Liberal opinion of Bill Maher's views on Islam...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:05:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Liberal opinion of Bill Maher's views on Islam...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8
Author Topic: Liberal opinion of Bill Maher's views on Islam...  (Read 15311 times)
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: January 14, 2015, 11:48:39 AM »

Sbane, we've basically been at war with Islamic extremist groups for 13 years and change.  We've spent untold billions and lost thousands of lives.  And, globally, we have Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes.  So, Islam is on the table for discussion.  I didn't put it on the table for political debate, Islam has injected itself into the conversation.  And, so, I'm more interested in understanding the issue than I am with avoiding potential hurt feelings.  Obviously, this subject begs sensitivity and nuance, but I think I've been sensitive and nuanced.

The conflation of the two bolded bits above is neither sensitive nor nuanced, and I would go so far as to say is a big part of the problem Sbane is talking about.

OK. You see above, where I bolded two parts of what he said? At first he's talking about Islamic extremist groups committing horrendous crimes. Cool. No problem.

But he then slides into "Islam is on the table for discussion." (I've italicized this bit, though I didn't in my original reply) Still not objectionable, but it's drifting from a focus on Islamic extremist groups to Islam in general.

Then he says, "Islam has injected itself into the conversation," as though Islam as an institution (if such a thing can be said to coherently exist) has done something to implicate itself in the conversation about Islamic extremists.

This is not to say that Islam is off-limits for discussion. Far from it. But the slide from "Islamic extremists" to "Islam" is not backed up in the post, and is emblematic of a lot of what people find objectionable about what Harris and Maher were saying in the first place.

As for why? It's because, generally, the two of them are claiming to know what the truest expression of Islam is, and that it's the kind practiced by the aforementioned extremists.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: January 14, 2015, 05:50:37 PM »

Sbane, we've basically been at war with Islamic extremist groups for 13 years and change.  We've spent untold billions and lost thousands of lives.  And, globally, we have Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes.  So, Islam is on the table for discussion.  I didn't put it on the table for political debate, Islam has injected itself into the conversation.  And, so, I'm more interested in understanding the issue than I am with avoiding potential hurt feelings.  Obviously, this subject begs sensitivity and nuance, but I think I've been sensitive and nuanced.

The conflation of the two bolded bits above is neither sensitive nor nuanced, and I would go so far as to say is a big part of the problem Sbane is talking about.

OK. You see above, where I bolded two parts of what he said? At first he's talking about Islamic extremist groups committing horrendous crimes. Cool. No problem.

But he then slides into "Islam is on the table for discussion." (I've italicized this bit, though I didn't in my original reply) Still not objectionable, but it's drifting from a focus on Islamic extremist groups to Islam in general.

Then he says, "Islam has injected itself into the conversation," as though Islam as an institution (if such a thing can be said to coherently exist) has done something to implicate itself in the conversation about Islamic extremists.

This is not to say that Islam is off-limits for discussion. Far from it. But the slide from "Islamic extremists" to "Islam" is not backed up in the post, and is emblematic of a lot of what people find objectionable about what Harris and Maher were saying in the first place.

As for why? It's because, generally, the two of them are claiming to know what the truest expression of Islam is, and that it's the kind practiced by the aforementioned extremists.

Thank you through I will say I somewhat disagree.

While it's unfair to blame Muslims as a whole, they're not unconnected with this, no more than the pro-liffe movement are to wholy to blame or unconneccted with the murder of abortion doctors.

While only a small minority of Muslims want these things to happen and a even smaller minority of Muslims are willing to commit these acts.  This is born from a greater Muslim narrative of them be victims of a west, which represent everything decadent, sinful etc. The people who push these views, may just wish that Muslims became rightious and rejected western values, rather than killed other people. But when you keep telling people that they're victims, some come to the conclusion that they need to hit back against the oppressor.

So no you can't diconnect Muslims as a whole from these acts, and attempting to do so, will just push a continued denial of how these things come from their communities, which will help the far right growing, which will feed the narrative of Muslims as victims.

Look at how fast people here began to push the perspective of Muslims as the real victims of this. They wasn't and just indicating it, pissed many non-Muslims off, including many who don't vote for the far right.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: January 14, 2015, 06:45:06 PM »

Alright, here's how I break it down. There are no doubt Muslims that believe anyone without a literal interpretation of the Koran isn't Muslim. There's also people who say anyone who doesn't literally interpret the Bible isn't Christian. Obviously liberal Protestants are not Christian to these people. Being a liberal Protestant, I think it's pretty obvious what my opinion is. So if Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants (which they fit pretty well in they basically hold to all the basic tenants and five pillars, they just don't follow most un-modern Islamic laws like liberal Protestants reject the anti-gay stuff), then yeah they're clearly Muslim by my view.

