be able to do the same with the Quran and Hadiths we are not enabling it as a license for jihad, treatment of women, continued anti-semitism ?
Are we so afraid of hurting peoples feelings and allowing this to continue ? I have no illusions that it is not going to create horrible mayhem in the short term.
I continue to argue that this is much more preferable than waiting for someone looking to enter paradise to explode a nuclear device in Paris.
Until it is acceptable to draw cartoons, criticize Mo's example of behavior, demand clarification of violent, intolerant and anti-gay/women passages in the command, the current problems will continue.
In other words, Islam needs to be judged just like other religions, through the lenses of moral clarity, human rights, science, psychology and history, etc.
your point about decentralized religion is a major issue, obviously, and not lost on me or anyone else. There is seemingly no one to hold accountable at the end of the day.
The saudis and their religious leaders are closest thing though. This is a monumental task, no doubt.
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Sonic - Thanks. This is certainly the most maddening part of this whole thing....the mislabeling of the criticism of ideas and the choking out of freedoms of speech. It's all been laid out in Europe from Theo Van Gogh and other events in the Netherlands, through Charlie Hebdo and the responses and lack of support, through the latest demands for laws to prosecute "hate speech" which is not hate speech. Hate speech is what the Imams are teaching. The double standards are horrific.
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words, if I am being honest. But I'll settle for the tens of ones that I read about on a regular basis in what is left of news organizations willing to report it.
Again, what specific action are you proposing? Jumping up and down and yelling "Radical Islamic​ Terror is evil" accomplishs nothing. You are all criticsm and no real solutions.
I don't think I've hidden my hatred for intolerant, violent and divisive claims made in the name of God, and of religion that makes claims about revelations that are not worth the paper they are written on.
I hold all religions to this standard, or at least try to. If that exposes me because I actually care what is being said in the Mosques and on Arab TV, by reading MEMRI, ME Forum, etc, OK.
Again, what specific action are you proposing? Jumping up and down and yelling "Radical Islamic​ Terror is evil" accomplishs nothing. You are all criticsm and no real solutions.
I have made it pretty clear:
1. Support Muslim reformers.
2. Support open criticism of all beliefs/ideas.
3. Stop calling such speech "an attack on (all) Muslims," "Islamophobia" or similar.
4. Stop denying the correlation between the doctrine and the behavior.
In other words, treat Islam like any other belief system.
you just walked all the way back from years of blanket shrill statements
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
I wrote: "Any of the ones quoting
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
RE: RE: RE: Back on subject why they are radicalized Â
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
RE: Do they matter to a boy, 16, who just lost his family Â
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
you just walked all the way back from years of blanket shrill statements
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
"Worse" I mean it in terms of harmful claims about what God wants or doesn't want....NOT that any of the people who believe some or part of the claims are worse people because of it. To be worse people, one needs to actually act on the claims. There are plenty horrific atheists or close to it in history. (Pol Pot, Stalin)..
The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their Â
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
hard to avoid considering anything one might attribute to a political schism is based on the followers of a religion, but I grant you that it was a more political schism than a religious one. And originally not a difference in the doctrine of the religious aspects.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
Regarding this excerpt:
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
In some ways, the same is true in Western Europe. For a variety of reasons, the economic and even marriage prospects of poor Muslim immigrants or refugees, or their children, can be quite poor. Foreign fighters go from being irrelevant in a land whose rule by secular, European forces again reinforces that impotence to being powerful, to being wealthy (at least they're told they'll be wealthy - the loss of ISIS financial resources has limited this) and to a chance at familial and temporal success. Piety/zeal is useful but not especially necessary.
So the appeal of jihadism is quite comprehensible. The lone wolf terrorists may combine this with piety or zeal, or they may simply have enough psychopathy or sociopathy and the right coaching to get them to the point where they're willing to commit suicide attacks.
still got your fastball
Quote:
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Quote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news?utm_term=.tj0995GOM#.elZ11E8QA
Regarding this excerpt:
Quote:
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, that’s the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
That's why the Bush administration went to great lengths to label the 911 actors as drunks who hung out in strip bars.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Yes, that certainly occurs and it's certainly maddening, particularly when such people are very often the sorts who'd cheerfully jump on any bandwagon that criticizes Western religion. Even Maher's own audience often consists of people who laugh gleefully every time he chides Christianity, but get very uncomfortable when his target changes to Islam.
Yes, there are certainly many liberals who won't deign to be critical of something if that criticism might mar their conspicuous efforts to appear worldly, enlightened and sympathetic. But those people should pretty much just be ignored.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Quote:
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
Quote:
In comment 13480370 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
She is referring to former classical liberals (small L) that used to support free speech and now condemn anyone asking for reform on and open dialogue about what Islam teaches. Not referring the American left.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Deej - maybe I am missing something with your point, but hasn't Judaism gone through not only reform(s), but has it not also been allowed to have its orthodoxy attenuated through interpretations of its texts over the last few thousand years ?
If we do not support Muslim reformers looking to be able to do the same with the Quran and Hadiths we are not enabling it as a license for jihad, treatment of women, continued anti-semitism ?
Are we so afraid of hurting peoples feelings and allowing this to continue ? I have no illusions that it is not going to create horrible mayhem in the short term.
I continue to argue that this is much more preferable than waiting for someone looking to enter paradise to explode a nuclear device in Paris.
Until it is acceptable to draw cartoons, criticize Mo's example of behavior, demand clarification of violent, intolerant and anti-gay/women passages in the command, the current problems will continue.
In other words, Islam needs to be judged just like other religions, through the lenses of moral clarity, human rights, science, psychology and history, etc.
The saudis and their religious leaders are closest thing though. This is a monumental task, no doubt.
Not an area close to any expertise of mine but an excellent read.
B2, thanks for the Lawrence Wright suggestion. Can always count on you for an informative homework assignment.
Quote:
In comment 13480846 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Sonic - Thanks. This is certainly the most maddening part of this whole thing....the mislabeling of the criticism of ideas and the choking out of freedoms of speech. It's all been laid out in Europe from Theo Van Gogh and other events in the Netherlands, through Charlie Hebdo and the responses and lack of support, through the latest demands for laws to prosecute "hate speech" which is not hate speech. Hate speech is what the Imams are teaching. The double standards are horrific.
Which is it?
All ? or Some?
I don't think I've hidden my hatred for intolerant, violent and divisive claims made in the name of God, and of religion that makes claims about revelations that are not worth the paper they are written on.
I hold all religions to this standard, or at least try to. If that exposes me because I actually care what is being said in the Mosques and on Arab TV, by reading MEMRI, ME Forum, etc, OK.
I have made it pretty clear:
1. Support Muslim reformers.
2. Support open criticism of all beliefs/ideas.
3. Stop calling such speech "an attack on (all) Muslims," "Islamophobia" or similar.
4. Stop denying the correlation between the doctrine and the behavior.
In other words, treat Islam like any other belief system.
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Zuhdi Jasser
Asra Nomani
And you like individuals of the same faith who are open minded, thoughtful and moderate
Did I capture your thoughts correctly?
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
And you like individuals of the same faith who are open minded, thoughtful and moderate
Did I capture your thoughts correctly?
No, I do not believe everyone believes, says or does the same things.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
Quote:
In comment 13482127 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
No they do not fix everything, but they matter greatly. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say they didn't matter ? Or that it is OK ?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
Thanks.
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
Thanks
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
That is true. One could argue that being a sports fan is also irrational tribalism. But it's generally also less harmful than religion.
Quote:
In comment 13482434 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
Quote:
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
Have a great summer, as well.