58% of Muslims want criticism of Islam Illegal!

[Michael Hardner]

Nothing there about the church bombings and murders being committed by Muslim extremists there?

No, I was trying to illustrate fallacies in the current analysis by talking about a similar situation, so why would I confuse it by including the current analysis in that example ?

An indication of what? How about an indication that throughout the world there seems to be a reflexive political/religious violence amongst many of the followers of Islam and largely directed at those who do not believe exactly as THEY believe? You can't simply say this is due to poverty as some of these people are well-off. You can't attribute it to ignorance as some of the violent are quite educated. You can't attribute it to colonialism for it's being done by people never colonized. It's not merely committed by Arabs but Bangladeshis and Persians and Indians and Malaysians and Filipinos and Indonesians, etc. Kind of hard to analyze cultural reasons, then. Which seems to only leave religion.

Seems ? There seems to be violence ? That's not going very far, but sure.

Your logic seems to be: It's not poverty, not ignorance, not colonialism, therefore (?) not culture, and that only leaves religion. That's ridiculously simple.

How about talking about the fact that looking at a culture from the vantage point of another is fraught with problems and fallacies.

There are other indeed examples of tribal violence not being owed to poverty, ignorance or colonialism - perhaps rooted in perceived defense/honour of a people. The thing is, with this argument we're **starting** with the idea that it's religion and moving backwards.

If I give an example of tribal cultural violence that is not rooted in religion, one can just find a difference between that example and religion-based violence - a difference that has some admirable quality to it (defense of one's culture, for example) and we're back at the pre-cooked solution that there is something wrong with this religion. It's a mode of arguing that starts with the answer and moves backward, and it is built to defy counter-examples or criticism.

You stated it perfectly, in a nutshell: it's not these factors so it must be religion - what else is left ?

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, I wouldn't waste your time. It's like talking to a brick wall. I think he's so worried about Islamaphobia in general, that he's incapable of accepting the truth. I've honestly never seen anything like it in my life.

I have done my best to show why these things are based on illogical arguments. It's not my fault if people quit the argument before either of us are convinced.

[Michael Hardner]

Polls schmolls. It's in the Koran. So if you're a proper Muslim, this IS what you want.

http://quran.com/33/57

If you're a fundamentalist Christian, you believe in stoning adulterers too, so where are we then ? Why is one holy book crazier than another ? Oh, is it because the *adherents* are crazy ? But... I thought we were trying to prove that they were crazy by quoting their book ?

This is known as a circular argument.

[DogOnPorch]

If you're a fundamentalist Christian, you believe in stoning adulterers too, so where are we then ?

Provide examples, please.

Why is one holy book crazier than another ? Oh, is it because the *adherents* are crazy ? But... I thought we were trying to prove that they were crazy by quoting their book ?

Religion is crazy in the 21st century knowing what we now know about the Universe.

This is known as a circular argument.

Well...to you.

[Guest]

If you're a fundamentalist Christian, you believe in stoning adulterers too, so where are we then ? Why is one holy book crazier than another ? Oh, is it because the *adherents* are crazy ? But... I thought we were trying to prove that they were crazy by quoting their book ?

This is known as a circular argument.

I'm sure you can always come up with examples of bad behaviour by any identifiable group that gets its knickers in a twist, but I think it's the sheer volume of material, along with the government and judicial system approval that sets Islam apart. You might get a Christian in the US acting up, and it might be deadly, but you won't get the government executing anyone for blasphemy. You won't get whole villages showing up for a stoning. You won't get an actual police force, paid by the government, locking the doors of a burning girls school and preventing firefighters and rescuers entering because the girls were in their pyjamas.

And you won't get the Mormons blowing up the Jehovah's Witnesses blowing up the Baptists, every freaking day!

[Michael Hardner]

Great post kimmy. I was just discussing this same point with cybercoma in another thread. Dismissing a particular piece of research out of hand just because you think the source is biased is just not good debating practice, nor is it a good habit even outside of debates.

You don't have to dismiss it, but you don't have to accept it either.

