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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:21:21 PM
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 15307 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: January 15, 2015, 12:10:30 PM »

All of the Abrahamic religions share a story where God commits the genocide of the entire world, so if we are talking strictly doctrine none of them is entirely humanistic.

Religion has no obligation to be compatible with liberal principles. The will of God supersedes any human constructed system, because God is God. If you really believe that God is real and that God wanted the attack on Charlie Hebdo to happen, then it was right and just that it happened - just as it was right and just that Sodom and Gomorrah happened. This is a perfectly consistent internal system.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: January 15, 2015, 01:24:26 PM »

All of the Abrahamic religions share a story where God commits the genocide of the entire world, so if we are talking strictly doctrine none of them is entirely humanistic.

Those are really bad examples, as those are acts of God, not human acts, a better comparison is the Israelite invasion of Canaan.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: January 15, 2015, 02:47:23 PM »

(Sorry that the co-writer behind Feminist Frequency is turning out to be a crank, traininthedistance.)

Hey, thanks for the shout-out, but this is not a minefield I'm inclined to wade into right now.  All I'll say is that people can be right about some things and wrong about others (even when those things are closely related).  I'll defend that crowd when they deserve defending (either because they're right or just the victims of strawmanning and harassment and such) and I have the energy for it...  neither of those circumstances holds at this moment.  Smiley

Though Bill Maher is still a pompous idiot who isn't a tenth as smart or brave as he thinks he is.  I defer to Nix in the other thread for why.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: January 15, 2015, 03:15:42 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 03:17:23 PM by CrabCake »

Religion is stupid, but thinking that violent morons actually care about their religions beyond using them as a great excuse to yell at people and blow stuff up is equally stupid.

This is why people posting Muhammad on facebook and waxing about their caricatures with titles like "ZOMG single-handedly defeating ISIS lol!!11!" are really barking up the wrong tree. You think any extremist (beyond the simple-minded grunts who are riled up in sermons) actually give two craps about poxy drawings? No, it's just further ammo, further potential to distort the West in propaganda and further abilities to undermine the free nations of the west.
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 #154 on: January 15, 2015, 04:25:04 PM »

Religion is stupid, but thinking that violent morons actually care about their religions beyond using them as a great excuse to yell at people and blow stuff up is equally stupid.

This is why people posting Muhammad on facebook and waxing about their caricatures with titles like "ZOMG single-handedly defeating ISIS lol!!11!" are really barking up the wrong tree. You think any extremist (beyond the simple-minded grunts who are riled up in sermons) actually give two craps about poxy drawings? No, it's just further ammo, further potential to distort the West in propaganda and further abilities to undermine the free nations of the west.

What are you basing that on? 

As for what people post on facebook, it's all nonsense.  You can find a dumb facebook post on either side of any political debate so pointing out dumb ideas on one side is irrelevant.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: January 15, 2015, 04:41:27 PM »

because the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to not get upset about cartoons alone.

I imagine the thugs who shot up the office were very very upset about the cartoons because empty people end up filling their lives with platitude based ideologies.They don't have a particular "understanding" of the religion they use, any more than the anarchist who shot President McKinley had a deep understanding of anarchist literature or that Gavrilo Princip was an intellectual icon of Slav nationalism. They saw a way to enter the history books (and have their 72 virgins) and took it; because have a deep-rooted lack of purpose that is easily fulfilled by the "charm" of chaos.

Blaming things on religion is a silly response. Sure - the prospect of martyrdom is unique to religion, I'll give you that. But terrible people will continue to be terrible regardless of the religion they attribute their actions too; and vice versa.

*
And of course I ignore the other players: the faceless men who fund these idiots and spread violent ideologies across the globe. Of course, that can be blamed on religion; but a faith that predates Islam : the worship of Mammon.
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 #156 on: January 15, 2015, 04:58:34 PM »

That's pretty thin though because you're just sort of asserting that nobody is motivated by religion.  I think that's manifestly untrue as demonstrated throughout history that religion is a strong motivating factor in people's lives.  It can be tough for atheists to grasp, I certainly don't totally understand it, but I don't automatically second-guess the idea that people care about religion just because I don't.

