Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[-1=e^ipi]

Of course....but you have repeatedly said that we shouldn't be talking about the PEOPLE who hold views, but the IDEOLOGIES themselves. You wish to cut a break for Condell, but not for me.

Let me be more clear. Talking about people who hold views is okay when you are discussing their actions that are a result of the ideology. What we need to avoid is falsely assigning blame to an ideology using guilt by association (ex. Stalin was an atheist. Stalin killed millions of people. Therefore atheism caused the death of these millions of people.).

But this is moot, because neither you nor Condell have yet made a convincing argument that "Progressive ideology"--and in contradistinction to the "old Left"--has at its core all the horrible things you say it has.

I think you want me to accept the premises of your argument as a given, and then we proceed from there. but since I don't accept the premises, how can this occur?

Perhaps it would be useful if you listed the premises that believe I am claiming that you do not believe to be true.

If your point is that when conservative and liberal governments support terrorism, oppose democracy, intentionally and knowingly fund mass murder....that they are acting in opposition to stated ideology....I'm inclined to agree. But that doesn't matter. It makes zero difference. What matters is what they do.

I'll have to disagree with you here. I think it is very important to understand why people do bad things in order to prevent those bad things from happening.

Similar to the issue with progressive racists, in fact. It isn't, as you seem to be saying, that part of "Progressive ideology" is to engage in racism; it's that racism is NOT part of their ideology, so when they engage in it, it's hypocrisy and a betrayal of stated ideals.

I never made the claim that progressivism at it's core includes racism or that progressive ideology is necessarily racist. Progressive racism does exist but it doesn't apply to many progressives.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes, I would agree. I guess I would show the number of human lives lost and resources lost in repelling the aggression from Germany.

Okay, so then does the link I provided in the Burka thread that 70% of terrorist deaths were caused by Sunni groups count towards justifying that Islamism is the biggest threat to the West in 2011? How about lives and resources lost towards fighting wars such as Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya?

That's the theory. Its interesting, though, that no one has been able to demonstrate any kind of economic improvement or achievements of immigration, nor has the government ever set forth in any sort of paper or study, what those economic goals might be.

Wait, what? There are no benefits to immigration nor are there papers or studies that discuss this? What about the papers I have provided?

In actual fact, our immigration system is driven by politics, by the desire of the party in power to improve its economic position with certain ethnic groups. The economic well-being of Canada is largely irrelevent, or at best, tertiary to political considerations.

I think this statement is quite unfair. While politics may be a strong driver behind our immigration system, economic benefits also play a significant role. The current conservative government has especially emphasized this. I suggest you look at the paper I provided earlier that compares the Canadian immigration system with the US immigration system and how the Canadian immigration system results in better quality immigrations by selecting immigrants from better countries.

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, so then does the link I provided in the Burka thread that 70% of terrorist deaths were caused by Sunni groups count towards justifying that Islamism is the biggest threat to the West in 2011?

How about saying it's the biggest terrorist threat ? Or single security threat ?

That's what Harper responded when he was asked the loaded question on the video clip.

Our biggest 'threats' are currently related to economic adjustment, in my opinion. When you have a war with overwhelming victory, and minor losses then the threat becomes more about the expenditure.

But that's just my opinion.

[Michael Hardner]

Unprintable name guy - why didn't you respond to the religious scholar Cavanaugh here as I challenged you ?

Does it mean you concede his points ?

It would make sense, he argues from a higher authority both on this world and beyond

[eyeball]

Okay, so then does the link I provided in the Burka thread that 70% of terrorist deaths were caused by Sunni groups count towards justifying that Islamism is the biggest threat to the West in 2011?

Contemporary Islamism is the consequence not the cause.

How about lives and resources lost towards fighting wars such as Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya?

Definitely another complete waste too if you ask me.

[-1=e^ipi]

How about saying it's the biggest terrorist threat ? Or single security threat ?

Fine, biggest security threat. Can we agree to this?

Unprintable name guy - why didn't you respond to the religious scholar Cavanaugh here as I challenged you ?

Because you didn't bring up Cavanaugh in this thread yet, and I was unsure if you wanted to create a separate thread. There is what you posted in the Burka thread:

The idea that religion causes violence is taken as an almost self-evident truth in many circles. Atheists often use this as a justification for embracing a “secular” lifestyle and belief system that does not acknowledge the existence of God. But there are big problems with this line of reasoning. Religious scholar William T. Cavanaugh writes in [/size]The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict[/size]:[/size]

“What would be necessary to prove the claim that religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force over the course of human history? One would first need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history. …The problem is that there was no category of religion separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then it was primarily in the West. What meaning could we give to either the claim that Roman religion is to blame for the imperialist violence of ancient Rome, or the claim that it is Roman politics and not Roman religion that is to blame? Either claim would be nonsensical, because there was no neat division between religion and politics.”