Ahmadis are a sect that was founded by some guy in the 19th century who claimed to have received further revelations from God after Mohammed. Does that remind you of anything? The vast majority of Muslims (including probably most Bektashi I'd wager) consider them non-Muslim on the grounds that Mohammed being the final messenger is a tenant of Islam. In Pakistan there's heavy discrimination against them, it's basically illegal for themselves to call themselves Muslim or even to call their places of worship mosques. But if you're going to exclude Mormons as Christians, it's hard to not exclude them as Muslim too, especially considering the similarities. Obviously this doesn't justify the legal discrimination against them, and I don't consider them any more right or wrong than Muslims, but there's a solid case to exclude them and not Bektashi.

But Islam broadly tolerates non-literal interpretations of scripture a lot less than Christianity does, from my opinion.  Relatively few Muslims share that sentiment.  You're falsely assuming that Christianity and Islam have the same consensus determinants about what makes you "truly" Christian/Muslim.

I'll also note that while there are plenty that agree with me that liberal Protestants are Christian but not Mormon, it's pretty difficult to argue the latter, unless you believe in some sort of insane No True Scotsman that being anti-gay is a central tenant of Christianity (which a lot of Reddit-esque neckbeard atheist types actually do, but I know you're smarter than they are.)

Again, if consensus determines the minimum requirements to "truly" be of a given religion, then my understanding is that most Muslims would exclude those who don't follow the Quran as the literal word.  This consensus is not nearly as strong in Christianity.  The emphasis on literal interpretation in Islam is probably why even moderate Muslim countries can have alarming poll results.  Islam does not have the same cultural separation between good conduct in society and good conduct as a religious individual.  I don't know to what extent this is true (I know many countries allow women to decline full burqas even though most citizens consider it immoral), but I do think it probably makes it harder to convince Muslims to adopt secular civic societies.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: January 14, 2015, 07:03:35 PM »

How many people have actually been tried and killed for apostasy in Malaysia?

Apostasy isn't illegal in Malaysia.  I did not say apostasy is illegal in Malaysia.  I said a majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy.

And why exactly is this a problem and not views on gays in Uganda?

I did not say that I don't have a problem with the treatment of gays in Uganda.

And if both are problems, then why is Islam in general being held up for scrutiny and not Christianity?

I never said that Christianity shoudn't be held up to scrutiny.  It should.  There are a lot of areas of the world where Christianity prompts similarly troubling cultural attitudes.  The problem is a lot less common in Christianity than it is in Islam.  Most of that is sociocultural, but variations in doctrine and theology may also contribute.

I do agree the Ugandans don't go around killing innocent people because of their despicable views, but that is the case with Malaysians as well. Religious people all around the world, including America, hold unsavory views.

Agreed.

The difference is that some Muslims use their religion to commit violence, but I don't get why Malaysians or people in other "moderate" Islamic countries are guilty as well.

When did I say anything like this?

You post on a politics forum.  You are completely aware that, on any given issue, there are a lot of people who think in black-and-white terms and lack nuance.  That is the case here.  You are currently talking to someone who does not think in those terms, and you're asking about arguments I haven't made.  You seem to have had an emotional reaction to this thread, and you're now rationalizing it by attacking arguments not being made by those you're arguing with.

I also need to point out, again, that this isn't a dichotomy against peaceful people and terrorists.  Even among peaceful people, fundamentalist theocratic opinions are way too common.  As I said before, even in a moderate Muslim country like Malaysia, a majority of Muslims hold some very troubling views.  If this were the case in a Christian country, even one that didn't generate terrorism, I'd consider that very troubling too.  It's less troubling than terrorism, obviously, but it's still troubling (and much more common).

Sam Harris may do a better job of differentiating between liberals and the rest of the Islamic world, but even he unnecessarily tries to paint Islam as being exceptional when it comes to extremism. Why not focus just on the extremists? Why the need to prove Islam itself is the problem?

You just claimed that he never made this differentiation, and now you've shifting your claim?  Tongue

Harris argues that there are characteristics of Islamic societies, some of which originate from sociocultural ideas and some from sincerely-held religious beliefs, that are more widespread and problematic than other religions.  I think he believes that those sincerely-held beliefs are huge impediments to removing the more problematic beliefs/laws/etc.

But, more to the point, if you weren't even familiar with his writing enough to know he differentiates moderate vs. Islamist Muslims, why are you asking me what he thinks, and not read his arguments to get an answer to your question directly?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: January 14, 2015, 08:59:58 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2015, 09:44:03 PM by Sbane »

Alcon, people hold troubling views around the world, many times due to their religion, but what I don't get is why are we talking specifically about muslims? Gender rights, gay rights and the right to choose your own religion are very important, but these are issues which deserve attention not only in the Muslim world, but also other parts of the world including in Christian, Hindu and yes, Buddhist countries.