I can honestly say I conducted a research poll last week of Muslims and found 100% supported the constitution. Do you believe me ? Do you accept the results ? Do you believe everything you read ?

Once we have some real data, then we can go to the next step of the discussion: Why are we having this discussion ? What does this mean ? What do we do with these findings if anything ?

[Michael Hardner]

It was a national telephone poll, and the margin of error was posted - and the results were broken down by age, gender, political affiliation, political philosophy, and geographic region. It's not as if they found one mosque, walked in, and polled all of the members.

No, but they could have received a call list from a subscription to a conservative Muslim publication. They could have discarded some responses, since they didn't report non-response or discarded responses either.

They could have done something even more insidious, such as finding a correlative factor and polled based on that factor - which would have masked the non-randomness of the results.

Again. As I've already pointed out, the majority of Muslims in the U.S. are foreign born and the vast majority, ie: almost all, imams are foreign born. You think their opinions don't have any foreign influence? They just moved here and became Americanized in thought, word, and deed?

They're not the same as those who stayed behind, obviously, just as none of us are the same as the English, French, Germans, Irish, Indians, Russians, Poles who stayed behind.

[Michael Hardner]

As Bill Mayer said: "Hmmmmm....cutting your lawn on the Sabbath? I really should kill you."

It just doesn't happen in the 21st century. But relativism would like us to believe that for every crazy loon Muslim, somewhere there's an equally crazy Christian.

Relativism most definitely does not say that. I certainly don't think that's true. I think that separation of church and state is a better system, and that religious influence is far lower in countries like Canada than in religious states.

What I would say is that it's pointless to condemn whole religions based on the acts of the fringe. I also think that people fall into fallacious thinking if they perceive the fact that there's more religious violence in, say Pakistan, than in Canada is numerical proof somehow that Islam causes people to be violent.

[Bonam]

You don't have to dismiss it, but you don't have to accept it either.

I can honestly say I conducted a research poll last week of Muslims and found 100% supported the constitution. Do you believe me ? Do you accept the results ? Do you believe everything you read ?

No, I don't believe everything I read, nor do I accept all results. However, if I want to convince someone of something, I'd try to do more than say "I don't accept those results / don't believe your source". I'd try to show where the source is wrong, why the results should not be believed, etc.

Once we have some real data, then we can go to the next step of the discussion: Why are we having this discussion ? What does this mean ? What do we do with these findings if anything ?

Yes well it's hard to have a meaningful discussion of this type if each side dismisses the other's data.

[Michael Hardner]

Provide examples, please.

By definition, if you believe the bible is the absolute truth then you believe in Leviticus, right ?

Religion is crazy in the 21st century knowing what we now know about the Universe.

I agree, but you can be part-crazy and still lead a perfectly agreeable life. I wouldn't ever condemn people for following their religion as long as it is subordinate to allowing others to live their lives.

Well...to you.

No, by definition. Example:

Step 1 ) Question: Why does this group of people behave in this way ?

Step 2 ) Answer: It's because their holy book is crazy !

Step 3 ) Question: How do you know their holy book makes this group of people crazy, when all holy books have crazy things ?

Step 4 ) Answer: Just look at how the people who follow that book behave ! Their behavior is crazy !

It's circular. Do you see ?

[Mr.Canada]

Prove to me that Christians of different sects are actively killing each other at the same rate of Muslims. Let's see some polls where over half the Christians in Canada are demanding that criticism of Christianity be deemed illegal. Or Christians in Iran then or some other country where Christians are the minority. Prove to me that Christians are doing the same things of killing others when Christianity is criticized.

Muslims are rioting and killing people when Islam is criticized and you guys are all saying 'no it isn't happening', which is just ludicrous. and dishonest. you're also refusing to believe that Islam is a violent religion with a large portion of its adherents follow its holy book literally. You guys need to read the Koran to understand it. If you read you would see things differently.

The reality is that this is happening. it makes no difference what Christianity is doing. Islam is doing these things today in real life and some people here automatically point to Christianity the second Islam is criticized which makes no sense.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Bonam]

Step 1 ) Question: Why does this group of people behave in this way ?

Step 2 ) Answer: It's because their holy book is crazy !

