Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 What if a religion is involved ... its social ideas are backward and barbaric ... In order to tie a religion to larger movements, and make general statements about its ideas you would have to lay down a principle for determining that link. It's much easier to make such associations for something like "Roman Catholicism" that has a strong central leadership. It's more difficult for something like "Christianity" (ie. in general) where you could ostensibly tie Westboro Baptist fundamentalists and their projects and ideas to Christianity in the same way. How could you tie fundamentalists to one religion, though, and not the other ? If you believe that decentralized religions are "involved" in such things and so on, then Christianity and Islam are the same in this way. You would then have to say so, unless of course you actually just didn't LIKE Muslims, then you would have to resort to using mealy words like "MANY Muslims support Jihad", or quote arguable unspecific polls about Muslims' attitudes to establish a difference between Muslim and Christian spheres of influence and activity. Moreover, if you wanted to be truthful or at least appear truthful in your argument here you would then have to also show - somehow - that the "religion" itself and not the environment in which the religion lives is behind the stated attitudes. You couldn't really convince discerning people that adhering to the religion on its own CAUSES behaviors, but you could convince casual observers (and yourself of course) of some kind of link between behaviors and the religion. If you went that way, you'd then have a way to justifiably say that the religion is "involved" in movements and associated with behaviors, however the steps that you took to get to that point in the argument would lay out a principle, ie. a way to tie groups to behaviors and even a way to blame groups for behaviors. Using that principle on other groups would lead to interesting results. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Then balls up and don't be "mealy" about. You meant one thing and said differently. It was dishonest debate to try and shroud your actual opinion to try and score some argument point. Own your disrespect don't run from it. I think I already openly stated my disrespect. However, I don't really care what dumb things a religion does among its own members. I do care when they decide I have to believe and act in the same dumb fashion, especially when they use violence to enforce that belief. So I was specifically speaking about the more fanatic members of Islam. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Seldom is an entire "religion" implicated. Often it's a sect, or a fanatic fringe not really representative of a religion. . . Yes, but in this case that fringe is merely on the forefront. You can say their violence is not supported by the bulk of Muslims and I would agree. The issue is that a lot of their goals, like a world wide caliphate and Sharia law, are supported by a large percentage of Muslim people around the world. By the majority of Muslims in the world, in fact. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Yes. You have a need to disparage the entire religion, where others on here are more careful to condemn "Islamism" "Islamist attacks" and so on. This is perhaps the positive change that will engage moderate Muslims and move us towards more harmonious coexistence. That is because you again have an odd definition of 'moderate'. I don't believe Muslims who approve of Sharia law and want to implement it are moderate. I don't believe those who believe in shrouding women are moderate. Oh, maybe by their standards, perhaps, but not by mine. These people have some very retrograde opinions on social behaviour which, if they were Christians, you would put on the far right of the spectrum and have scant respect for either. Just because they don't believe in blowing up markets does not make them 'moderate'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
drummindiver Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) They're antagonizers, like Westboro Church. Same ***, different pile. Um, what don't you understand when I said I shouldn't have posted that vid from him, then posted other links? I'll be honest, I didn't realize it was from him, and when Michael brought that to my attention I apologized, and posted other links. Just because Mawyer agrees does not make facts any less factual. Edited January 11, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 That is because you again have an odd definition of 'moderate'. I don't believe Muslims who approve of Sharia law and want to implement it are moderate. I don't believe those who believe in shrouding women are moderate. Oh, maybe by their standards, perhaps, but not by mine. These people have some very retrograde opinions on social behaviour which, if they were Christians, you would put on the far right of the spectrum and have scant respect for either. Firstly, I don't disrespect religious people in that way, and anyway my attitudes towards religious people in general is still a little bit removed from the discussion at hand. Secondly, however you define 'moderate' you still disparage the entire religion which is name-calling you see. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 ...and posted other links. Can you post something from CTV news maybe ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
-TSS- Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 France has its colonial past so they can't really stop people coming from countries such as Algeria but why oh why countries which have no history whatsoever of having colonised other countries would have to accept immigration from countries with totally incompatible values? Quote