So let's turn our attention back towards Islamic terrorism, which is the reason why Bill Maher gets so excited when he talks about Islam. Violent, fundamentalist Islam is a huge problem in this world and of course people need to realize these people are a threat and they need to be eliminated. And one of the reasons it is becoming a bigger threat is the export of a very conservative interpretation of Islam being pumped out of the Arabian peninsula funded by oil money. That is also a problem that needs to be acknowledged. But note that this has nothing at all to do with a "moderate" Muslims who may hold nasty views about apostates, gays and women's rights but in reality just go about their day to day lives like normal human beings.

It is those people we need on our side if we are to win the war on violent, Islamic fundamentalism without a 3rd world war. It is a tough ask for sure but it is being made easier by the horrible atrocities the terrorists are carrying out against other Muslims. I understand this won't solve the other issues in the Muslim world, but as I pointed out, these issues exist in other places as well and should be treated separately from the issue of Islamic terrorism.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: January 14, 2015, 09:06:02 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2015, 09:15:25 PM by Sbane »

sbane - A full 86% of Malaysian Muslims support sharia law, and of those, two-thirds support the death penalty for apostasy.  It's true that Malaysia has little Islamist terrorism, but these numbers are still a problem.  You seem to be under the impression that people expressing concern about these numbers "must" be expressing concern about all adherents of the religion, or claiming that all interpretations of the religion lead the same place.  That's not the case, even with Maher, who can be pretty broad with his dickishness.

P.S. You earlier claimed that Sam Harris has never differentiated liberal Muslims from Islamists.  Again, do you actually believe that he never does this?  I recall him doing it multiple times during the Affleck debate.

(Side note: It's weird to me to see liberals purporting to be concerned about social justice treat this so much differently than the #NotAllMen/#YesAllWomen business.  I'm not criticizing anyone in this thread, but I know a ton of people who flipped on the whole "appropriateness of systemic criticism of non-majority ills" issue, seemingly overnight.)

How many people have actually been tried and killed for apostasy in Malaysia? And why exactly is this a problem and not views on gays in Uganda? And if both are problems, then why is Islam in general being held up for scrutiny and not Christianity? I do agree the Ugandans don't go around killing innocent people because of their despicable views, but that is the case with Malaysians as well. Religious people all around the world, including America, hold unsavory views. The difference is that some Muslims use their religion to commit violence, but I don't get why Malaysians or people in other "moderate" Islamic countries are guilty as well.

Sam Harris may do a better job of differentiating between liberals and the rest of the Islamic world, but even he unnecessarily tries to paint Islam as being exceptional when it comes to extremism. Why not focus just on the extremists? Why the need to prove Islam itself is the problem?

The death penalty for apostasy might not occur in Malaysia, but there are some pretty discriminatory laws. For example Malaysia prohibits selling alcohol to Muslims, and in Malaysia religion is an actual legal status assigned to you you can't change. So if you were raised Muslim, you can't ever buy alcohol, but anyone not can. Now I'm sure that it's not too difficult for people with a Muslim status to get alcohol in Malaysia anyway considering how easy it is for underage people in the US to get alcohol, but there are other issues where the law is a big problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy

As far as Uganda goes, it's not like the situation in Muslim countries is all that much better, see mostly Muslim The Gambia just passing a similar law and what their President has said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-7-worst-things-gambias-president-yahya-jammeh-has-ever-said-about-gay-people-9977170.html

Hey, I am not the person who is going to defend these laws. There are many issues in the Muslim world but they also exist in other societies. They just manifest themselves in different ways based on that individual culture. It is basically a fight between tradition and progress. These are important issues but should be treated separately from violent extremism.

I will also note that in the west, and richer countries in general, the progressive side has been winning for the last 50 years or so. This social revolution did not occur in most of the rest of the world. This obviously makes western society more progressive than the rest of the world. If we want this trend to spread itself around the world, we can't do that by criticizing those societies and calling them inferior to western society. The response to that would be defensive causing people to look inwards and would lead to a greater embrace of traditional rather than progressive thought.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: January 14, 2015, 09:49:00 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqGIJBClwbQ

And here is an interview of Sam Harris by Fareed Zakaria. A more eloquent opponent than Ben Affleck, I must say.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: January 14, 2015, 11:37:58 PM »

Alcon, people hold troubling views around the world, many times due to their religion, but what I don't get is why are we talking specifically about muslims?

I'm sorry, I don't mean this to sound dickish, but exactly how do you, and so many other people, not grasp the distinction? People talk "specifically" about muslims because there is no comparable religious/political ideology in terms of sheer scope and scale that influences people across the world to justify the subjugation women, gays, and other religious or social groups as much as Islam. "But what about the Christians" is a stupid comparison. Majorities of European and American Christians do not support the death penalty for leaving the religion. Or for virtually any other sin that isn't murder. (Hell, and even then..) Even the "But, Africa!" deflection fails in this regard. Christians, to the degree of Muslims throughout the world, do not support the utter repression of female rights and autonomy, nor to anywhere near the violent degree that they have been held back.

