Progressives and Islam

[Boges]

What's perplexing is that social conservatism is tolerated and even celebrated somewhat (see the Burkini stuff) when coming from a Muslim. Should a Christian preach modesty they're out of touch and should be harshly criticized.

Also, the Christian text is the New Testament. The Old Testament is a Jewish text. People that continue to quote the Old Testament as to somehow make it seem more extreme than fundamentalist Islam are being willfully ignorant.

[Guest]

What's perplexing is that social conservatism is tolerated and even celebrated somewhat (see the Burkini stuff) when coming from a Muslim. Should a Christian preach modesty they're out of touch and should be harshly criticized.

I don't think wearing a burqini is the same as preaching modesty, do you? There is a huge difference between living according to one's beliefs and pushing them on others. Covering your entire body well swimming is not the same as demanding that everybody must do so. Or teaching your own children to be chaste versus demanding that public schools remove sex ed from the health curriculum.

Also, the Christian text is the New Testament. The Old Testament is a Jewish text. People that continue to quote the Old Testament as to somehow make it seem more extreme than fundamentalist Islam are being willfully ignorant.

This feels a little like arguing about the correct way to get to Never land, but in the New Testament JC does not soften the old testament; in fact, he states that it is completely valid and every law stands. Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, John7:19

So the stuff about killing blasphemers, adulteresses and those that dishonour their parents in Leviticus or the slavery or the male authority over women or the fact that homosexuals should be put to death is all supported by the frail, inexplicably white, middle eastern, Jewish hippie.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Guest

[Boges]

I don't think wearing a burqini is the same as preaching modesty, do you? There is a huge difference between living according to one's beliefs and pushing them on others. Covering your entire body well swimming is not the same as demanding that everybody must do so. Or teaching your own children to be chaste versus demanding that public schools remove sex ed from the health curriculum.

Well Muslims do that too. See the controversy about the Sex Ed curriculum in Ontario.

I think the controversy about the Burqini is people are naive to believe a woman chooses to wear that out of free will. It's obvious she's facing cultural and religious pressures.

This feels a little like arguing about the correct way to get to Never land, but in the New Testament JC does not soften the old testament; in fact, he states that it is completely valid and every law stands. Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, John7:19

So the stuff about killing blasphemers, adulteresses and those that dishonour their parents in Leviticus or the slavery or the male authority over women or the fact that homosexuals should be put to death is all supported by the frail, inexplicably white, middle eastern, Jewish hippie.

Well not if his clear commandment about Loving they neighbour and living a peaceful life is to be believed.

Nowhere in the New Testament is violence or death advocated as a punishment for sin. Humanity seems to just move in that direction as a default position.

There are instances where Jesus breaks Jewish laws because there's an over-arching sense of humanity in what he does. But I concede there can be confusion. But the core of what Christ teaches is peacefulness, love and humility.

Regardless using the Old Testament to deflect from the problems associated with fundamentalist Islam is pointless. There's a large faction of the Muslim community globally that is killing and violently punishing people for "sin". It's very rare in Christian or Jewish communities.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Boges

[Guest]

I think the controversy about the Burqini is people are naive to believe a woman chooses to wear that out of free will. It's obvious she's facing cultural and religious pressures.

I guarantee that Muslim women wear burqinis do to religious pressure. Just like say Michelle Bachman feels religious pressure to be subservient to her husband or people oppose equal marriage for religious reasons, etc. In either case I think people should be free to personally follow their own beliefs, even if I disagree with them. However, I will harshly criticize any group or religion that attempts to codify their beliefs into secular law and thus force them on the population.

Regardless using the Old Testament to deflect from the problems associated with fundamentalist Islam is pointless. There's a large faction of the Muslim community globally that is killing and violently punishing people for "sin". It's very rare in Christian or Jewish communities.

As you pointed out Jews only have the old testament and they aren't stoning disobedient children to death. It is certainly more rare in Christian and Jewish communities, despite the fact that the scriptures are considered violent and abhorrent in more advanced cultures.

Uganda is a Christian culture that recently passed a law that states homosexuals will be put to death. This was celebrated by some North American pastors, but it is something that the vast majority in Canada or the US would disagree with. Similarly, Muslims in Western cultures tend not to support the killing of homosexuals.

Religion certainly plays a role in people's attitudes and beliefs, but the violence and misogyny we see in certain areas of the world is more of a cultural problem. In my opinion, it is best to oppose all misogyny, violence and homophobia regardless of the source. Christian misogyny is still misogyny. Muslim homophobia is still homophobia. Religion, is still make believe regardless of the name. We need to support cultural reform efforts around the world and continue to do so in the West.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Guest

[Big Guy]

Sikh guys wear turbans because of cultural and religious pressure. That is one way for the women to dominate the family and keep the little boys from going to school. Women have been using that religion to subjugate the men to a point where some of them carry little daggers in their turbans or on their belts to protect them from their wives. Already these immigrants are taking over the cranberry trade and corner 24/7 shops. If we don't stop them now everybody will be forced to grow big moustaches!