Would you also say that the Nazis weren't motivated by fascism or anti-Semitism, did they just have similar evil whims because they were bored or crazy or whatever?  Or, would you say that if Nazis weren't anti-Semites for the reasons Nazis used, they would have slaughtered the Jews for some other reason, maybe because they hated potato pancakes?  Or, if it wasn't Jews, it might have been left-handed people? 

I just find that whole idea very bold and almost comical, that nobody is motivated by ideologies or religions. 
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: January 15, 2015, 05:24:43 PM »

I think people overestimate the role of religion in their lives, to the risk of denying themselves agency. MLK, to take an drastically different example, often spoke of being inspired by religion. But - with the greatest of respects to the good man - I think underestimated his own inherent goodness. If MLK was an atheist or irreligious, would he have been less motivated to fight racial and economic inequality? Somehow I doubt it.

In the case of the Nazis, they are a perfect example of how ideologies hijack a widespread emotion. The proto-Nazi's like the Freikorp started to band together because of a mutual feeling of betrayal, humiliation, destabilisation and anger; which was channelled into the organised movement of the Nazis. Anti-Semetism is little more than an extreme form of loathing of an easily identified "out-group". It's an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual rationalisation.

All ideologies start as emotions. A person is disgusted by inequality so becomes a socialist. A person is enamoured with freedom so becomes a liberal. A person horrified by change becomes  a reactionary. And so on. This is not an inherently bad thing - but I don't think it can be denied.

I think it's all too easy to make Islamism an "alien" belief that is entirely separate from our Western lives. But I find it far more interesting - and useful - to examine the human dimension of these nuts, rather than view them as a faceless horde controlled by a single ideology.

(People are welcome to sage this post, btw)
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: January 15, 2015, 05:36:39 PM »

because the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to not get upset about cartoons alone.

I imagine the thugs who shot up the office were very very upset about the cartoons because empty people end up filling their lives with platitude based ideologies.They don't have a particular "understanding" of the religion they use, any more than the anarchist who shot President McKinley had a deep understanding of anarchist literature or that Gavrilo Princip was an intellectual icon of Slav nationalism. They saw a way to enter the history books (and have their 72 virgins) and took it; because have a deep-rooted lack of purpose that is easily fulfilled by the "charm" of chaos.

Blaming things on religion is a silly response. Sure - the prospect of martyrdom is unique to religion, I'll give you that. But terrible people will continue to be terrible regardless of the religion they attribute their actions too; and vice versa.

*
And of course I ignore the other players: the faceless men who fund these idiots and spread violent ideologies across the globe. Of course, that can be blamed on religion; but a faith that predates Islam : the worship of Mammon.
Thousands, probably millions of people called for the Muhammad cartoons to be censored. Millions of people, majorities of entire countries, support executing apostates and all that other horrible stuff. Do you honestly think all of them are terrible people (or at the very least unintelligent)? That just seems like an extreme, black-and-white view of the world. Not everyone who does terrible things is a psychopath or just a "terrible person." We all have the capacity to do or support terrible things. The idea that belief systems which claim to define morality and are taught to people as truth from birth can't significantly encourage/promote that capacity, because people who do bad things are really just inherently bad people, is ridiculous and Manichean.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: January 15, 2015, 05:46:15 PM »

...no and I appreciate words not being placed in my mouth.

People do horrible things due to their own internal rationalisations and psyches, which make them appear to be horrible people.

If you grow up in a culture where everybody else thinks apostates should be murdered, guess what? You're going to think that is a normal action. People are people everywhere, and we all are products of our environment.

But, quite frankly, I wasn't even talking about them. I was talking about the subversives: the ISIS fighters, the shooters and the bombers. I think you just saw a few random phrases and decided to have a go at me for something that I don't think I even implied.
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 #160 on: January 15, 2015, 05:55:24 PM »

...no and I appreciate words not being placed in my mouth.

People do horrible things due to their own internal rationalisations and psyches, which make them appear to be horrible people.

If you grow up in a culture where everybody else thinks apostates should be murdered, guess what? You're going to think that is a normal action. People are people everywhere, and we all are products of our environment.