“It is not simply that religion and politics were jumbled together until the modern West got them properly sorted out. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark book, The Meaning and End of Religion, religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West.”

“…The first conclusion is that there is no trans-historical or trans-cultural concept of religion. Religion has a history, and what counts as religion and what does not in any given context depends on different configurations of power and authority. The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a trans-historical and trans-cultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.”

Thus, it is impossible to establish which conflicts were caused by “religion” and which conflicts were caused by “politics” or “culture” because such categories have no intrinsic meaning, but rather, are human inventions. Cavanaugh continues:

“At first glance, this may seem like an academic exercise in quibbling over definitions, but much more is at stake. The religious-secular dichotomy in the arguments sanctions the condemnation of certain kinds of violence and the overlooking of other kinds of violence. …The myth of religious violence is so prevalent because, while it delegitimates certain kinds of violence, it is used to legitimate other kinds of violence, namely, violence done in the name of secular, Western ideals. The argument that religion causes violence sanctions a dichotomy between, on the one hand, non-Western, especially Muslim, forms of culture, which—having not yet learned to privatize matters of faith—are absolutist, divisive, irrational, and Western culture on the other, which is modest in its claims to truth, unitive and rational.”

The first error is that in order to show that 'religion causes violence' one does not need to show that 'religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force'. The second statement is much stronger than the first. Other things can cause more violence than religion, but it doesn't make the violence caused by religion any less violent.

I also do not agree that 'one has to show that religion is separate from other institutional forces' in order to determine if violence is caused by religion. One merely has to understand what is the justification behind violent acts. The passage you gave states that (paraphrasing): 'Well because we cannot completely separate the Roman state from the Roman religion, we can never determine if an action of violence is a result of the Roman religion.' This line of reasoning is wrong. If one can show that the justification used by people to commit the violent acts is religious (as opposed to non-religious) such as 'We sacrificed those virgin girls before the battle because we want Mars' favour in the battle', then one can link the violent acts with the religion.

The rest of the passage basically relies on this premise that I do not agree with. That some how completely separating religion from state is necessary to assign blame to a religion for violent actions.

The last paragraph briefly mentions Islam & makes the unjustified claim (or implication; please correct me if I am wrong) that somehow perceived violence in Islam is a result of 'having not yet learned to privatize matters of faith'. As though the perceived differences between Christianity and Islam is purely a result of the West being more developed than Islamic countries. The problem with this is that the nature of Islam and Christianity are very different in terms of what they claim to be true, how much they suggest religion should influence the state's laws (Sharia Law anyone?), and their flexibility of interpretation. You have to treat different religions differently and go on a case-by-case basis. Cavanaugh doesn't appear to do this, but rather lumps all religions together.

[bleeding heart]

Let me be more clear. Talking about people who hold views is okay when you are discussing their actions that are a result of the ideology. What we need to avoid is falsely assigning blame to an ideology using guilt by association (ex. Stalin was an atheist. Stalin killed millions of people. Therefore atheism caused the death of these millions of people.).

I agree completely. I don't think conservative or liberal ideology is at the core of the bad behavior caused internationally by self-described liberal or conservative governments.

Similarly, I don't think progressive racism is caused by some ideological rot at the core of progressive ideology. I think progressive racism, when it appears, is a betrayal of stated progressive ideology.

In other words, progressive racism inhabits precisely the same moral place as does liberal or conservative culpability in terror or murder or what have you. In fact, the latter two, thanks to their greater political power, has actually been far worse.

Perhaps it would be useful if you listed the premises that believe I am claiming that you do not believe to be true.

You have been decrying the notion of assigning blame to "conservative or liberal ideology" for the evils they commit...while assuming that progressive racism is at the core of progressivism. In terms of this discussion, you wish to have and eat the cake, in other words.

I never made the claim that progressivism at it's core includes racism or that progressive ideology is necessarily racist. Progressive racism does exist but it doesn't apply to many progressives.

Then I misunderstood you....but it begs the question of what we have been disputing. Both myself and Michael Hardner have taken it as a given, right from the start, that such a thing as progressive racism exists. There has been no dispute over that. The dispute, or so I thought, has been over how all-encompassing it is or is not...and how much racism is part of the core of the progressive movement. (It is not part of the core, has been my argument.)

Edited November 14, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Fine, biggest security threat. Can we agree to this?

Sure - Harper even said that !

The first error is that in order to show that 'religion causes violence' one does not need to show that 'religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force'. The second statement is much stronger than the first. Other things can cause more violence than religion, but it doesn't make the violence caused by religion any less violent.

Ok, I agree.

I also do not agree that 'one has to show that religion is separate from other institutional forces' in order to determine if violence is caused by religion. One merely has to understand what is the justification behind violent acts. The passage you gave states that (paraphrasing): 'Well because we cannot completely separate the Roman state from the Roman religion, we can never determine if an action of violence is a result of the Roman religion.' This line of reasoning is wrong. If one can show that the justification used by people to commit the violent acts is religious (as opposed to non-religious) such as 'We sacrificed those virgin girls before the battle because we want Mars' favour in the battle', then one can link the violent acts with the religion.