Whenever people defend Islam from these criticisms you keep acting like Islam exists in this fictional scenario where its followers are equally as bigoted or enlightened as any other given religion around the world and are unfairly singled out; this simply isn't reality. They are especially focused on because Islamic society and mainstream Islamic thought for even purported "moderate" countries are especially violent and repressive relative to nearly anywhere else. There is absolutely no denying this. There has been absolute evil carried out in the name of all sorts of religions and ideologies, and I would absolutely criticize those too, but we live in the present.

Look, I don't believe in racial profiling, I think there's absolutely an unfortunate strain of anti-Muslim bigotry that has been born from all of this and we shouldn't give quarter to those people, and I have no reason to feel personally threatened by Muslims I would meet in my life. But we as people who support liberal principles need to stop deluding ourselves about the dangerous beliefs that are being fostered in that religion, and in those societies, and from those governments, and we need to get real about one major thing in particular: These views are not rare, radical sentiments only shared by the fringes of Muslim society. They are frighteningly common relative to nearly any other major religion on the planet right now, and they are dangerous.

To handwave away the repugnant views of these majorities of people by saying "well, they go about the rest of their day living like normal human beings" is absurd. Many terrorists have gone through their lives living completely normal day-to-day, everyone around the oblivious to what was really going on in their heads until the moment something horrific happened; and we're just talking about situations that pop up in the Western world, not the actual theocratic societies that may as well be making these outcomes an inevitability themselves. There is absolutely a huge difference between fundamentalist Islam and violent individual Muslims who end up terrorists, but the difference between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam is that the latter is several orders of magnitude more common, and unlike the former, several orders of magnitude more difficult to criticize because people are afraid it might seem racist to not confront it as they are minorities in our societies, and any criticism of minorities is abhorrent to social justice activists. (Sorry that the co-writer behind Feminist Frequency is turning out to be a crank, traininthedistance.)
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: January 14, 2015, 11:51:07 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 12:02:24 AM by Grad Students are the Worst »

edit: Most of what I say here is redundant to Marokai's points above.

Alcon, people hold troubling views around the world, many times due to their religion, but what I don't get is why are we talking specifically about muslims? Gender rights, gay rights and the right to choose your own religion are very important, but these are issues which deserve attention not only in the Muslim world, but also other parts of the world including in Christian, Hindu and yes, Buddhist countries.

You're restating the same question a little here, dude.  I've said numerous times that other religions have some major problems too, relating to troubling theocratic beliefs.  Claiming this is unique to Islam is objectively wrong.  However, these views are more widespread within Islam.  That's why this gets more attention (fairly), plus the tendency to focus on recent events episodically (arbitrary).  That's the answer to your question.  Do you disagree with it?

So let's turn our attention back towards Islamic terrorism, which is the reason why Bill Maher gets so excited when he talks about Islam. Violent, fundamentalist Islam is a huge problem in this world and of course people need to realize these people are a threat and they need to be eliminated. And one of the reasons it is becoming a bigger threat is the export of a very conservative interpretation of Islam being pumped out of the Arabian peninsula funded by oil money. That is also a problem that needs to be acknowledged. But note that this has nothing at all to do with a "moderate" Muslims who may hold nasty views about apostates, gays and women's rights but in reality just go about their day to day lives like normal human beings.

It doesn't have "nothing" to do with them.  They aren't responsible for it, and most of these people would never commit terrorist acts.  But they are different manifestations (of varying severity) of a similar thread of thought: the idea that theocratic law enables them to take people's lives for religious reasons.  These "moderates" are still Islamists -- they aren't terrorists, but they're Islamists.  Islamism does not inevitably lead to extremism.  Despite strong support in their ranks, Muslim Malaysians don't go around killing apostates.  But these beliefs are effectively a prerequisite to extremism, and it's certainly easier to become extreme if you believe you're morally entitled to kill someone for a religious transgression.

It is those people we need on our side if we are to win the war on violent, Islamic fundamentalism without a 3rd world war. It is a tough ask for sure but it is being made easier by the horrible atrocities the terrorists are carrying out against other Muslims. I understand this won't solve the other issues in the Muslim world, but as I pointed out, these issues exist in other places as well and should be treated separately from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

I'm not sure what your argument is here: even if these people have dangerous theocratic views (like killing apostates), we shouldn't concern ourselves with those, because we don't want to antagonize them?  I'm open to that argument, but that's entirely separate from an evaluation of whether their views are problematic.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: January 15, 2015, 12:03:01 AM »

Alright, here's how I break it down. There are no doubt Muslims that believe anyone without a literal interpretation of the Koran isn't Muslim. There's also people who say anyone who doesn't literally interpret the Bible isn't Christian. Obviously liberal Protestants are not Christian to these people. Being a liberal Protestant, I think it's pretty obvious what my opinion is. So if Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants (which they fit pretty well in they basically hold to all the basic tenants and five pillars, they just don't follow most un-modern Islamic laws like liberal Protestants reject the anti-gay stuff), then yeah they're clearly Muslim by my view.

