|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/19/2010 : 21:19:28 [Permalink]
|
Here, I'll bold it for you too.
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by H. Humbert
How is demonstrating that we won't compromise our core principles out of fear send a "bad message?" And how does demonstrating that we're all a bunch of pussies willing to throw out every value we claim to hold dear because of the actions of a few terrorists send a "good message?" |
You think building a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero sends a positive message to those who brought down the buildings? Shows how strong we are? They are not going to see it that way.
| 2)How many peaceful Muslim are you willing to discriminate against for the sake of your comfort? |
What discrimination?.....neither I or Sam Harris are saying they can't build there. Just trying to open up discussion and questioning the reasoning behind building it in that location. It can be built there....but should it be?
From Harris - "The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory—and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice. It is also true that honest, freedom-loving Muslims should be the first to view their fellow Muslims somewhat differently. At this point in human history, Islam simply is different from other faiths. The challenge we all face, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is to find the most benign and practical ways of mitigating these differences and of changing this religion for the better. It is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of Islam pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe."
| So you're for treating people according to beliefs they may not actually hold? Look, I understand that religious moderates enable the militants through tacit silence. But that's not a reason to discriminate against the moderates. Again, criticism is fine. Discrimination is not. Can you acknowledge the difference? |
Yes.....again, what discrimination? This is about criticizing & opening dialog not rejecting the proposed building.
| The issue isn't whether Islam needs to be criticized but how that criticism will be expressed. All religions should be treated equally so long as they follow the laws in place. |
Agreed....treated equally under the law....not by discourse.
| Yes, we live in scary times. But do we have more to gain by radicalizing the moderates or assuring them that they're welcome so long as they don't resort to violence? |
That depends on the level of discourse that can be achieved and what progress can be made. I don't see much room for change here.
| Why can't we be tolerant of the moderates and intolerant of the militants? Why do you maintain that our only options are to be either completely intolerant of all Muslims or so tolerant that we passively sit and watch as Islam destroys modern civilization? People are rejecting Harris' argument because it's based on a false dichotomy. |
What complete intolerance?
|
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 21:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wow. Refusing to create images is, by itself, at best a silly quirk of a religion. The unreasonable part, as you know, was that a bunch of Muslims threatened violence to enforce an Islamic value on others. (How many actually followed through on the threats? One?) If it weren't for that, do you really think that some other Muslims need to engage in a practice that they find anathema to "sit at the table of reasonable discourse"?!
Do you think that some Jews ought to eat pork before they can engage in a rational discussion, too? Or that if Catholics want to sit at the table, some of them should drive nails through Eucharists? |
Yes, yes & yes....all are silly dogmas and completely unreasonable. 
Actually all I'm asking is that they can make light of these things themselves (ideally) or at least not throw a public hissy fit (or far worse) when other do.
How much is "a rather significant number?" Is it a higher or lower number than that of Christians who think that dismembering primary science eduction is a good idea? (Something which few moderate Christians are doing anything about, as well.)
|
And you think that equates to beheading people or blowing up buildings??? Really?
The difference is I don't see "other" religious fanatics killing people (today) in the name of their religion. And even in the rare cases (abortion clinics) where they have there is big outcry from not only the moderates but even from many fundamentalist of the same religion........not seeing much of that from the followers of Islam.......half hearted at best.....and more like disingenuous. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 21:48:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Here, I'll bold it for you too.
|
The more I think about that first sentence from Harris the more I think I agree with both of you.
Harris never says - Don't build the mosque. He simply points out that this will be seen as weakness (and a victory) by those who wish to do us harm. I agree with that. He also goes on to say "This may not be reason enough for the supporters of this mosque to reconsider their project. And perhaps they shouldn’t. Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place."
At the same time I agree with you....who cares what they think. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 22:07:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Dude
Here, I'll bold it for you too.
|
The more I think about that first sentence from Harris the more I think I agree with both of you.
Harris never says - Don't build the mosque. He simply points out that this will be seen as weakness (and a victory) by those who wish to do us harm. I agree with that. He also goes on to say "This may not be reason enough for the supporters of this mosque to reconsider their project. And perhaps they shouldn’t. Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place."