Well, the problem here is that you're asking those who perpetrated the violence for their opinion, and assuming they understand their motivations and the forces behind their actions.

Asking a mentally ill killer would yield irrational reasons, for example. Asking a fundamentalist would yield a religious reason. "The holy book requires me to kill this person because they're a sinner"

I think a rational analysis of the forces behind such things need a wider view. Different peoples have different sets of values, and when larger forces pit them against each other in war the peoples will go to their values as "reasons" for the war, but was religion behind the fall of Rome, the Crusades, World War II and so on ? Did countries without strong religions, such as China, have no war at all because their lack of 'organized religion' ? If religion 'causes' wars shouldn't that be the case ?

I don't see why you rejected your perception that Cavanaugh sees certain religions as more 'developed'.

There have been threads on here saying that Christianity has caused misery, wars, and so on and I similarly reject that argument. War is in people, I think, and religion, nationality are ways to justify it.

The rest of the passage basically relies on this premise that I do not agree with. That some how completely separating religion from state is necessary to assign blame to a religion for violent actions.

The last paragraph briefly mentions Islam & makes the unjustified claim (or implication; please correct me if I am wrong) that somehow perceived violence in Islam is a result of 'having not yet learned to privatize matters of faith'. As though the perceived differences between Christianity and Islam is purely a result of the West being more developed than Islamic countries. The problem with this is that the nature of Islam and Christianity are very different in terms of what they claim to be true, how much they suggest religion should influence the state's laws (Sharia Law anyone?), and their flexibility of interpretation. You have to treat different religions differently and go on a case-by-case basis. Cavanaugh doesn't appear to do this, but rather lumps all religions together.

[bleeding heart]

There have been threads on here saying that Christianity has caused misery, wars, and so on and I similarly reject that argument. War is in people, I think, and religion, nationality are ways to justify it.

Agreed. We can see, too, the contradictions inherent to such justifications. The truth is that it is inherent in human beings to act in such ways, given certain circumstances. We can no more become murderous in a vacuum than we can suddenly sprout wings. There is a whole confluence of psychological, historical, cultural reasons that are the complex genesis of behavior.

Anders Breivik did not murder all those people because of the threat of Islam and his view of leftist appeasement of it. His (no doubt genuine) fears and concerns had to act in concert with his psychology, cultural norms of which he was not obviously reflective, and other matters.

As they say, 90% of what you do and believe happens in your absence.

[-1=e^ipi]

while assuming that progressive racism is at the core of progressivism. In terms of this discussion, you wish to have and eat the cake, in other words.


Then I misunderstood you....but it begs the question of what we have been disputing. Both myself and Michael Hardner have taken it as a given, right from the start, that such a thing as progressive racism exists. There has been no dispute over that. The dispute, or so I thought, has been over how all-encompassing it is or is not...and how much racism is part of the core of the progressive movement. (It is not part of the core, has been my argument.)

Progressive racism isn't at the core of progressivism. If you want to call it a betrayal of progressivism, fine. Have we cleared up that misunderstanding?

Well, the problem here is that you're asking those who perpetrated the violence for their opinion, and assuming they understand their motivations and the forces behind their actions.

Not necessarily ask, sometimes the perpetrators of violence tell us all on their own. But unless these perpetrators are insane or lying, the reasons the perpetrators give for their actions is usually a good indication of the cause of their actions.

Asking a mentally ill killer would yield irrational reasons, for example. Asking a fundamentalist would yield a religious reason. "The holy book requires me to kill this person because they're a sinner"

Are you assuming that religious fundamentalists are mentally ill? If so I would disagree with you, unless you want to include all religious people as mentally ill (which is fine by me as well ). If you are religious and your holy book tells you to kill someone (example kill apostates in islam) how are you mentally ill?

Did countries without strong religions, such as China, have no war at all because their lack of 'organized religion' ? If religion 'causes' wars shouldn't that be the case ?

Some wars not being caused by religion doesn't mean that religion does not cause wars. It just means that religion doesn't cause all wars.

I don't see why you rejected your perception that Cavanaugh sees certain religions as more 'developed'.

Because it ignores the fact that different religions are different & their flexibility of interpretation is different. If you want to justify this claim go ahead, but I do not accept this claim as truth.

There have been threads on here saying that Christianity has caused misery, wars, and so on and I similarly reject that argument. War is in people, I think, and religion, nationality are ways to justify it.

You reject that Christianity has caused wars or misery? Did the Spanish inquisition, the crusades or the imprisonment of Galileo have nothing to do with Christianity?

Anders Breivik did not murder all those people because of the threat of Islam and his view of leftist appeasement of it. His (no doubt genuine) fears and concerns had to act in concert with his psychology, cultural norms of which he was not obviously reflective, and other matters.