Ahmadis are a sect that was founded by some guy in the 19th century who claimed to have received further revelations from God after Mohammed. Does that remind you of anything? The vast majority of Muslims (including probably most Bektashi I'd wager) consider them non-Muslim on the grounds that Mohammed being the final messenger is a tenant of Islam. In Pakistan there's heavy discrimination against them, it's basically illegal for themselves to call themselves Muslim or even to call their places of worship mosques. But if you're going to exclude Mormons as Christians, it's hard to not exclude them as Muslim too, especially considering the similarities. Obviously this doesn't justify the legal discrimination against them, and I don't consider them any more right or wrong than Muslims, but there's a solid case to exclude them and not Bektashi.

But Islam broadly tolerates non-literal interpretations of scripture a lot less than Christianity does, from my opinion.  Relatively few Muslims share that sentiment.  You're falsely assuming that Christianity and Islam have the same consensus determinants about what makes you "truly" Christian/Muslim.

I'll also note that while there are plenty that agree with me that liberal Protestants are Christian but not Mormon, it's pretty difficult to argue the latter, unless you believe in some sort of insane No True Scotsman that being anti-gay is a central tenant of Christianity (which a lot of Reddit-esque neckbeard atheist types actually do, but I know you're smarter than they are.)

Again, if consensus determines the minimum requirements to "truly" be of a given religion, then my understanding is that most Muslims would exclude those who don't follow the Quran as the literal word.  This consensus is not nearly as strong in Christianity.  The emphasis on literal interpretation in Islam is probably why even moderate Muslim countries can have alarming poll results.  Islam does not have the same cultural separation between good conduct in society and good conduct as a religious individual.  I don't know to what extent this is true (I know many countries allow women to decline full burqas even though most citizens consider it immoral), but I do think it probably makes it harder to convince Muslims to adopt secular civic societies.

Alright, valid point there. But still I think the point remains the same, the criteria used to exclude Mormons as Christian is not the same type of logic that'd be used to exclude Bektashi. It would exclude a couple other sects that claim to be Muslim, but I'll agree with the general consensus of most Muslims on that.

BTW I think you don't know what a burqa is. They're quite rare even in Muslim countries. See this article for a distinction: http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-in-burqa-condemns-woman-in-chador,169/

How many people have actually been tried and killed for apostasy in Malaysia?

Apostasy isn't illegal in Malaysia.  I did not say apostasy is illegal in Malaysia.  I said a majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy.

Actually, apostasy IS illegal in Malaysia. It doesn't carry a death sentence, or even criminal penalties, but the state refuses to recognize it, and that results in some pretty awful and discriminatory situations, such as the case of Lina Joy I linked to above.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: January 15, 2015, 12:25:40 AM »

BTW I think you don't know what a burqa is. They're quite rare even in Muslim countries. See this article for a distinction: http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-in-burqa-condemns-woman-in-chador,169/

Sorry, I do.  I have a bad habit of thinking "type chador not burqa" and then, naturally, typing "burqa" instead.  I actually saw the first woman I've ever seen wearing a burqa here yesterday.  It was weird -- she was in a group of women wearing pretty non-conservative chadors.  One of them even had her bangs showing.  I guess it was a Sex in the City thing and she was the Charlotte.*

Actually, apostasy IS illegal in Malaysia. It doesn't carry a death sentence, or even criminal penalties, but the state refuses to recognize it, and that results in some pretty awful and discriminatory situations, such as the case of Lina Joy I linked to above.

I meant to say it's not a criminal offense, but in any case, you definitely know more about this than I do Smiley.  Apparently (from Wikipedia) one state allows conversions, but it's an incredibly obscure process.  At least the government seems to be more moderate than the Muslim populace on the issue.  Anyway, thanks for educating me.

* - for the record, I had to Google that.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: January 15, 2015, 07:39:38 AM »

And just to get this off my chest:

There are multiple lefties on this forum, TNF and Lief chief among them, that will beat their chests and openly advocate for literally throwing racists, sexists, homophobes, etc, behind bars. Who will completely decimate the reputations of individuals for the slightest of things, who see vicious -isms behind the mildest of transgressions and poor wordings.