But, quite frankly, I wasn't even talking about them. I was talking about the subversives: the ISIS fighters, the shooters and the bombers. I think you just saw a few random phrases and decided to have a go at me for something that I don't think I even implied.

Every country ever will have people influenced by their environment and their emotions.  So, that's an explanation that explains nothing, right?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: January 15, 2015, 06:00:51 PM »

um I was responding to Deus's weird non-sequitur not your point.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: January 15, 2015, 06:16:26 PM »

I'm not sure where you're going with this, CrabCake.  It's true that a decent number of the foot soldiers are probably not intellectuals or theologians.  I'm not sure why you're arguing that matters?  It's not like Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have an intellectual background (Sayyid Qutb, etc.).  It's also not like lacking deep theological understanding precludes someone from being influenced by sincere theological beliefs.  There are certainly some sociopaths, probably many, within the ranks of terrorists.  But what has led you to believe that these people are insincere about their religious beliefs?  I'm sure it's comforting to believe that these are people who don't care about doing the right thing, and are just looking for an excuse for violence, but that ignores the fact that there's ample evidence that normal people can be incredibly violent when they think they're doing good.  I'm not sure why you seem convinced that this isn't happening here.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: January 15, 2015, 06:23:44 PM »

I just think people are too overeager to look for theological reasons why we are seeing a bunch of Islamic extremists rather than looking at things from a humanistic perspective.

I don't think they are "sociopaths", but simply using religion as a crux to work off ... aggro, for lack of a better word. (an extremely and almost certainly broad generalisation I'll admit).
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: January 15, 2015, 07:31:35 PM »

I agree with alcon and Bedstuy.

Crabcake, you seem to be seeing things through a secular lense to the point that you are having difficulty perceiving things any other way.

e.g.

because the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to not get upset about cartoons alone.

Why is not getting upset over a cartoon a question of intelligence? It seems to play to the stereotypical New Atheist view "he's just an imaginary friend anyway".
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: January 15, 2015, 08:06:15 PM »

I just think people are too overeager to look for theological reasons why we are seeing a bunch of Islamic extremists rather than looking at things from a humanistic perspective.

I don't think they are "sociopaths", but simply using religion as a crux to work off ... aggro, for lack of a better word. (an extremely and almost certainly broad generalisation I'll admit).

So, is your point that young men can be easily drawn to violence?  Yes.  But most potentially violent people are not amoral sociopaths, and require some sort of moral or social justification to want to commit atrocities.  It's ridiculous to argue that religion is merely a front for those who would assuredly otherwise be violent, and are insincerely looking for a rationalization. I know why it's appealing in a sort of black-and-white way, but it's just not realistic.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: January 15, 2015, 10:15:31 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.)

I think a distinction needs to be made between violent, fundamentalist Islam and others who may share similar beliefs but do not condone violence. There may be cultural factors at play as well (Middle East vs South/Southeast Asia). As has been presented in this thread, muslims in southeast asia hold many troubling views but rarely resort to violence. You seem to be making the argument (not trying to put words in your mouth, just my interpretation of what you wrote) that there are way more fundamentalists in Islam, and a certain number of them snap, thus leading to terrorist attacks. And since there are more Islamic fundamentalists out there than fundamentalists of other religions, there are more attacks by Islamic terrorists. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. If it was just that simple to connect conservative fundamentalist muslims to terrorism, you would be seeing much more terrorism in countries like India (by this I mean home grown terrorists, not Pakistanis), Bangladesh, Indonesia etc. I blame the wahabbis who are pushing a form of Islam that is even more conservative than what exists in large parts of the world and it is more aggressive in pushing for the spread of Islam throughout the world.

This is why I think criticism of Islam itself in a thread or a conversation about terrorism is completely wrong as well as unproductive. Now that does not mean that you cannot criticize Islam. You may certainly do so. But I don't understand the need to single it out. If you did a broader criticism of religion and the problems it causes in the world, I will be the first to admit Islam would be the star of the show. Yet that does not mean there are not repugnant views held by members of all other religions (many times due to sociocultural reasons which should be kept in mind). What does singling out Islam achieve?