Anders Breivik was found not-insane by the Norwegian justice system (despite immense attempts by the prosecution).

[bleeding heart]

Progressive racism isn't at the core of progressivism. If you want to call it a betrayal of progressivism, fine. Have we cleared up that misunderstanding?

Yes, it appears we have.

Anders Breivik was found not-insane by the Norwegian justice system (despite immense attempts by the prosecution).

I don't claim he was insane, certainly not in the legal sense of the term.

I'm claiming that there are multiple complex motivations for people's behavior, even when they claim a single motivation (which people tend to do generally). Not an especially radical view, I shouldn't think.

Edited November 14, 2013 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

Some wars not being caused by religion doesn't mean that religion does not cause wars. It just means that religion doesn't cause all wars.

You reject that Christianity has caused wars or misery? Did the Spanish inquisition, the crusades or the imprisonment of Galileo have nothing to do with Christianity?

There is no doubt that often religion is a major factor, or even the principle cause, of some wars and misery. To add to your good examples, consider Ireland, the break-up of British India, Iran vs. Iraq. Religion has a cost.

What about the benefits to religion?

1. How much war and misery has resulted from a "lack of religion"? Would some of the 20th century atrocities have been diminished or even not happened at all if countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia had been more religious?

2. In addition to being a dividing force, religion is a unifying force. How many wars and crimes have been prevented by the unifying force of religion?

In the end, a cost-benefit analysis of religion is purely academic, religion cannot be separated from humanity and IMO we can never quantify neither the costs nor benefits to religion. What is important is that we minimize the costs of religion (e.g. separate church from state, ostracize extremist views) and leverage the benefits of religion (eg. promote interfaith cooperation, tolerance, compassion and other virtues).

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't claim he was insane, certainly not in the legal sense of the term.

I'm claiming that there are multiple complex motivations for people's behavior, even when they claim a single motivation (which people tend to do generally). Not an especially radical view, I shouldn't think.

Brevik certainly had multiple motivations for committing his crime. The guy who murdered Lee Rigby, or the 911 hijackers on the other hand, I am less inclined to agree.

What about the benefits to religion?

The benefits do not outweigh the negatives so what does it matter? Also, why are you talking about religion in general rather than specific religions (example: islam)?

1. How much war and misery has resulted from a "lack of religion"? Would some of the 20th century atrocities have been diminished or even not happened at all if countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia had been more religious?

Zero. Lack of religion does not cause war and misery. Lack of religion is not an ideology that can motivate someone to do something.

2. In addition to being a dividing force, religion is a unifying force. How many wars and crimes have been prevented by the unifying force of religion?

I don't know. Could you give examples of religion preventing war?

In the end, a cost-benefit analysis of religion is purely academic, religion cannot be separated from humanity and IMO we can never quantify neither the costs nor benefits to religion.

We can try to quantify the net benefits, the results just wont be very accurate.

What is important is that we minimize the costs of religion (e.g. separate church from state, ostracize extremist views) and leverage the benefits of religion (eg. promote interfaith cooperation, tolerance, compassion and other virtues).

1. You are treating all religions the same, as numerous other posters are doing. Islam is not Christianity. Scientology is not Christianity. Different religions have different values and should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

2. The idea that say Islam is inherently tolerant because it is a religion is non-sense if you actually bother to learn about what the religion teaches (it calls for the death penalty for homosexuals and apostates for example).

3. Even if you have separation of religion & state, ostracization of extremist views, and I ignore intolerant and hateful teachings of religions (example: I pretend that sura 9 of the Quran does not exist), religion is still inherently bad. It teaches people lies about reality, reduces one's ability to think critically (encourages people to have 'faith' rather than skepticism) and gives people false hope about their mortality.

Or do you think that promoting an ideas that encourage people to commit suicide to go to the magical fantasy afterlife is a good thing?

http://www.examiner.com/article/girl-12-commits-suicide-to-be-with-father-heaven

Edit: I also don't understand why you are discussing religion vs non-religion in this thread. With respect to criticism of islam, both religious and non-religious people criticize islamism alike. Pat Condell is an atheist, but David Wood (owner of answeringmuslims.org) is a Christian, while Robert Spencer (owner of jihadwatch.org) is a Jew. The EDL has a very diverse group of people including christians, jews, sikhs, hindus, atheists and homosexuals. Perhaps there are features unique to islam that make it particularly dislikable (but to evaluate that you would actually have to read the islamic religious texts rather than make vague generalizations about all religions)?

Edited November 14, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[carepov]

The benefits do not outweigh the negatives so what does it matter?

In the West, I disagree. In most Islamic countries I tend to agree.

Also, why are you talking about religion in general rather than specific religions (example: islam)?

Because I was responding to a post where you brought it up.