Step 3 ) Question: How do you know their holy book makes this group of people crazy, when all holy books have crazy things ?

Step 4 ) Answer: Just look at how the people who follow that book behave ! Their behavior is crazy !

It's circular. Do you see ?

It doesn't really matter if it's their holy book, the culture of their countries, a genetic predisposition, a mental disorder, a mind control ray, or anything else. The point is, if there is a large proportion of crazy behavior in a certain group, we don't need to be bringing hundreds of thousands of them here. We have enough various crazies as is and don't need more.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I don't believe everything I read, nor do I accept all results. However, if I want to convince someone of something, I'd try to do more than say "I don't accept those results / don't believe your source". I'd try to show where the source is wrong, why the results should not be believed, etc.

Yes, I did that. I explained that the sampling method wasn't stated.

Yes well it's hard to have a meaningful discussion of this type if each side dismisses the other's data.

Data doesn't have a "side". That is the whole point. If you think it does then you're accepting from the outset that we're discussing to win and not look at the facts. If you can provide me some real data on this, something from a real polling firm or an academic study, then we can proceed to the next point in the discussion which is, to me:

Why ? (Why are we discussing this ?)

What ? (What does this mean ?)

Where ? (Where does the discussion go from here ?)

[Michael Hardner]

Prove to me that Christians of different sects are actively killing each other at the same rate of Muslims.

Sorry Mr. Canada - before we continue you have an assertion hanging out there that you have to address about Obama's plans.

Do you admit you were just trolling there ?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sure you can always come up with examples of bad behaviour by any identifiable group that gets its knickers in a twist, but I think it's the sheer volume of material, along with the government and judicial system approval that sets Islam apart. You might get a Christian in the US acting up, and it might be deadly, but you won't get the government executing anyone for blasphemy. You won't get whole villages showing up for a stoning. You won't get an actual police force, paid by the government, locking the doors of a burning girls school and preventing firefighters and rescuers entering because the girls were in their pyjamas.

And you won't get the Mormons blowing up the Jehovah's Witnesses blowing up the Baptists, every freaking day!

Quoting yourself in a post makes it difficult to reply with the 'quote' feature.

So, Islam thrives in areas of the world which are poor, war-torn and (I only use this term because others use it) "backwards". Do you deny that people seem to attribute to the religion the cause of the violence. Are you ok with blaming Christianity for all of the ills that happened because of Colonialism - in Canada and beyond ? Have you ever seen the posts that we (used to) have on here about (ostensibly Christian( religion being a cause of misery ?

I don't attribute those ills to Christianity any more than I attribute the violence of today to Islam.

[Mr.Canada]

Sorry Mr. Canada - before we continue you have an assertion hanging out there that you have to address about Obama's plans.

Do you admit you were just trolling there ?

My problem is that any time Islam is criticized on this board people point to Christianity instead of dealing with the topic of violent Jihad. People always try to make the topic about Jesus when the topic is about violent Jihad around the world.

[Bonam]

Yes, I did that. I explained that the sampling method wasn't stated.

That's certainly one strike against the information, but is insufficient to dismiss it entirely. This isn't a court of law or a scientific peer reviewed journal. This is a debate thread on a forum. If you think the data is false and want to convince people to your point of view, you have to show why it's false, not just assume that everyone will agree with you because the sampling methodology wasn't obviously stated.

Data doesn't have a "side". That is the whole point.

Sigh, the meaning was not that data has a "side", but that certain data may be posted by a given "side", data that is thought to support that "side's" argument. And those who disagree with that argument, are on the "opposide side" of a discussion, tend to dismiss it reflexively. Are you telling me you have not seen this behavior on the forums?

[Bonam]

I don't attribute those ills to Christianity any more than I attribute the violence of today to Islam.

Perhaps you should pause and consider that stance. Religion and religious fanaticism, the willingness of true believers to carry out terrible acts because they believe it is "for the greater good" as defined in their religion or by their religious leaders, is the cause of much suffering, death, and atrocities throughout history.