Stop this insanity!!!

[Argus]

IThis feels a little like arguing about the correct way to get to Never land, but in the New Testament JC does not soften the old testament; in fact, he states that it is completely valid and every law stands. Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, John7:19

So the stuff about killing blasphemers, adulteresses and those that dishonour their parents in Leviticus or the slavery or the male authority over women or the fact that homosexuals should be put to death is all supported by the frail, inexplicably white, middle eastern, Jewish hippie.

No, it actually isn't. As I've already pointed out, there is a difference between reading something in a religious text and believing that is how that religion interprets it. Mainstream Christians don't interpret the old testiment literally, or its laws. As for that passage you quoted about the laws still being valid:

These laws are still valid – but, as we know, they are applied in a spiritual way. The application of the law has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. If our hearts are circumcised, it does not matter whether we have been circumcised in the flesh. If we are offering spiritual sacrifices, we do not need to offer animals.

If we are always forgiving debts and liberating people from bondage, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we are treating our livestock and farmland properly, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we live by the spirit, the letter of these laws is not required.

If we examine our hearts for corruption and are being cleansed by Jesus Christ, then we do not have destroy houses that have mildew. If our thoughts are pure, we don’t have to worry about our fabrics. If we are always thinking of God and his laws, we don’t have to wear phylacteries. The laws are valid, but the way in which we obey them has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ.

https://www.gci.org/law/otlaws

[Guest]

Mainstream Christians don't interpret the old testiment literally, or its laws.

Assigning meaning and authority to religious texts is problematic in general. I am aware that many Christians ignore large swaths of the Bible or interpret them differently; there are 30,000+ sects of Christianity for a reason. However, there are millions upon millions in North America and around the world who do take segments of the OT literally.

Religion certainly plays a role when Muslim women must cover their bodies or Christians in Uganda execute homosexuals, but as you have pointed out those in more modern cultures find ways to ignore the scriptures that clash with secular morality. Culture is the problem and violent cultures need to be reformed; here and abroad.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Guest

[Argus]

Religion certainly plays a role when Muslim women must cover their bodies or Christians in Uganda execute homosexuals, but as you have pointed out those in more modern cultures find ways to ignore the scriptures that clash with secular morality. Culture is the problem and violent cultures need to be reformed; here and abroad.

There's not a lot there I disagree with. My only point is that whenever anyone criticizes these 'violent cultures' up jumps the progressive to scream abuse, to defend the backward cultural habit or behaviour, say ours is as bad or worse, and call whoever is criticizing that behaviour names. So if there is going to be anyone pushing the Muslim world to reform it most certainly isn't going to be progressives. Instead they'll be manning the barricades along with the most ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims insisting that no one dare criticize them.

[GostHacked]

No, it actually isn't. As I've already pointed out, there is a difference between reading something in a religious text and believing that is how that religion interprets it. Mainstream Christians don't interpret the old testiment literally, or its laws.

The only way to beat this is to talk to them and let them know if they want to work with the rest of us, some things need to change. However, as some say here, it is economics that tell a different story.

Canada sells billions worth of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Do we give the Saudi's crap for that? Or should we be looking a bit closer to home? One should be able to extrapolate that more weapons to the dictators means more trouble for other nations in the region.

Still overall a big economic proxy war between the east and west and the partners of convenience on both sides.

None of that will assists the dialogue of helping them become more progressive.

[Guest]

My only point is that whenever anyone criticizes these 'violent cultures' up jumps the progressive to scream abuse, to defend the backward cultural habit or behaviour, say ours is as bad or worse, and call whoever is criticizing that behaviour names.

I had a long carefully worded response, but even I lost interest when rereading it. In short, what you describe is problem. I believe it is a symptom of countering constant racism, white and Christian privilege; but, it's still a problem. Sure there are some actual relativist idiots, but most lefties are just overly reactionary to discriminatory BS.

Anyway, if the only groups willing to acknowledge the problems in ME cultures are fascists and right wing a-holes, the left will have positioned itself out of the problem solving. That leads to the "solutions" sounding like Donald Trump proposals. Bombs, walls, bans, my religion has a bigger dick than your religion, kind of shyte.

ME culture (in general) is broken, sick, twisted and in need of repair. Islam plays a role in this, but it's not the primary force and I'm sure we have all seen enough examples to know that's true. I think anyone who tries to blame the problems of the ME primarily on Islam or those of the US south primarily on Christianity (for example) know they are being fallacious and even purposely abrasive. I am purposely abrasive all the time; it's a bad habit.