Zero. Lack of religion does not cause war and misery. Lack of religion is not an ideology that can motivate someone to do something.

Perhaps a society that lacks religion is more prone to evil ideologies - like filling a void? Perhaps more religious societies in 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia would not have been so evil?

I don't know. Could you give examples of religion preventing war?

It's hard to list all the wars that didn't happen. Similar to nationalism, religions bring people, tribes, city states, etc... together.

1. You are treating all religions the same, as numerous other posters are doing. Islam is not Christianity. Scientology is not Christianity. Different religions have different values and should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I did not mean to give this impression. I 100 % agree with you.

2. The idea that say Islam is inherently tolerant because it is a religion is non-sense if you actually bother to learn about what the religion teaches (it calls for the death penalty for homosexuals and apostates for example).

The Islam practiced in the West and depicted on "Little Mosque on the Prairie" seems quite tolerant. The Islam in Singapore and Malaysia seems OK too. I agree however that a large part of the Islamic world is intolerant and backwards, however I disagree with anyone that says that these backwards countries cannot modernize and keep an Islamic tradition.

3. Even if you have separation of religion & state, ostracization of extremist views, and I ignore intolerant and hateful teachings of religions (example: I pretend that sura 9 of the Quran does not exist), religion is still inherently bad. It teaches people lies about reality, reduces one's ability to think critically (encourages people to have 'faith' rather than skepticism) and gives people false hope about their mortality.

Or do you think that promoting an ideas that encourage people to commit suicide to go to the magical fantasy afterlife is a good thing?

I disagree - religion need not reduce critical thinking, but wait - do you want to talk about religion in general or not. Your last question is a fallacy. It would be like me asking, do you prefer a religious society or a Stalinist one?

Edit: I also don't understand why you are discussing religion vs non-religion in this thread. With respect to criticism of islam, both religious and non-religious people criticize islamism alike. Pat Condell is an atheist, but David Wood (owner of answeringmuslims.org) is a Christian, while Robert Spencer (owner of jihadwatch.org) is a Jew. The EDL has a very diverse group of people including christians, jews, sikhs, hindus, atheists and homosexuals. Perhaps there are features unique to islam that make it particularly dislikable (but to evaluate that you would actually have to read the islamic religious texts rather than make vague generalizations about all religions)?

Back to Islam. I never wrote that it is like any other religion and do not think that it is. There are very valid criticism of many specific Islamic practices in specific societies (I'll add in misogyny to to your mention of death penalty for homosexuals and apostates). However, IMO it is you that you are over-generalizing by your sweeping criticism of over 1,000,000,000 people. Maybe there are 10, 50 or let's say even 90% of them that are crazy - that would still leave a minimum of 100,000,000 (3 x Canadas) of "rational Muslims" - these are potential allies of a potential movement to modernize and enlighten the backwards muslim societies. Sweeping criticism of Islam is counter-productive as it feeds into the power of the radicals.

[bleeding heart]

Brevik certainly had multiple motivations for committing his crime. The guy who murdered Lee Rigby, or the 911 hijackers on the other hand, I am less inclined to agree.

Why? What makes Breivik's motives more complex?

Edited November 15, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

In the West, I disagree. In most Islamic countries I tend to agree.

Well 'new atheists' such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Pat Condell and myself would disagree with you with respect to the west.

Perhaps a society that lacks religion is more prone to evil ideologies - like filling a void? Perhaps more religious societies in 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia would not have been so evil?

Or perhaps they would have been even more evil. Also, all the societies you have listed did not 'lack religion' as you claim.

The Islam practiced in the West and depicted on "Little Mosque on the Prairie" seems quite tolerant.

Little Mosque on the Prairie and the CBC are cultural relativist propaganda. Also, little mosque on the prairie doesn't discuss the true nature of islam or the different interpretations of islam.

The Islam in Singapore and Malaysia seems OK too. I agree however that a large part of the Islamic world is intolerant and backwards, however I disagree with anyone that says that these backwards countries cannot modernize and keep an Islamic tradition.

Malaysia is tolerant? Let's see... Preaching Shia Islam is illegal in Malaysia, it is illegal for Churches to use Allah for God & muslim Malaysians can avoid paying income tax if they spend an amount equal to what they would pay in income tax on Zakat. Non-muslims cannot avoid paying income tax by spending an amount equal to what they would pay in income tax on charities, and zakat isn't even charity money. Those are just the examples off of the top of my head.

that would still leave a minimum of 100,000,000 (3 x Canadas) of "rational Muslims"

There is no such thing as a rational religious person. Religion is inherently irrational.

Sweeping criticism of Islam is counter-productive as it feeds into the power of the radicals.

Not criticizing religion for fear of alienating people is even more counter productive and gives strength to radicals. Especially when it gets to the point where politicians like David Cameron and Justin Trudeau refuse to recognize the problem.

Why? What makes Breivik's motives more complex?