At the same time I agree with you....who cares what they think.
|
The problem is that if we prevent these people from building their mosque we are harming ourselves. You don't just wantonly discard the US Constitution (or, in the case of private citizens, the principles of that constitution) because some members of a religion are murdering psychopaths. You apply the US Constitution, deny no one their rights, and enforce our laws. That is the answer, not reactionary bullshit that ranges from concern trolling to FAUX having people on claiming that this will be some command center for terrorists (they seriously did thursday have a guy on saying just that).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2010 : 23:20:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Yes, yes & yes....all are silly dogmas and completely unreasonable. |
Everyone does something unreasonable every day.| Actually all I'm asking is that they can make light of these things themselves (ideally) or at least not throw a public hissy fit (or far worse) when other do. |
Well, you seemed to be asking for moderate believers to make light of their dogma as a sort of trade-off for extremists throwing hissy fits. It didn't make any sense. And really, it still doesn't make much sense. We're talking about practices which, when not enforced on non-believers, don't harm anyone any more than faith does in general.| And you think that equates to beheading people or blowing up buildings??? Really? |
Nice goalpost shifting! You've switched from talking about the "rather significant number who follow some of the worst parts of it quite literally" to a value judgment of how bad the worst parts are. Excellent evasion of the point you brought up.| The difference is I don't see "other" religious fanatics killing people (today) in the name of their religion. |
In this country, Muslims aren't killing people in the name of their religion. Not even on 9/11. I can only think of one person who's been killed in the name of Islam in recent years outside of Muslim-majority countries. There are plenty of examples, however, of Christians committing violence against Muslims just because they're Muslims.| And even in the rare cases (abortion clinics) where they have there is big outcry from not only the moderates but even from many fundamentalist of the same religion. |
I must have missed out on any fundies decrying the murder of the abortion-clinic doctor last year. Got a link?| .......not seeing much of that from the followers of Islam.......half hearted at best.....and more like disingenuous. |
Not seeing much of that from any religion, so once again: why is Islam being singled out? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 02:35:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
And you think that equates to beheading people or blowing up buildings??? Really?
The difference is I don't see "other" religious fanatics killing people (today) in the name of their religion. And even in the rare cases (abortion clinics) where they have there is big outcry from not only the moderates but even from many fundamentalist of the same religion........not seeing much of that from the followers of Islam.......half hearted at best.....and more like disingenuous.
|
You aren't paying attention to the news, are you? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 08:32:14 [Permalink]
|
Here's Dave's game:
He will try to get someone, like me, who speaks of the dangers of islam to cite one or more sura, and then he will make the following claims (as evidenced by his earlier post when he tells us he will:
(1) It could be read as somehow ambiguous.
(2) It is sometimes said to be interpreted differently.
(3) There is contrary or contradictory material somewhere.
(4) There's some self-professed muslim, somewhere, presumably, who does not interpret it the way others do.
These arguments focus on the reader/interpreter and not on the content itself, which is intended to be absolute and prescriptive (to have moral command force). Dave probably doesn't even think a given dogma has prescriptive force. Well, it takes some study in ethics to get a grip on prescriptive force.
Now, we've all seen rhetorical tactics like Dave's before. Groups and individuals many and various of christianity disavow and reinterpret at will, hoping to avoid respnsibility for the actual content of the Bible. There is even (and I know this is going to be hard to fathom, but it's true) some people who call themselves christians who claim that it's all metaphor. There is no way to actually discuss the content when people deliberately keep shifting the goalposts, which is what Dave wants to be able to do. I am not permitting him this opportunity, so he depicts this as my being incapable of citing sura. Is anyone actually buying that ploy? It is not me being ambiguous; it is Dave deliberately striving for the opportunity for ambiguity so he can attack from the fog.
And yet how many people actually claim that the Bible has no content? That there are not prescriptive principles involved. Anyone believe that the Bible does not prescribe the primacy of god? That is does not prescribe spreading the "good news?" That it does not claim some things are "abominations" and prescribes against them? That is does not refer to slavery, war, murder in a normatively positive way (a postiive normative reference is actually a call to moral obligation)?
Does anyone believe these ideas have no influence at all?
Well, according to Dave's arguments, the Bible doesn't do any of these things, because some self-professed christian somewhere, presumbly doesn't believe one and some self-professed christian somewhere else, presumably doesn't believe another one and so forth and so on. Even if one could prove that 100% of christians believed some unpleasant aspect of the Bible (which is not possible not even in principle since we are dealing with mental states and anecdotal "evidence), Dave has still set the game up so he can appeal to *possible* contrary or contradictory interpretations. This argument is not accepted when it come to christianity and the content of the Bible, so why would anyone accept it when it is about islam and the Koran?
Dave wonders why I'm not about to start citing sura in order to let him proceed with his little game of shooting at false targets and get everyone off-topic. I am not quoting sura at this point because Dave is being, and he knows this, deliberately disingenuous. He is desperate to confuse discussions of dogma with personal attacks against those who hold them. He is desperate to turn any discussion into an opportunity to squeal, "Bigotry!" He still cannot or will not comprehend the difference between talking about ideas and talking about people.