Moreover, why are some of you so anxious about making sure liberals in the west are criticizing Islam? What purpose will that serve? What do you hope to achieve? Islam will not modernize itself because liberals in the west suddenly decided to criticize Islam. All it will do is marginalize those who are muslim and open to modernity. That is why people like Fareed Zakaria and Reza Aslan, both liberal muslims, vehemently disagree with the way Sam Harris approaches this issue.


Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: January 15, 2015, 10:48:35 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 10:50:35 PM by Sbane »

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.

As I mentioned in the response to Marokai above, if the link between Islamists and Islamic terrorism is that important, why don't we see more terrorism in places like Malaysia or Bangladesh? You yourself gave evidence that even in these supposed moderate countries, the people still profess to believe in things written in the Koran which are highly illiberal. I think wahabbism is a different beast than your traditional, conservative Islam. Wahabbism advocates for the killing of other muslims who visit shrines of sufi saints. So you can only imagine what its followers think of people in other religions....

As for the discussion of Islam, again as I asked Marokai, I have to ask what is to be gained from singling out Islam for criticism. It just does not accomplish anything, except pissing off muslims who are basically on our side and who do hold liberal views.

I can sort of see your perspective, as you think Islamism leads to extremism and terrorist attacks (not always as you point out but it increases the likelihood of it). I don't think the link is that simple. You think this is merely about religion, whereas I think the cultures of the regions involved play a huge role as well. As someone who is primarily concerned with terrorism in the Islamic world as opposed to its other ills, I consider someone who rejects violence but may still think the Koran is the literal word of god, to be my ally in that fight against terrorism.

I know the last paragraph may make it seem like I don't care about gays or women in the muslim world, but the reality is that I am not going to change how the muslim world thinks. Reform needs to come from within, not from the west or any other non-muslim place. So I really don't see myself as being in a place to criticize Islam. There is nothing I can gain from it other than pissing off my dear friends who share my values but identify as muslim.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: January 15, 2015, 11:01:16 PM »

Him and Sam Harris are right on. I'm really sick of liberals defending Islam.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: January 15, 2015, 11:07:04 PM »

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.

If you make the war on terrorism a war against Islam, then you suddenly do have to fight all muslims. I know no one has said that specific phrase, but if you talk about Islam itself being the problem in the context of terrorism, it is not hard to put two and two together.

I am glad you are in search for the truth. The truth is that Islam is a highly conservative religion that actively suppresses the rights of religious minorities, the LGBT community and women. And while there are other highly conservative religions in the world, case in point Christianity and Judaism, those two religions have been more successful at reforming themselves, especially Judaism. Are you happy now? Here is another truth though. This has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. There is certainly a link there to be made between wahabbism and terrorism, but the link between traditional Islamic practice in South/Southeast Asia and terrorism is much, much more tenuous. If it is Islamism (defined as a literal interpretation of the Koran) alone that drives terrorism, then Indonesia would be a much more violent place.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: January 15, 2015, 11:10:46 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 11:21:19 PM by Sbane »

Also, before anyone else proceeds to put words in my mouth and say that I am denying a link between Islam and Islamic terrorism, I am not doing any such thing. I am merely pointing out it is much, much more complicated than that.

Edit: Looking back at this thread, I find it funny that just 8 months ago people were accusing me of not caring whether Muslims were killed in religious riots. Smiley
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: January 15, 2015, 11:28:23 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2015, 11:30:09 PM by Sbane »

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.

Looks like I missed this earlier. I really hope you weren't thinking of me when you wrote this post....or else I am going to very pissed off since I never criticize America for being misogynist or patriarchal or whatever. As for racism, there is a lot of institutional racism in America, although it is rapidly transitioning into a weird class system. As for examples of that, look no further than drug laws and the zealous cops that enforce them.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: January 16, 2015, 12:51:36 AM »

As I mentioned in the response to Marokai above, if the link between Islamists and Islamic terrorism is that important, why don't we see more terrorism in places like Malaysia or Bangladesh? You yourself gave evidence that even in these supposed moderate countries, the people still profess to believe in things written in the Koran which are highly illiberal. I think wahabbism is a different beast than your traditional, conservative Islam. Wahabbism advocates for the killing of other muslims who visit shrines of sufi saints. So you can only imagine what its followers think of people in other religions....