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 In order to tie a religion to larger movements, and make general statements about its ideas you would have to lay down a principle for determining that link. We're not having this argument again. I get it that nothing on earth, no mountain of evidence, no matter how many examples, no matter how many polls, surveys and interviews are done nothing is capable of moving you on the subject. Islam is a wonderful, peaceful religion and almost all of them, other than those who are actually murdering people, believe in equality and tolerance just like you do. It's curious how you and the others have latched onto that 'mealy' term since it's so self-descriptive of your desperately apologetic attitude with regard to Muslims. All of you brush aside general Muslim social beliefs which would infuriate you if held by a Christian because you can't bear to criticize any minority. Your determined efforts on their behalf are patronizing and parochial and are the essence of mealy mouthed. For example this rant of yours is in response to my answer to someone saying you should not be allowed to criticize a religion. In your response you took a short, one line response and then edited it leave out part. [What if a religion is involved in strongly political movements to change society and its social ideas are backward and barbaric? Why remove the part where I asked about the strongly political movement which, by the way is part and parcel of Islam? Because you'e being mealy mouthed, as you always are on this subject. You want to sit on your self-righteous high horse and pretend you're operating from an intellectual level while I'm simply disliking foreigners. That doesn't work as well when I point out that the political aspect of the Muslim social character could have an influence on my life, I guess. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 ...countries with totally incompatible values? That's a very blurry term that deprecates the value of the whole person and assumes that they are entirely defined by the country of origin. Why don't you just come out and say we should ban Muslims from coming to our country if that's what you mean ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Firstly, I don't disrespect religious people in that way, and anyway my attitudes towards religious people in general is still a little bit removed from the discussion at hand. Secondly, however you define 'moderate' you still disparage the entire religion which is name-calling you see. Disparaging a religion is not name calling. Neither you nor ISIS nor Al Qaeda can make me respect something whose basic ideals for social behaviour are directly contradictory to my own. And you would give scant respect to people who told you gays should be imprisoned and women must obey their husbands or be beaten. Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Why don't you just come out and say we should ban Muslims from coming to our country if that's what you mean ? By every standard of logic, we should. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 We're not having this argument again. I get it that nothing on earth, no mountain of evidence, no matter how many examples, no matter how many polls, surveys and interviews are done nothing is capable of moving you on the subject. On the contrary. I have taken great pains to listen to your arguments, to think about them at depth, and to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have done you a great amount of service by analyzing your approach and explaining to you why I don't believe it to be scientific or worthy as evidence. Evidence would indeed move me on the subject, and that's why I have spent so much of my time to engage with you on the topic. To dismiss me as being unconvince-able is to ignore the time and effort I have already spent on this topic with you over the years. Islam is a wonderful, peaceful religion and almost all of them, other than those who are actually murdering people, believe in equality and tolerance just like you do. And as we see here... as the years go by... more and more sarcasm, and more and more personal comments on me (eg. that I don't have the same standards for Christians, which is ridiculous to me) come through. This state of affairs tells me that you're not arguing from a place of confidence on this topic. It's curious how you and the others have latched onto that 'mealy' term since it's so self-descriptive of your desperately apologetic attitude with regard to Muslims. Well, the term "many" is meaningless. I would accept that as criticism of one of my own arguments if challenged, and would respond with a clarification. But saying "MANY Muslims are...." doesn't really mean anything, I'm sorry. because you can't bear to criticize any minority. Your determined efforts on their behalf are patronizing and parochial and are the essence of mealy mouthed. For example this rant of yours is in response to my answer to someone saying you should not be allowed to criticize a religion. In your response you took a short, one line response and then edited it leave out part. Why remove the part where I asked about the strongly political movement which, by the way is part and parcel of Islam? My entire posts was about political initiatives, projects and behaviors. I only excerpted the quote, I didn't exclude it from my response. Everything I posted should be taken as including political movements. That doesn't work as well when I point out that the political aspect of the Muslim social character could have an influence on my life, I guess. You're trying to look between the lines to see whether I'm being dishonest. As I said, I didn't include those lines because I put in the "before" and "after", so I felt political movements were also included defacto. And I agree, that the political aspect of the Muslim social character influences your life and mine. I still believe in freedom of religion and separation of church and state, understanding that limits need to be balanced against other rights and privileges. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