Breivik's was actions was not motivated purely by religion (unlike the case of the islamist terrorists). Breivik's actions were motivated by a number of things including Christianity, Islam, cultural relativist culture in Norway, dominance of socialism, etc. Breivik was also a lone wolf, where as the islamists generally are part of large organizations such as Al Queda.

[bleeding heart]

Little Mosque on the Prairie and the CBC are cultural relativist propaganda. Also, little mosque on the prairie doesn't discuss the true nature of islam or the different interpretations of islam.

the only problem with Little mosque is that it was pretty vapid comedy. But it was in the tradition of light comedies which are the mainstay of that television genre. The number of tv comedies that have "discuss[ed} the true nature" of ANYthing, or actively sought to engage in real issues, died in the '70s after ALL in the Family, or when Maude chose to have an abortion. (I'm speaking in context of mainstream, prime time family sitcoms here...exceptions can be made for the Simpsons, Seinfeld, and a few of their offshoots.)

As to the CBC being "cultural relativist propaganda"...I think you'll have to more specific. It is an utterly usual, Establishment organ.

There is no such thing as a rational religious person. Religion is inherently irrational.

So was support for the Iraq War (in which your mentioned Hitchens, among others, displayed their own variety of religious faith: faith in the benign motives of the State, with only the entire history of Nation-states to potentially disabuse them of the madness of Commissar-ship).

But, like most religious people, the war advocates tended to remain rational in most other spheres, or at least the argument could be made.

Don't you personally know, maybe even love, a religious person or two in your own life? Do you not feel that they are at least mostly rational?

Breivik's was actions was not motivated purely by religion (unlike the case of the islamist terrorists).

But my argument, explicitly, was that there are no "pure" motives, religious or otherwise. Palestinian suicide bombers are "motivated by religion," but also (uncontroversially, or so I thought) by cultural factors, historical matters, political arguments, and doubtless some psychological matters that are tied up in all of these.

Breivik's actions were motivated by a number of things including Christianity, Islam, cultural relativist culture in Norway, dominance of socialism, etc. Breivik was also a lone wolf, where as the islamists generally are part of large organizations such as Al Queda.

Right. A complex confluence of factors and motives, like everybody else.

Edited November 15, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

As to the CBC being "cultural relativist propaganda"...I think you'll have to more specific. It is an utterly usual, Establishment organ.

Wait, you really need me to establish bias in the CBC for you???? Did you not see how they reported on the whole idle no more situation?

So was support for the Iraq War (in which your mentioned Hitchens, among others, displayed their own variety of religious faith: faith in the benign motives of the State, with only the entire history of Nation-states to potentially disabuse them of the madness of Commissar-ship).

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Can you be more clear? Hitchens supported the iraq war... that's about all I get from this.

But, like most religious people, the war advocates tended to remain rational in most other spheres, or at least the argument could be made.

Are you trying to say that war advocates are religious people and/or are inherently irrational? What?

Don't you personally know, maybe even love, a religious person or two in your own life? Do you not feel that they are at least mostly rational?

I don't know, both sides of my family are non-religious. I can trace non-religious family members living in Canada for over a century. I have a family member that believes in homeopathy. Does that count?

But my argument, explicitly, was that there are no "pure" motives, religious or otherwise. Palestinian suicide bombers are "motivated by religion," but also (uncontroversially, or so I thought) by cultural factors, historical matters, political arguments, and doubtless some psychological matters that are tied up in all of these.

You are making a claim without sufficient justification. If you read the reasoning that islamic terrorists use to justify their actions you will find that the islamic texts are sufficient to justify their actions.

Right. A complex confluence of factors and motives, like everybody else.

You really don't understand the difference between someone being motivated purely by the religious texts of 1 religion and someone motivated by multiple sources?

[carepov]

Or perhaps they would have been even more evil. Also, all the societies you have listed did not 'lack religion' as you claim..

It is difficult to imagine anything more evil than 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia. These societies were all relatively secular, no?

Little Mosque on the Prairie and the CBC are cultural relativist propaganda. Also, little mosque on the prairie doesn't discuss the true nature of islam or the different interpretations of islam.

The point is that Little Mosque writers, producers, and actors are real Muslims - this, and many other examples disprove your claims that Islam = intolerance.

Malaysia is tolerant? Let's see... Preaching Shia Islam is illegal in Malaysia, it is illegal for Churches to use Allah for God & muslim Malaysians can avoid paying income tax if they spend an amount equal to what they would pay in income tax on Zakat. Non-muslims cannot avoid paying income tax by spending an amount equal to what they would pay in income tax on charities, and zakat isn't even charity money. Those are just the examples off of the top of my head.

I was in Malaysia and Singapore - seemed pretty tolerant to me as I wandered from Mosque to Budhist Temple to Church to Hindu Temple to festivals and to the bar.

There is no such thing as a rational religious person.