Of course, it is also noteworthy that someone else cited sura and doing so was not considered at all, except as an opportunity to conduct "Dave's little game."
One wonders why Dave would host a site dedicated, presumably, to the discussion of ideas if he thinks they are perfectly meaningless and without influence on the views of people. Normative language is a particular kind of language in that it is intended specifically to influence people and dogma is a particular kind of set of ideas in that they are specifically intended to be normatively prescribed.
Dave is correct about one thing: dogmas don't blow up buildings, people so. But his seeming conclusion that therefore dogmas have no influence on the mentality, motivations, and desires of any individuals who do blow up buildings (or the equivalent)is not thereby supported. In fact we know otherwise. We know this because individuals who do blow up buildings (or the equivalent) use dogmas as justifications for their actions.
Guns don't kill people, people do using guns as a physical means - and that doesn't alter the fact that a gun is a device specifically designed to kill people. Dogmas don't blow up buildings (or the equivalent), people do using dogma as a doctrinal justification - and that doesn't alter the fact that some dogmas are built to encourage, even command, people to blow up buildings (or the equivalent).*
* Yes, I included all those "(or the equivalent)" specifically to avoid having someone claim that blowing up buildings is the only subject at hand. At this point, I'm not taking anything for granted. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 08:46:53 [Permalink]
|
A conversation with Dude:
Dude: Believe X or you are stupid!!!!oneoneone
Me: I don't believe X and here's why - and I don't think I'm stupid just because you say so.
Dude: I'm going to call you a moron.
Me: Here's an expansion of my reasons for not believing X.
Dude: You are a stupid moron.
Me: Not going to consider even a possibility of an alternative perspective?
Dude: You are a stupid moron!!!!!oneoneone
Me: You are oblivious.
Dude: You came in here hurling abuse.
Me (to everyone else): Who let David Mabus in here?
This is why I don't try to raise the level of conversation with Dude. I admit, though, I had hoped for better from others. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 09:30:53 [Permalink]
|
| Shorter dglas: I want to debate the muslim faith, but only by using my opinion on how the Koran or the suras should be read and not by looking at what muslims themselves actually believe. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 08/20/2010 09:31:26 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 09:34:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The problem is that if we prevent these people from building their mosque we are harming ourselves. You don't just wantonly discard the US Constitution (or, in the case of private citizens, the principles of that constitution) because some members of a religion are murdering psychopaths. You apply the US Constitution, deny no one their rights, and enforce our laws. That is the answer, not reactionary bullshit that ranges from concern trolling to FAUX having people on claiming that this will be some command center for terrorists (they seriously did thursday have a guy on saying just that).
|
I have never once said or implied that they should be prevented from building a mosque.(And neither has Harris) "HELLO!" (looks at microphone) "Is this thing on?" |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 09:43:11 [Permalink]
|
Can we agree that today, fundamentalist Muslims differ from fundamentalist Christians & Jews? (In both their desire and capacity to harm others....worldwide).
(This has nothing to due with the mosque.....just a straight up general question) |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 08/20/2010 09:45:43 |
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 10:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Welcome back emsby! Been a while...
|
Hey, thanks Kil! Yeah, Humbert and I have been dealing with my annoying cancer, which is hopefully running scared now, and I'm back and better than ever!
|
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
| Edited by - emsby on 08/20/2010 10:16:46 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 10:33:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by emsby
Originally posted by Kil
Welcome back emsby! Been a while...
|
Hey, thanks Kil! Yeah, Humbert and I have been dealing with my annoying cancer, which is hopefully running scared now, and I'm back and better than ever!
|
emsby,
I'm totally diggin' the Floyd quote! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 10:37:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Can we agree that today, fundamentalist Muslims differ from fundamentalist Christians & Jews? (In both their desire and capacity to harm others....worldwide).
(This has nothing to due with the mosque.....just a straight up general question)
|
In what form? I'm not sure whether this seems surprising, but I would argue not. I'd argue that all the characterictics of fundamentalist Islam, like a disrespect of (the life of) unbelievers, a disrespect for life in general, the division of the world in outsiders and insiders, the shunning of those people who drop out of the faith etc etc, are all present in Fundamentalist Christianity and Jewism in Europe and America as well.
If there is a difference, it is one of degree at best. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 08/20/2010 10:44:10 |
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 10:37:27 [Permalink]
|
emsby,
I'm totally diggin' the Floyd quote!
|
Pink Floyd is the greatest band of all time. Other than The Clash, of course. |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
| Edited by - emsby on 08/20/2010 10:37:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