Yes, sbane, I agree.  However, I've made it clear what I'm arguing, so I don't understand why you keep asking me again.  Islamist religious beliefs are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Islamist terrorism.  I don't know why you keep pointing out that Wahhabism is a different thing than conservative Islam, like I don't know that, or like I've been arguing otherwise.

As for the discussion of Islam, again as I asked Marokai, I have to ask what is to be gained from singling out Islam for criticism. It just does not accomplish anything, except pissing off muslims who are basically on our side and who do hold liberal views.

Those necessary-but-not-sufficient beliefs for religious extremism are more widespread in Islam than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism.  That does not mean they are only in Islam.  It does not mean they are shared by most Muslims.  It does not mean other religiously-inspired extremism doesn't warrant criticism, as with he Uganda case.  It does not mean anything but the very literal words I've carefully wrote in this thread.

But there is an equivocation you're nearly making here that you've nearly made several times.  The Muslims who are "basically on our side and who do hold liberal values" are not the same as the non-Wahabbists.  Conservative, traditionalist Muslims largely do not hold liberal values, unless you're defining liberal values by "opposing blowing people up for liberalism."  I'm all for alliances with people who oppose terrorism.  However, that doesn't mean I don't think that the values they hold aren't problematic, and aren't potentially fostering extremism within their societies' ranks.  Not always, not inevitably, and not consistently between countries, but often.

I can sort of see your perspective, as you think Islamism leads to extremism and terrorist attacks (not always as you point out but it increases the likelihood of it). I don't think the link is that simple. You think this is merely about religion, whereas I think the cultures of the regions involved play a huge role as well. As someone who is primarily concerned with terrorism in the Islamic world as opposed to its other ills, I consider someone who rejects violence but may still think the Koran is the literal word of god, to be my ally in that fight against terrorism.

OK, dude, I have never said that I think this is "all about religion."  I have said the opposite several times.  I can keep clarifying my argument, but it's going to be pointless if you keep not reading it.  I sincerely believe that you're trying to be fair-minded here, which is why I'm so confused as to why you keep reading arguments that aren't being made.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: January 16, 2015, 05:15:41 AM »

I agree with alcon and Bedstuy.

Crabcake, you seem to be seeing things through a secular lense to the point that you are having difficulty perceiving things any other way.

e.g.

because the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to not get upset about cartoons alone.

Why is not getting upset over a cartoon a question of intelligence? It seems to play to the stereotypical New Atheist view "he's just an imaginary friend anyway".

Apologies if it seemed that way. I was actually desperately trying to avoid looking through a Dawkinite perspective which is essentially "religion is always a malevolent force and the religious are little more than ciphers for their ideologies". I think far more highly of the religious than to assume they are entirely subservient to their religion. Again, I am sorry if I sounded like a stereotypical angry atheist.

@Alcon

If Islam didn't exist, wouldn't these people just find some other excuse to be violent? People (warning: hyperbole incoming) seem to be acting as if violent acts are exclusive to the Islamic world.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: January 16, 2015, 02:20:53 PM »

It's funny how common-sense rules of inductive inference are never followed when people debate about Islam. Here's what I'm thinking reading through this thread.

  • Has anyone in this thread, regardless of how critical they are to Islam, cited one Quranic verse? There are multiple online English translations.
  • How many people here have Muslim friends, or have any exposure to Muslims apart from "the college lecturer" or "the Sharia guy on cable news?"
  • Why do we demand that "Muslims condemn these terrorists' actions?" I'm not going to demand my white, Christian friends to condemn Mormon polygamy, or give them glares until they write a blog post about the Westboro Baptist Church. This is a double standard, and the average Muslim blogger really advocates against this double standard they regularly experience.
  • While I would never vote for a political Islamist party, the feasible set of policies they can demand varies from country to country. It would be illiberal to stone gays to death, but what's so illiberal about prohibiting the consumption of alcohol?
  • How do we identify the effect of a fundamentalist religious institution on violence, independent of material causes?

While I do want to oppose the anti-Islam side, the discussion for me has turned into a greater question of what is socially acceptable for first-world white guys to say. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and all that. This holds for my fellow critics as well if they lack the necessary evidence.
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 0.067 seconds with 12 queries.