So what do we do to solve the problems of ME cultures? I'll add my ideas in a subsequent post.

[Guest]

So if there is going to be anyone pushing the Muslim world to reform it most certainly isn't going to be progressives. Instead they'll be manning the barricades along with the most ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims insisting that no one dare criticize them.

I said I would propose my solutions and disagreeing with this statement is where I'll start. Progressive are the only ones trying to change the cultural root causes of the many ills we all attribute to the ME. Maajid Nawaz, a progressive, a Muslim, a former extremist is pleading with the left to stop denying the role of Islam in terrorism, various atrocities and ethical quagmires. Like Christianity, it does play a role in the misogyny, homophobia and violence. However, it is the underlying culture that needs to be fixed; we all know that the religious are less of a problem in more stable cultures.

We cannot bomb, segregate or starve peace, equality and morality into foreign cultures. Force and violence only unites the culture against a common enemy; which, is why Trump is a the greatest extremist recruiting tool there is. Cultural change has to be a grassroots effort to convert the ideals of the population. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation, founded by the progressive Maajid Nawaz, are doing just that. They are building and supporting democracy and equality among the youth of nations like Pakistan. They are Muslims, creating demand for the secular, humanist values we share in the west.

My right leaning friends usually ask what we do about immigration in the meantime? To them big walls sound like a great idea; if we only associate with our "own kind" things will be better. I don't think the juvenile Trump answers have any merit here. We shouldn't close our borders to any region or religion. However, we should certainly aggressively profile applicants. This isn't racist or prejudiced in my opinion; we only have X number of resources and Y amount of time to process applicants so does it make sense to focus on all applicants equally? Hell no. I think less time and effort could be spent on say Scandinavians, Janes, the Amish, etc. I'm also fine with the deportation of refugees or landed immigrants (during a probationary period) that commit serious crimes. We should also build in training systems that address language issues and funnel immigrants towards areas that suit their current skill set or address vacancies within our economy, but that's straying from the topic here.

[Argus]

ME culture (in general) is broken, sick, twisted and in need of repair. Islam plays a role in this, but it's not the primary force and I'm sure we have all seen enough examples to know that's true.

As far as I'm concerned, given the violent excesses and intolerance of Sharia, any Muslim who says he wishes his country would implement Sharia laws is one whose social views are intrinsically hostile to mine. And that is hardly something unique to the ME. Support for Sharia in Africa, for example, runs from a low of 37% in Tanzania to 86% in Niger. In Indonesia, it's 72%, in Malaysia, 86%, in Russia 42%. Support for the death penalty for apostasy is nowhere as high in the world as in the ME and south Asia, but it's still uncomfortably high among Muslims elsewhere, from 18% in Indonesia to 62% in Malaysia.

Opposition to homosexuals, abortion and sex outside marriage is as high in southeast Asia as anywhere else in the Muslim world, in the high 90s

As for attitudes towards women, 87% of ME Muslims think she has to always obey her husband, but 93% of Muslims in Southeast Asia believe that, and while stoning for adultery is supported by the vast majority of Muslims in the ME, as well as western Asia, it's still supported by the majority in southeast asia, as well.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Edited August 23, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I said I would propose my solutions and disagreeing with this statement is where I'll start. Progressive are the only ones trying to change the cultural root causes of the many ills we all attribute to the ME.

We can't change the cultural value system of people in other countries. There's virtually nothing we as people can do other than to make it clear to them and their leaders how barbarous, backward and primitive we find many of their social views.

However, we should certainly aggressively profile applicants. This isn't racist or prejudiced in my opinion; we only have X number of resources and Y amount of time to process applicants so does it make sense to focus on all applicants equally?

I'm certainly in favour of 'aggressively profiling' applicants, but when you have popular views in the high 90 pecentiles which are backward and primitive you have to know you're importing those views with most of the applicants from that region, even if they lie to the interviewer. But my views on where we should be getting our immigrants and where we should not be are probably well known to regular readers.

What we definitely need to do, however, is make sure that once here, we make it known in an uncompromising manner that certain of their cultural views need to be left in the old country, and that regardless of what their religion beliefs, such views won't be tolerated here, let alone any efforts at acting out their homegrown religious prejudices.

And progressives are the very last people willing to do that. They shrink from the very thought, and instead castigate conservatives who do so, implicitly defending those backward views and reassuring the immigrants that, you know, they're really not so bad at all.

[Peter F]

we make it known in an uncompromising manner that certain of their cultural views need to be left in the old country, and that regardless of what their religion beliefs, such views won't be tolerated here, let alone any efforts at acting out their homegrown religious prejudices.

So if these barbarians are not stoning anyone we need to protest that they are thinking that stoning is proper. Should they protest that they realize stoning is unacceptable in Canada we should really get in their face.