sharkman Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I'm going to quote part of an article that raises some very good points about the West and its selective defence of free speech. It's an article that I'm not sure can be linked to, but I'll try: Following the butchery at the Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, we are in the middle of another blizzard of post-facto hash-tag bravery. All over the Internet there are whole mobs holding up little signs: “I am Charlie Hebdo,” “We are Charlie Hebdo.” The idea, I presume, is to broadcast their commitment to the Western idea of freedom of speech and the press. Let’s put it plainly: The solidarity would have been a lot more impressive, more persuasive, some time before this week’s mass butchery. Indeed, at our universities, newspapers and broadcasters, we have seen an ever-shrinking defence of free speech, a timid reluctance to take on those who claim special privilege to shut down those they simply don’t like. The great institutions of the West, the press and the universities, have been at best complicit and at worst cowardly when it comes up to defending freedom of speech — not from threats of Islamist fanatics with guns, but in much less demanding circumstances. Where was this “we” when a video critical of Islam was mendaciously identified as the “cause” of the terror attack on Benghazi? Where was “we” when Hillary Clinton went on Pakistani television to declaim against this “reprehensible” video and revile its maker, and at the Benghazi victims’ funerals said: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Where was “we” when the filmmaker was arrested, while to this day the butchers of Benghazi roam the Earth unmolested? ... Our universities bleat about inquiry and free speech, but they are feeble and craven, caving in to protestors and special interests, pleading “sensitivity” and the “wish not to offend” any time some topic or speaker threatens to “hurt” the professionally agitated on campus. Where was “we” when a band of fatuous progressives protested former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice giving a convocation address at Rutgers University? She worked for Bush, so free speech be dammed... Edited January 11, 2015 by sharkman Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 By every standard of logic, we should. I laid out why the "logic" of doing so is flimsy at best, and by following that logic you would actually have to ban other groups too. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Disparaging a religion is not name calling. I disagree. I wouldn't agree with it if applied to a race or a religion - it's just a blanket insult. Neither you nor ISIS nor Al Qaeda can make me respect something whose basic ideals for social behaviour are directly contradictory to my own. And you would give scant respect to people who told you gays should be imprisoned and women must obey their husbands or be beaten. Both of these things are true, but I'm sure even you has Muslim friends. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
drummindiver Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 If there is "too much" evidence, then why do you not have any mainstream sources - but post YouTube videos from fringe racists only ? lol. As you are the "moderator", what passes as a "mainstream source" for you. Do we now have to have our sources vetted for your and Jacee's approval? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-18-jury-shown-training-camp-video-1.973854 http://canadafreepress.com/2007/cover061107h.htm http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2014-pblc-rpr-trrrst-thrt/index-eng.aspx#a10 http://www.clarionproject.org/document/fbi-document-jamaat-ul-fuqra-moa-texas-enclave http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/toronto-18-member-ali-mohamed-dirie-reportedly-died-in-syria-1.1868119 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/al-qaeda-switching-tactics-csis-warns/article4102081/ http://1389blog.com/2013/02/22/muslims-of-america-suing-martin-mawyer-for-exposing-islamic-terror-camps-in-the-us/ http://almanac.afpc.org/Canada Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Yes. You have a need to disparage the entire religion, where others on here are more careful to condemn "Islamism" "Islamist attacks" and so on. This is perhaps the positive change that will engage moderate Muslims and move us towards more harmonious coexistence. Indeed! Before certain posters disparage the entire muslim population, consider that the Muslim population is the second largest population in the world with roughly 1.8 billion people, with 50 per cent below the age of 25. A new generation of the muslim population include women who maintain Islamic traditions such as wearing headscarves but also have professional careers and hold leadership roles alongside men. Much of the younger generation of Muslim Americans, believes that Islam, properly interpreted, sanctions equality and pluralism. Muslim women in their 20s and 30s are embracing stylish and colourful headscarfs, creating startup companies to address these fashion issues and even posting selfies on facebook, instagram, youtube etc. In the past, this would have been highly condemned as catering to their egos. In fact, these young women are grateful that the older muslim generation are not proficient with social media. A 2011 Pew Research Center study found that Muslims don't differ much from the general US population. (I couldn't find Canadian stats): 55 percent of Muslims are married, as is 54 percent of the general US population. 26 percent have a college degree, as do 28 percent of their fellow Americans. 20 percent, like 17 percent of all Americans, are self-employed or own small businesses. 90 percent of Muslims agree that women should be able to work outside the home 68 percent feel gender makes no difference in political leaders (versus 97 percent and 72 percent in the US generally). Weekly mosque attendance (47 percent) is comparable to Christian church attendance (45 percent), and a majority of Muslims (63 percent) and Christians (64 percent) see no conflict between being devout and living in modern society. This new generation of muslims appear to me to be 'moderate'. Perhaps posters on this forum should become social media savvy themselves just to see what these dangerous and suspicious muslims are up to. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0216/Islam-the-American-way http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/fashion/muslim-women-hijab-style-traditional-garment-fashion.html?_r=0 Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