This is quite the claim! What is your definition of a "religious person" and "rational person".

Not criticizing religion for fear of alienating people is even more counter productive and gives strength to radicals. Especially when it gets to the point where politicians like David Cameron and Justin Trudeau refuse to recognize the problem..

I am all for criticism of any violations of human rights and "bad ideas" - weather religious or not. Why not just criticize specific violations/ideas?

[-1=e^ipi]

It is difficult to imagine anything more evil than 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia. These societies were all relatively secular, no?

Personally I would consider present day Saudi Arabia more evil then all in the list, except maybe Nazi Germany (And that is a strong maybe).

Imperial Japan was very religious. There was and still is today a strong influence of Shinto Buddhism. The Bushido honour code that was used by the japanese to justify actions such as Seppuku or Kamikaze attacks is strongly based on influence from Shinto Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido

"During pre-World War II and World War II Shōwa Japan, bushido was pressed into use for militarism, to present war as purifying, and death a duty. This was presented as revitalizing traditional values and "transcending the modern." Bushido would provide a spiritual shield to let soldiers fight to the end.

Denials of mistreatment of prisoners of war declared that they were being well-treated by virtue of bushido generosity."

Nazi Germany was strongly influenced by the Occult and by Christianity.

Maybe watch this video on the Occult and the Third Reich? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJwlHCVaQUo

In Nazi Germany, 54% of the population considered themselves protestant while 40% of the population considered themselves catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany While it would be wrong for me to say that Nazism itself was strongly influenced by Christianity, it still shows that the population did not 'lack a religion'.

20th century Russia was always a society with a strong presence of Orthodox Christianity and Islam. Despite the attempts of the communists to stamp out religion over decades, it remains strong in Russia today. Therefore I would not call 20th century Russia a society that 'lacked a religion'.

As for 20th century China, confusionism, taoism and buddhism have a strong presence. In addition, many of the people are still superstitious to some extent and believe in ghosts or demons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion Hardly a society that 'lacks a religion'.

As for Cambodia, 95% of the population is buddhist, hardly a society that 'lacks a religion'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Cambodia

The point is that Little Mosque writers, producers, and actors are real Muslims - this, and many other examples disprove your claims that Islam = intolerance.

So some muslims are involved in the production of a cbc fiction tv show and that disproves that Islam = intolerance? Wtf lol. This ridiculous claim isn't even worth responding to. Do you believe everything you see on fiction shows on tv?

I was in Malaysia and Singapore - seemed pretty tolerant to me as I wandered from Mosque to Budhist Temple to Church to Hindu Temple to festivals and to the bar.

I gave you 3 examples of religious intolerance in Malaysia. You have yet to address them.

This is quite the claim! What is your definition of a "religious person" and "rational person".

Religious person - someone who believes in magical fairy tales

Rational person - someone who's beliefs and actions are based upon reason and observation

I am all for criticism of any violations of human rights and "bad ideas" - weather religious or not. Why not just criticize specific violations/ideas?

Am I not doing that?

[bleeding heart]

Wait, you really need me to establish bias in the CBC for you???? Did you not see how they reported on the whole idle no more situation?

What was it about their reporting on this that makes the CBC "cultural relativist propaganda"?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Can you be more clear? Hitchens supported the iraq war... that's about all I get from this.

Are you trying to say that war advocates are religious people and/or are inherently irrational? What?

I was only illustrating that avowed atheists can and do hold irrational beliefs. Deeply held, cherished beliefs, not clearly guided by reason. And that some of them--notably Hitchens--displayed, in my view, a fanaticism and a newfound nationalistic fervor that seems to me very much akin to religious belief.

I don't know, both sides of my family are non-religious. I can trace non-religious family members living in Canada for over a century. I have a family member that believes in homeopathy. Does that count?

OK, look at it this way: the world is chock-full of the religious faithful, and most of us atheists are, thanks to close associations, perfectly aware that religious people can be, and are, rational people.

I'm not offering an opinion; I'm informing you of an objective fact.

You are making a claim without sufficient justification. If you read the reasoning that islamic terrorists use to justify their actions you will find that the islamic texts are sufficient to justify their actions.

No, you are making a claim based on a bizarre premise that human motivation and emotion are simple, black and white (well, at least as long as the subject is religious).

Because history, culture, associations and psychology are a tapestry that precipitate behavior. It makes zero difference if a person himself claims religion as the sole motivating factor. Hell, the religions themselves are a complex product of history, culture, wisdom, psychosis, morality, and so on.

You really don't understand the difference between someone being motivated purely by the religious texts of 1 religion and someone motivated by multiple sources?

Yes, I understand the difference as it exists within your faulty premise. That is, I understand exacty what you are saying. But I reject it outright. As I said, very clearly, I think it is ALL "motivated by multiple sources."