[bleeding heart]

Except, the murder did happen: after considerable search, I found reference to the murder in a scholarly paper by a legitimate college professor... yet the only media sources that talked about the story were white supremacist sites. They weren't lying, they were talking about an incident that mainstream media didn't want to talk about.

-k

Sure. Heck, The National Enquirer has broken stories on occasion, which had remained assiduously uninvestigated...big stories, even.

That doesn't mean that the NE is gnerally a good publication; it's not. In fact, it's protective legal knowledge aside, it is actually dishonest in spirit, if less often in letter.

But you're right. While suspicion is reasonable, the proof is ultimately in the facts, not the source. Of course.

[Guest]

My problem is that any time Islam is criticized on this board people point to Christianity instead of dealing with the topic of violent Jihad. People always try to make the topic about Jesus when the topic is about violent Jihad around the world.

The left cannot tolerate criticism of Islam because generally the criticism comes from white folks and generally it is aimed at non white folks.

The left has its levels. Racism is at the top. They will turn a blind eye to sexism and homophobia even unto the deaths of those involved to avoid the impression of colonial condescension. They will turn a blind eye to the murder and mayhem that Muslims daily wreak upon each other for the same reasons.

They can't understand that if you or I don't like the idea of women being oppressed, (for one example, among many) and say so, that it's actually because we don't like the idea of women being oppressed, and not just because we don't like those awful Arabs.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't really matter if it's their holy book, the culture of their countries, a genetic predisposition, a mental disorder, a mind control ray, or anything else. The point is, if there is a large proportion of crazy behavior in a certain group, we don't need to be bringing hundreds of thousands of them here. We have enough various crazies as is and don't need more.

Then you're engaging in guilt by association. Worse, you assume that nobody in that group (generally) is worth letting in here - so you're allowing that group to thrive and keep its best people.

Furthermore, however you determine a 'group' is itself a problem. You can discriminate based on lots of factors based on evidence, including race and gender, but we don't do that because we see that as unfair.

[Michael Hardner]

My problem is that any time Islam is criticized on this board people point to Christianity instead of dealing with the topic of violent Jihad.

No, we're addressing the question here by showing analogies. We're not trying to talk about Christianity's so-called problems but looking at the question itself of religion as a cause of behavior.

People always try to make the topic about Jesus when the topic is about violent Jihad around the world.

I see what's happening here. Here - read this and you will learn more.

[Michael Hardner]

That's certainly one strike against the information, but is insufficient to dismiss it entirely.

I don't accept it, nor do I have to. It's an unknown firm working for an obviously biased organization without any reference to how they sampled.

This isn't a court of law or a scientific peer reviewed journal. This is a debate thread on a forum. If you think the data is false and want to convince people to your point of view, you have to show why it's false, not just assume that everyone will agree with you because the sampling

No I don't. Those making the point have to bring data to the argument that others can accept. Proof lies with the positive claimant. You might have a case if I were dismissing an academic study, but it's up to you to prove the data is true not up to me to prove it's false.

Sigh, the meaning was not that data has a "side", but that certain data may be posted by a given "side", data that is thought to support that "side's" argument. And those who disagree with that argument, are on the "opposide side" of a discussion, tend to dismiss it reflexively. Are you telling me you have not seen this behavior on the forums?

Data can only support the truth, not one side's argument. Why would data disagree with itself ? The data is there and that is objective - it's up to the people of the 'side' using it to interpret it. If it's open to interpretation then, well, more fuel for the fire.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps you should pause and consider that stance. Religion and religious fanaticism, the willingness of true believers to carry out terrible acts because they believe it is "for the greater good" as defined in their religion or by their religious leaders, is the cause of much suffering, death, and atrocities throughout history.

The "cause" ? No, I don't buy it. Those who claim that Christianity is the cause of misery have to show that the same peoples in the same situation wouldn't have engaged in wars. A tall order, but they're making the claim not me.

[Guest]

No, we're addressing the question here by showing analogies. We're not trying to talk about Christianity's so-called problems but looking at the question itself of religion as a cause of behavior.

I see what's happening here. Here - read this and you will learn more.

I think what he's saying is that the two are not analogous at all.