|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2010 : 21:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Sure, but that is part of my point. It seems to me that if you want to designate islam as a violent religion, or the cause of the violence, you should actually be able to actively eliminate other possible causes. I do not think we can do that and therefore think we should not designate Islam as inherently violent. At least not as inherently more violent than Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism for example. |
The only difference is that I see a much more prominent role Islamic justification for violence. Not just from the imams, but from legitimate political authorities.
Sure, it often has little to do with Islam itself among engineers of terrorism and heads of state, but religious rhetoric tends to be a convenient way to rile up the locals and get their support. I don't know that Christians have had anything of the same order of magnitude in quite some decades (the Balkins notwithstanding). Comparing Israel's use of Judaism might be more of an argument. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 08/21/2010 21:27:44 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 21:53:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by tomk80
Sure, but that is part of my point. It seems to me that if you want to designate islam as a violent religion, or the cause of the violence, you should actually be able to actively eliminate other possible causes. I do not think we can do that and therefore think we should not designate Islam as inherently violent. At least not as inherently more violent than Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism for example. |
The only difference is that I see a much more prominent role Islamic justification for violence. Not just from the imams, but from legitimate political authorities.
Sure, it often has little to do with Islam itself among engineers of terrorism and heads of state, but religious rhetoric tends to be a convenient way to rile up the locals and get their support. I don't know that Christians have had anything of the same order of magnitude in quite some decades (the Balkins notwithstanding). Comparing Israel's use of Judaism might be more of an argument.
|
I think it boils down to a much simplier formula.
Literacy and the abuse of the herd instinct in humans.
Those populations with high literacy rates are less likely to fall to religious extremism. That is because you will have loud and strong dissenting voices against extremism.
In the Islamic countries, you have a much higher incidence of illeteracy and fewer strong voices against extremism. If we take the example of Afghanistan vs. Turkey, we see how the extremist sects have more control in Afghanistan than Turkey.
In addition, you also have may sub-sects of Islam. Sufis are very moderate. Preaching peace and support for the poor. Wahabism is not. It is the Shia (Shiites, Wahabism, etc) which lend itself more towards extremism. Sunnis and related subsects are practiced more widely.
This is due to the nature of their split and subsequent conflict.
After the death of Mohammed, the Sunnis followed the declared successor of Mohammed. The Shi'a followed Mohammed's brother, Ali. As was common for this period of time, the schism sparked bloody conflict between the two. As the Shi'a were much less than the Sunnis, the Shi'a were being attacked constantly. This tended to enforce their feelings of persecution (which continue to this day in the teachings of their radicals) and they became more and more extreme. Not helping this was the subsequent Holy Crusades.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 22:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't know that Christians have had anything of the same order of magnitude in quite some decades (the Balkins notwithstanding). |
Christians are just sneakier about it. Just recently, Catholics are largely responsible for rampaging HIV/AIDS in Africa, and Protestants have given us at least one more country with a death penalty for homosexuality. Christians may not declare their version of jihad openly any longer, but I think that's only because the "moderates" among them are uncomfortable with looking like they're confrontational. Maybe. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 14:15:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by dglas
Dave, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the Koran and Hadiths influence no one, and that they influence some at the same time.
Let me know when you make the call.
|
Neither of which is what Dave W. is saying. Perhaps you should try to react to his actual argument?
Or perhaps just a real-life example:
Do you think Reza Aslan thinks people who leave Islam should be killed?
|
I do not know what Reza Aslan believes, but the doctrine is clear. If Reza Aslin self-identifies with a doctrine that prescribes killing apostates, then, if you are an apostate, it probably reasonable to exercise caution.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- 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 - 08/22/2010 : 14:24:19 [Permalink]
|
Here's something I wrote elsewhere that may clarify the point I am attempting to make:
We suspend principles all the time without betraying them when there is just cause.
We can put criminals in jail without betraying the principle of freedom. We can physically defend family without betraying the principle of pacifism. We can remove bullies from the sandbox without betraying the principle of letting children play in the sandbox. We can legislate against hate speech without betraying the principle of free speech. We can impose restrictions on pedophiles without betraying the principle of freedom of association. Feel free to add your own examples; the list can go on indefinitely. Name any crime for which we impose restrictions or jail time; every single one of them is a case where we suspend some principles in order to protect others, or even the same one.
Now, normally there is much hand-wringing involved and that is only proper, but exceptions we make nonetheless, if we find that the only way to defend the principle is to make exceptions to it. This requires a clarity of understanding the difference between desire and necessity - which is difficult at best and all too prone to error and abuse.
This reliance of principle-absolutism alone to defend any building of a "mosque" at "ground zero" (arguments against these descriptors noted) is not necessarily a rational or correct decision. There may be good reasons for allowing this construction, and generally a principle respecting the "right" to do so may be a good argument - provided other "rights" are not being impinged upon in the process.
At this point we have to ask if there is anything about islam that may be comparable to the causes of exceptions listed above. Is there anything about islam that is so inimical to the rights of others that an exception may be warranted. To get to that, we must look not just at the behaviour of individuals, but to the principles to which they self-identify and which are prescribed to them - by the dogma. We need to examine the dogma.