There's an enormous irony in the fact that some of the same people who will go on and on about how wildly offensive American culture is because they think it's genuinely patriarchal, about how our entire system is racist and misogynistic top to bottom, are the same ones who run defense and play games of whataboutery when it comes to actually misogynistic ideologies, actual out-and-out racism, and actually violently patriarchal societies. When it's white American racism, it's throw those people behind bars. When it's perceived sexism in media, get rid of that dangerous trash. The tiniest reference to guns in political imagery is "they're encouraging violence against political targets, those monsters!" But when it comes to cultures that are far more intolerant, far more misogynistic, cultures and strains of thought that are far more accepting of violence, it's "well, what about the Christians" and "muh cultural differences, you're being racist and unwelcoming." If a politician here said they believe gays should be put to death, you wouldn't be defending them by saying "well, they go about the rest of their lives totally normal!"

If you're the sort of person that actually gets outraged by every little thing in Western society that someone could maybe, if you look at it the right way and click your heels a few times, be construed as bigoted and violent, there is literally no better target, no more influential of a target, than Middle Eastern countries and all-too-common fundamentalist Islamic thought. Start holding these people to similar standards or throw your standards in the f**king garbage and stop making such a show about how you care about the plight of women and other disadvantaged groups around the world.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: January 15, 2015, 07:45:50 AM »

So, since we appear to be going around in circles here, let me ask a (probably ridiculous, but maybe thought-provoking at the margins) question: Let's say by some fluke of history, the places of Islam and Christianity were roughly reversed. That is, Islam presently occupies majority status in Europe and the West, and Christianity is the religion of many/most in the Middle East through Southeast Asia. I know this counterfactual is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but just roll with me for a second.

Do we believe that Europe and the West, in that case, economically prosperous Europe and the West, would be violent and oppressive because of the doctrine of Islam, and the Middle East would be comparatively peaceful because of the lack of such doctrine?

Also, to quickly reply to the post above mine, the idea that if you're focused on problems closer to home more than bigger problems elsewhere in the world, you're somehow a hypocrite, is ridiculous. You're arguing VOCIFEROUSLY against people who hold different opinions on an internet message board, but meanwhile, people are being stoned to death for apostasy. WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE BEING STONED TO DEATH MORE THAN OUR OPINIONS?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: January 15, 2015, 08:08:20 AM »

I'm not trying to play the "Stop complaining about your four-star meal, there are starving children in Africa" argument. I'm a bit miffed because some of the same people who would tell me I'm some sort of woman-hating monster for liking songs with "bitch" in the lyrics are the same people who would argue we shouldn't be too loud in condemning the more dangerous aspects of Islam because it might make people feel bad.

It's perfectly understandable (and normal) to not be outraged at all the bad things in the world, we have lives to lead and it's natural we would be more focused on what we see in front of us, but to be so hyper-judicious in your social justice activism yet handwave away (and be all "Oh, but come on guys" about) things like "these hundreds of millions of people think I should die if I say something bad about Muhammad and think women should be beaten and not allowed to drive or read" there's some contradiction that happened along that reasoning process.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: January 15, 2015, 08:30:16 AM »

It is those people we need on our side if we are to win the war on violent, Islamic fundamentalism without a 3rd world war. It is a tough ask for sure but it is being made easier by the horrible atrocities the terrorists are carrying out against other Muslims. I understand this won't solve the other issues in the Muslim world, but as I pointed out, these issues exist in other places as well and should be treated separately from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

I'm not sure what your argument is here: even if these people have dangerous theocratic views (like killing apostates), we shouldn't concern ourselves with those, because we don't want to antagonize them?  I'm open to that argument, but that's entirely separate from an evaluation of whether their views are problematic.

I will respond to both you and Marokai in more detail when I have time but I wanted to address this because it touched upon my basic point. We will need these people who reject violent extremism, even if they hold these nasty views about gays or women, on our side in the very important fight against terrorism. That does not in any way justify those views. I am just being practical here. Fighting 1.5 Billion people is something I am just not interested in, especially since 99.99% of them don't pose any threat to me. Islamic society needs to reform itself and it will only be successful if it comes internally. I hope you don't think if liberals in the west start criticizing Islam that Islam will suddenly reform itself. The opposite is more likely to happen, if it has any effect at all.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: January 15, 2015, 10:04:19 AM »

It is those people we need on our side if we are to win the war on violent, Islamic fundamentalism without a 3rd world war. It is a tough ask for sure but it is being made easier by the horrible atrocities the terrorists are carrying out against other Muslims. I understand this won't solve the other issues in the Muslim world, but as I pointed out, these issues exist in other places as well and should be treated separately from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

I'm not sure what your argument is here: even if these people have dangerous theocratic views (like killing apostates), we shouldn't concern ourselves with those, because we don't want to antagonize them?  I'm open to that argument, but that's entirely separate from an evaluation of whether their views are problematic.