And you've finished with an odd response; because of course it's not that you have to agree with me, but you're replying as if I hadn't already addressed precisely the point you're making. It's as if I didn't say anything on the subject, as you ask me if I "really don't understand" a matter I explicitly addressed and refuted. Did you not read my post to which you responded????

Edited November 16, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

What was it about their reporting on this that makes the CBC "cultural relativist propaganda"?

I have already provided examples of bias in media in earlier posts. A simple google search of cbc and cultural relativism gives many results. Bias & the cbc gives even more. Here are some examples:

http://eyecrazy.blogspot.ca/2011/07/canadian-islamic-congress-brags-about.html

http://veracityvoice.com/?p=11813

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/11/11/cbc-bias-easy-to-find

http://ezralevant.com/2010/05/the-cbcs-leftwing-bias.html

Edit: okay these links suck, I was tired when I posted them. Please forgive me.

Though I think the best example of bias is when they reported on the idle no more protests and refused to acknowledge for months that mayor Spence was consuming fish soup.

I was only illustrating that avowed atheists can and do hold irrational beliefs.

And? What's your point? Why is the fact that some atheists believe in nonsense relevant?

And that some of them--notably Hitchens--displayed, in my view, a fanaticism and a newfound nationalistic fervor that seems to me very much akin to religious belief.

Could you elaborate?

OK, look at it this way: the world is chock-full of the religious faithful, and most of us atheists are, thanks to close associations, perfectly aware that religious people can be, and are, rational people.

Rational how? Do you mean rational outside of anything that involves religion?

No, you are making a claim based on a bizarre premise that human motivation and emotion are simple, black and white (well, at least as long as the subject is religious).

I made no such claim and still have not received your justification for why there exists no 'pure' motives.

It makes zero difference if a person himself claims religion as the sole motivating factor. Hell, the religions themselves are a complex product of history, culture, wisdom, psychosis, morality, and so on.

Of course it makes a difference. Also, islam would disagree with you about it's origins. According to islam, islam is God's message through the prophet Mohammed, who is the last messenger of Allah. This message is perfectly clear according to islam and encompasses all aspects of life.

Yes, I understand the difference as it exists within your faulty premise. But I reject it outright. As I said, very clearly, I think it is ALL "motivated by multiple sources."

What do you reject exactly? That the way in which murders such as Breivik justify their actions is very different from the way in which murders such as the 911 hijackers justify their actions? You claim that Breivik is 'like everybody else'?

Edited November 16, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[bleeding heart]

I have already provided examples of bias in media in earlier posts. A simple google search of cbc and cultural relativism gives many results. Bias & the cbc gives even more. Here are some examples:

??

You've offered four opinions. I'm looking for evidence of systemic bias...not only that, but "cultural relativist propaganda."

what you've done instead, unwittingly, is to underline the paucity of evidence about the oft-made claim.

Hell, one of your shining examples "proves" bias because, during a debate about a "one-state solution" in Israel, they had one person for it, and one against.

This constitutes "bias" (and relativistic propaganda) because...well, because the debate itself is unwelcome for the shrinking commissars among us.

By this logic, the CBC has exposed its pro-Iraq War bias...since all the pre-war debates were one-to-one, two-to-two, etc (standard debating practice, as the person in your link isn't quite bright enough to see)....which did not correspond with global opinion on the war, which was far and away against.

So, there's the CBC's pro-war, pro-American, pro-elite bias...I just "proved" it.

You see how easy that is?

and how anyone can "prove" any bias they wish?

Hell, one of them claim a "documentary" made on the subject....and the ONE example HE gives us is piss-poor. Go back and look if you don't believe me.

Finally, you have yet to answer my question: how was the reporting on Idle No more "cultural relativist propaganda"? That was your claim for which I was asking for clarification. You seem to have sidestepped it.

(I'll address the rest later)

Edited November 16, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

OK, I took your own methodology here (and frankly was unsurprised at how easy this is) to "prove" that the CBC does not have a leftwing (or "cultural relativist") bias.

I hasten to add that I don't consider the stuff I've found to be profoundly insightful, and it certainly lacks rigour. But that is the point; that is why it is a response to your links....because yours are quite weak too, as no doubt you are aware.

However, there's an exception: the last link I've offered actually does make a strong and well-conceived argument (roughly to the opposite of your perspective on it)...which in my opinion puts my quick linking here somewhere above your own.

http://www.policynote.ca/the-myth-of-the-left-wing-cbc/

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/jibber-jabber-f9/is-the-cbc-really-that-left-wing-t103398.html

http://www.straight.com/news/richard-stursberg-reveals-cbc-study-indicated-conservatives-were-treated-best-national

http://www.irpp.org/en/po/kyoto/is-cbc-really-biased/

http://www.herschelhardin.ca/commentaries/media/00aprcbc&bias.htm

Edited November 16, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

There's the CBC's secret deal with the Harper government ... which people have been talking about, which appears to support Canadian sovereignty claims (ie. oil rights) in the arctic....