[Big Guy]

The opposite of Progressives is Regressives and is proven through the statements on this thread.

That is not my definition, it is in every English reference text. I do not understand why posters would continue to be proud that they are regressive and criticize those who are progressive. I guess some people think that it is good to be regressive.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Big Guy

[?Impact]

Really? What inhumane aspects of Christianity have western countries chosen to codify?

Really? What inhumane aspects of Islam have western countries chosen to codify?

[?Impact]

Modern western cultures are not ruled by Sharia law, nor are they ruled by Christian law. We have secular law in our countries. You know that only 2 of the 10 commandments are part of our secular law (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal). It is not that we don't accept Sharia law, it is that we don't accept any religious law.

[DogOnPorch]

It is not that we don't accept Sharia law, it is that we don't accept any religious law.

Who are 'we'??

Edited August 24, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Several "modern western cultures" are still influenced by religious law. Example: abortion in Ireland.

BTW, abortion contravenes "thou shalt not kill".

[Bonam]

BTW, abortion contravenes "thou shalt not kill".

Nope. Ceasing to support a life that can not go on on its own is not the same as killing.

[Guest]

The opposite of Progressives is Regressives and is proven through the statements on this thread.

That is not my definition, it is in every English reference text. I do not understand why posters would continue to be proud that they are regressive and criticize those who are progressive. I guess some people think that it is good to be regressive.

As I said earlier, progressives are not really progressive. It's not progressive to turn a blind eye to barbaric religious and cultural practices for fear of giving offense, and it's not regressive to do bring attention to them regardless of any offence taken.

It's just the names that are wrong. I'm actually the progressive because I want to bring an end to religious control over those who don't want it.

Edited August 24, 2016 by bcsapper

[dre]

As I said earlier, progressives are not really progressive. It's not progressive to turn a blind eye to barbaric religious and cultural practices for fear of giving offense, and it's not regressive to do bring attention to them regardless of any offence taken.

It's just the names that are wrong. I'm actually the progressive because I want to bring an end to religious control over those who don't want it.

The word Progressives is just used by morons on here as a euphemism for the left and for all liberals. Used in the pejorative here by dullards that don't know much at all about the history of various political movements.

Progressivism is simply the idea of organizing society around scientific and economic, and technological progress, and ensuring those things benefited everyone instead of just a chosen few. It started as a reform movement in the last 1800's and not all progressives are liberals. Roosevelt for example was a progressive republican.

Its one of the most positive and effective political movements in human history.

Edited August 24, 2016 by dre

[Guest]

The word Progressives is just used by morons on here as a euphemism for the left and for all liberals. Used in the pejorative here by dullards that don't know much at all about the history of various political movements.

That's not what the word means...

Despite the attempts by retards to use it as a bad word, its one of the most positive and effective political philosophies in human history. Without it, you probably would have had to key that post in on a telegraph machine.

Well, exactly. That's why I don't understand the effort by those who might be regarded as progressives to support such regressive notions as those espoused by religious extremism.

Edit> You do have to wonder if maybe they themselves think they are progressives?

Edited August 24, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

We can't change the cultural value system of people in other countries. There's virtually nothing we as people can do other than to make it clear to them and their leaders how barbarous, backward and primitive we find many of their social views.

We can fund and scale the efforts of groups like Quilliam who are building grassroots support for democracy, equality and education among the youth of theocracies and primarily Muslim countries.

I'm certainly in favour of 'aggressively profiling' applicants, but when you have popular views in the high 90 pecentiles which are backward and primitive you have to know you're importing those views with most of the applicants from that region, even if they lie to the interviewer. But my views on where we should be getting our immigrants and where we should not be are probably well known to regular readers.

When I say we should aggressively profile, I mean we should concentrate our efforts to identify extremists on more likely individuals. I'm not concerned about the social views of applicants as our culture leads more people towards secular, humanist morals every generation.

What we definitely need to do, however, is make sure that once here, we make it known in an uncompromising manner that certain of their cultural views need to be left in the old country, and that regardless of what their religion beliefs, such views won't be tolerated here, let alone any efforts at acting out their homegrown religious prejudices.

And progressives are the very last people willing to do that. They shrink from the very thought, and instead castigate conservatives who do so, implicitly defending those backward views and reassuring the immigrants that, you know, they're really not so bad at all.

Comments like this lead me to believe you are fine with religious prejudices, provided they are your own. It is actually the progressives who have been leading the charge to combat racism, sexism, homophobia and equal opportunity while dragging conservatives like an anchor into the current century.

[cybercoma]

Nope. Ceasing to support a life that can not go on on its own is not the same as killing.

Every day that goes by where you could've donated blood, bone marrow, or a kidney and you don't is a day that you kill someone apparently,