I will respond to both you and Marokai in more detail when I have time but I wanted to address this because it touched upon my basic point. We will need these people who reject violent extremism, even if they hold these nasty views about gays or women, on our side in the very important fight against terrorism. That does not in any way justify those views. I am just being practical here. Fighting 1.5 Billion people is something I am just not interested in, especially since 99.99% of them don't pose any threat to me. Islamic society needs to reform itself and it will only be successful if it comes internally. I hope you don't think if liberals in the west start criticizing Islam that Islam will suddenly reform itself. The opposite is more likely to happen, if it has any effect at all.

Who said we need to fight Muslims?  Nobody here.

And, you need to distinguish public policy and diplomacy from a discussion of facts.  You are conflating those two things.  As if, my opinion about Islam could either start a war or mend hurt feelings.  Nobody cares what I think, my only interest is in the truth, not in the public relations side of it.

As for that side, of course, the State Department and Barack Obama shouldn't say negative things about Islam.  Even if those negative things are true, it doesn't help and could seriously hurt.  When it comes to be diplomacy, it pays to be diplomatic.  There's something called "Realpolitik."  Our country can't afford to treat the world like a moral crusade in our foreign policy. 

So, your point is like in 1944 saying we can't have an academic discussion about Stalinism because we need to USSR's help and we can't go to war with them.  "You can't say bad things about communism because there are hundreds of millions of communists!"

That's the difference here. Some people are interested in the connections between religion and certain phenomena in the real world.  Other people are specifically not interested if the truth doesn't conform to what they wish was true.  If the truth might be offensive or upsetting, nahhh, not interested.

I actually don't think I'm an expert on this subject. There are really complicated questions here that are layered and complex.  And, maybe, you look at Islam and say, "hey, Islam has no connection to Islamic terrorism."  But, it seems to me that shutting down all thinking about certain difficult questions, as some people here demand, for the sake of people's feelings is ridiculous.  If you want to understand any issue and ultimately attempt to address it, I think you need to start with the truth.  Not what you hope is true or a sanitized version of the truth that could never hurt people's feelings.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: January 15, 2015, 10:21:26 AM »

So, your point is like in 1944 saying we can't have an academic discussion about Stalinism because we need to USSR's help and we can't go to war with them.  "You can't say bad things about communism because there are hundreds of millions of communists!"

That's the difference here. Some people are interested in the connections between religion and certain phenomena in the real world.  Other people are specifically not interested if the truth doesn't conform to what they wish was true.  If the truth might be offensive or upsetting, nahhh, not interested.

I actually don't think I'm an expert on this subject. There are really complicated questions here that are layered and complex.  And, maybe, you look at Islam and say, "hey, Islam has no connection to Islamic terrorism."  But, it seems to me that shutting down all thinking about certain difficult questions, as some people here demand, for the sake of people's feelings is ridiculous.  If you want to understand any issue and ultimately attempt to address it, I think you need to start with the truth.  Not what you hope is true or a sanitized version of the truth that could never hurt people's feelings.

Strawmen bolded. If you're going to rightly call people out for mischaracterizing their position, don't do it back to them.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: January 15, 2015, 10:30:05 AM »

Maybe what I said was a tad hyperbolic.  It's an analogy, it's not the same but, it's similar in the context of what I was illustrating.

But, it's telling that you don't want to argue about reality, you only want to police and edit my language. 
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: January 15, 2015, 10:31:59 AM »

I'm not trying to police or edit you. I wasn't even really very harsh. I was just pointing out something you said that wasn't correct.

I posited a question earlier that nobody has answered. Do you think that, were religions to be magically flipped and today the West were to be dominated by Islam, and Christianity were dominant in the Middle East, that the West would become more violent and regressive and the Middle East would become more tolerant?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: January 15, 2015, 10:38:11 AM »

I'm not trying to police or edit you. I wasn't even really very harsh. I was just pointing out something you said that wasn't correct.

I can't go into this stupid game again where you derail everything by repeatedly saying that said something offensive to your delicate sensibilities.

I posited a question earlier that nobody has answered. Do you think that, were religions to be magically flipped and today the West were to be dominated by Islam, and Christianity were dominant in the Middle East, that the West would become more violent and regressive and the Middle East would become more tolerant?

It's a waste of time to answer that.  We're not comparing Islam in theory to Christianity in theory, or Christianity in 150 vs. Islam in 650.  We're talking about Islam today, which is inescapably a product of its particular history.  So, that thought experiment is both a waste of time and inapplicable to this discussion.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: January 15, 2015, 10:41:15 AM »

Jesus Christ. Go throw your little hissy fit somewhere else. It's beyond tiresome.

It's absolutely relevant to this discussion to ponder whether it's something inherent about the religion or, like you said, the particular path that the history of that religion has taken in this world. That's what I'm getting at. Do you think that Islam uniquely offers up more justification for violence and regressive policies than other religions do? I happen to think that the places in the world where Islam has taken deepest root and their particular circumstances matter a good bit more than the actual contents of the religion's scriptures.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: January 15, 2015, 11:00:54 AM »

Jesus Christ. Go throw your little hissy fit somewhere else. It's beyond tiresome.