msj Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 This link makes several excellent points: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/charlie-hebdos-cartoons-werent-racist/ In particular, the importance of understanding the context of the cartoons, that Charlie Hebdo also "punched up" against the Catholic Church and just how dumb the "punching up/punching down" metaphor really is. I pretty much agree with all of what he says although I think I may have a slightly better understanding of some of the context of the cartoons presented thanks to my French friends. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
WIP Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 No, as Islamic attacks against American and other western interests reached high visibility long before 9/11 (e.g. 1993 - WTC bombing, 1996 - Kobar Towers, 1998 - Tanzania, 2000 - Yemen USS Cole). They weren't on U.S. soil, and they did not get anything close to the attention of 9/11. U.S. involvement in Mid-East affairs is a long and sordid story involving money - lots and lots of money....because of the billions of dollars worth of oil lying underground there. But the standard Neocolonial approach used in Latin America and Asia of setting up the banana republic dictator who allows foreign exploitation, raised a lot more violent reaction from the locals than other regions of the world. Should be obvious that - if you want to run an empire with overwhelming military force, you might expect asymmetrical (terrorism) warfare from your opposition. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 .....A 2011 Pew Research Center study found that Muslims don't differ much from the general US population. (I couldn't find Canadian stats): No Canadian stats ? How many Muslims are in Canada ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 90 percent of Muslims agree that women should be able to work outside the home Funny that you hold this up as a sign of moderation. If only 90% of non-Muslim men thought that women should be able to work outside the home (meaning 10% thought that they shouldn't be allowed to), you'd be ranting about that non-stop as misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, etc. Quote
Rue Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Michael H I think we all agree when using words to criticize religious doctrine or a religious ideology what one person may perceive as disparaging another may find to be fair and objective. So we debate that. Where I think you need to be careful me too, all of us I mean of course, is how do any of us decide when a comment is not fair critique and becomes " name calling " or " insulting ", etc. I mean that is precisely why we have this forum to debate that. That said I believe many we like to call moderate simply because they do not prescribe to violence are still holding on to basic religious beliefs that are still problematic in Western society. Edited January 11, 2015 by Rue Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 They weren't on U.S. soil, and they did not get anything close to the attention of 9/11. The 1993 WTC bombing was most certainly on "U.S. soil". Attacks on US embassies and naval vessels got a lots of attention, including military responses. American realization of jihadist terrorism pre-dates 9/11 by many years, which was the main point. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WIP Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Hudson Jones you came back to your attempt to claim there is a double standard in treatment when someone draws an anti Muslim cartoon as when one draws an anti Jewish one but you have not provided on shred or iota of proof of that. In fact on your second time round you now pose not allege it and interestingly asked with the words ..".DO YOU FEEL" to whoever your audience asking the question whether a double standard exists. I'll give you a couple of double standards, if they haven't been mentioned already: 1: I've heard two talking heads on the news in the last few days....one American, one French (and likely many others parroting them) that the Charlie Hebdo attacks are the worse terrorist attacks in Europe since the 7/7 subway bombings in London.....REALLY? Nobody heard of Anders Breivik and the massacre of over a hundred students in Norway? The only terrorism that's recognized by media and authorities is the terrorism committed by black and brown people! Everything else is disgruntled employees.....mentally ill....or revenge killings. Some terrorist attacks don't even make the MSM news cycle; such as the recent bombing of an NAACP office in Colorado Springs......I'll bet nobody here even heard the story! Maybe if someone got killed they'd mention it! Even so called "liberal" MSNBC didn't even mention the story until the FBI released a sketch of the suspect a couple of days ago. Now, tell me what the coverage would be if the RNC headquarters was bombed? 2: The French President and other leading voices are all singing the chorus of "Je suis Charlie" and claiming there are no limits to free speech and yet France is the same country that violated international law by trying to force the plane carrying the President of Bolivia down, all because the CIA told them that Edward Snowden might be on board! Snowden, Bradley Manning, John Kiriakou and other lesser known whistleblowers, are evidence that our surveillance state is fine with free speech that has no merit and no consequences for those in power. But, they sure as hell aren't going to allow free speech about anything important....like the size and scale of corruption at the top, where military, political and corporate leaders engage in massive corruption, unlimited surveillance, and loot the treasury of billions of dollars. That kind of free speech doesn't seem to be allowed! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.