It's absolutely relevant to this discussion to ponder whether it's something inherent about the religion or, like you said, the particular path that the history of that religion has taken in this world. That's what I'm getting at. Do you think that Islam uniquely offers up more justification for violence and regressive policies than other religions do? I happen to think that the places in the world where Islam has taken deepest root and their particular circumstances matter a good bit more than the actual contents of the religion's scriptures.

That's a loaded question though and a useless one as well.  Because, religions change based on their history and context, even if the scriptures don't change.  So, any ideology or religion would be different if there was a different historical context where it evolved.  You're exchanging a factual, empirical question for a ridiculous hypothetical question so it's easier to just throw up your arms and say, "nobody knows and so, all religions are the same!"

And, your premise is that unless Islam is so inherently itself as a religious unit that its historical context is irrelevant, then, Islam is essentially irrelevant to politics and current events in 2015.  That's just all or nothing thinking.  Either it's the only variable or it's irrelevant.

To me, these questions are too complex to tease out with these silly thought experiments.  Rather, you just have to examine the ideologies as they are in 2015 and see what the consequences are in 2015.  Because, we actually can't change the history of anything because that's baked in for any religion and for the state of affairs in 2015.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: January 15, 2015, 11:10:41 AM »

OK. So, in between all of the condescension, and the attempts to tell me what my opinions really are, it seems like there are some actual points in there.

My contention isn't that Islam is irrelevant, or can be ignored, or is the same as any other religion, or any of that. Rather, I think it's less relevant than is often asserted by folks like Harris and Maher. I'm an atheist, and I obviously think the regressive, illiberal doctrines of Islam are awful in theory and in practice. But I think the geopolitical situation of the region in which Islam has made its deepest roots has provided fertile ground for those aspects of the religion to fester and spread.

I don't oppose criticism in this vein because I'm a shrinking violet who's afraid someone's feelings will get hurt. Rather, I don't think it's terribly effective, and doesn't address the real roots of the problem. This particular extremism is Islamic in flavor, but I'm not convinced at all that it's irreducibly Islamic, and that absent that particular ideology the extremism wouldn't exist.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: January 15, 2015, 11:20:42 AM »

Jesus Christ. Go throw your little hissy fit somewhere else. It's beyond tiresome.

It's absolutely relevant to this discussion to ponder whether it's something inherent about the religion or, like you said, the particular path that the history of that religion has taken in this world. That's what I'm getting at. Do you think that Islam uniquely offers up more justification for violence and regressive policies than other religions do? I happen to think that the places in the world where Islam has taken deepest root and their particular circumstances matter a good bit more than the actual contents of the religion's scriptures.

The problem is that there's no such things as true Islam or Christianity (except for the Evangelical Lutheran Church:p), both are a highly syntetic mix, which have developed in their inteaction with different cultures and social structures the last 2 millenniums.

A Islam which had spend the 1000 year in Europe, would only be superficial recognisable for us. It would likely look more like the Protestant state churches (king at the top, organised clergy below) than anything like the Middle East.

While Christianity, which was never shaped by Greco-Roman culture and institutions, would likely look more like Rabbinic Judaism, with no organised clergy, but instead individual churches lead by some kind of scholar.

This make the thought experiment interesting, but fundamental irrelevant for this discussion.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: January 15, 2015, 11:38:44 AM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 11:41:33 AM by bedstuy »

I'm not convinced at all that it's irreducibly Islamic, and that absent that particular ideology the extremism wouldn't exist.

I don't think that matters at all.  If you take away the history between India and Pakistan, maybe they wouldn't have nationalist tensions.  Does that mean their national rivalry doesn't actual exist or something?

I don't oppose criticism in this vein because I'm a shrinking violet who's afraid someone's feelings will get hurt. Rather, I don't think it's terribly effective, and doesn't address the real roots of the problem.

Sure.  I don't think criticism will help by itself.  I don't go up to religious people and say, "yo, your religion is dumb, dummy!"  That would be unhelpful.  But, I think an accurate picture of the relationship between religious beliefs and actions is actually important and helpful.  And, I think Sunni Islam fuels terrorism and Islamism by virtue of its current doctrines (which are a product of history and context, etc. etc., not some magic kernel of evil or the swarthy Oriental essential nature of the A-Rabs).  I wish that wasn't true, but I think it is based on what I know about Islam and its recent history.  And, maybe I'm wrong.  But, it matters if I'm wrong, and I would like to know that I'm wrong as a matter of facts, as opposed to wrong as a matter of wishful thinking or public relations towards the Islamic world.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 12 queries.