Is there anything in islamic dogma that is systemically contradictory to rights guaranteed to others by the Constitution and associated, and otherwise established, law? If so, there may be just cause for the suspension of the principle in the case of islam. It's treacherous ground, but it may also be treacherous ground to not face the issue as well.
The reason the current arguments against the "mosque" at "ground zero" "make no sense" (other than a straight up oblivious determination to never even consider the possibility that any argument could ever possibly make sense) is that most of them are put forward by folks who are resting their arguments on raw emotion rather than rational thought. This influences both "sides." Note that there are two sides, each demonizing the other.
This is another case where Americans, on both sides of the issue, are so caught up in a context of partisan-politics hysteria that clarity of thought is simply impossible. We even hear people who are now claiming that we may not even examine islamic dogma because that would be "bigotry" (how emotionally charged is that?), as if ideas get human rights.
It's now to the point where no one can even suggest any examination of potentially contradictory values without being vilified and demonized. Almost everyone, pro and anti tea-party, are acting like the tea party at this point.
Let the vitriol, unfounded accusation and ranting begin... |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 15:37:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Here's something I wrote elsewhere that may clarify the point I am attempting to make: |
Not really.| We suspend principles all the time without betraying them when there is just cause. |
"Just cause" has never included adherence to some dogma or other, except when folks like Joe McCarthy have too much power. Your focus on crimes and like activities is the point: we don't suspend people's rights based on what they're thinking, we do so based upon their actions.| This reliance of principle-absolutism alone to defend any building of a "mosque" at "ground zero" (arguments against these descriptors noted) is not necessarily a rational or correct decision. |
Legally, it is correct.| There may be good reasons for allowing this construction, and generally a principle respecting the "right" to do so may be a good argument - provided other "rights" are not being impinged upon in the process. |
What other rights might be impinged in this particular case?| At this point we have to ask if there is anything about islam that may be comparable to the causes of exceptions listed above. |
Why?| Is there anything about islam that is so inimical to the rights of others that an exception may be warranted. |
No. Islam may direct Muslims to impinge on the rights of others, but until a Muslim actually does so, there is no just cause to strip anyone of their rights.| To get to that, we must look not just at the behaviour of individuals, but to the principles to which they self-identify and which are prescribed to them - by the dogma. We need to examine the dogma. |
No, we don't. And even if we did, we'd have to examine the correct dogma, in this case Sufi Islam.| Is there anything in islamic dogma that is systemically contradictory to rights guaranteed to others by the Constitution and associated, and otherwise established, law? |
Sure. And in Judaism and Christianity, too. Why focus on Islam? Hell, since revelation is inimical to having a well-informed populace, let's just ban all religions based on it, entirely.| If so, there may be just cause for the suspension of the principle in the case of islam. |
No, because just believing things contradictory to the Constitution isn't just cause. If it were, we could jail half of the Republican Party.| It's treacherous ground, but it may also be treacherous ground to not face the issue as well. |
We've already faced these issues of principle. It's why the KKK gets to march when they want to, for example.| The reason the current arguments against the "mosque" at "ground zero" "make no sense" (other than a straight up oblivious determination to never even consider the possibility that any argument could ever possibly make sense) is that most of them are put forward by folks who are resting their arguments on raw emotion rather than rational thought. This influences both "sides." Note that there are two sides, each demonizing the other. |
Then which side are you on, dglas?| This is another case where Americans, on both sides of the issue, are so caught up in a context of partisan-politics hysteria that clarity of thought is simply impossible. |
Ah, more insults. Brilliant.| We even hear people who are now claiming that we may not even examine islamic dogma because that would be "bigotry" (how emotionally charged is that?), as if ideas get human rights. |
Just another strawman.| It's now to the point where no one can even suggest any examination of potentially contradictory values without being vilified and demonized. |
The funny part is that you're still not putting forth an examination of potentially contradictory values.| Almost everyone, pro and anti tea-party, are acting like the tea party at this point. |
More insults.| Let the vitriol, unfounded accusation and ranting begin... |
Well, you're off to a good start on those, again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 16:14:53 [Permalink]
|
dglas:
The reason the current arguments against the "mosque" at "ground zero" "make no sense" (other than a straight up oblivious determination to never even consider the possibility that any argument could ever possibly make sense) is that most of them are put forward by folks who are resting their arguments on raw emotion rather than rational thought. This influences both "sides." Note that there are two sides, each demonizing the other. |
I don't agree. Most of us are resting our conclusion that this so called "mosque" should be allowed, without resistance and without objection, on the constitution of the United States. That's hardly an emotional argument.
It's the side issues that engender the emotional part of this debate. But even if you think all muslims are duty bound to follow Islamic law and you think Islamic law is inherently evil, we have laws covering that too.
I could get into a debate with you about those pesky muslims because most of those living in the US are living here peaceably because they kinda like it here. Just like most Christians don't kill abortion doctors or blow up federal buildings. Again, we have laws to deal with those who do go that far because of their belief that they are doing gods work. And frankly, in the United States, fundamentalist Christianity currently poses a much greater threat to our freedom than fundamentalist Islam does because it really does have a lot of popular support. We have theocrats in government and they were voted there because they are theocrats.
Be that as it may, I will continue to oppose all forms of religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Islamic or any other flavor of idiocracy that anyone attempts to shove down our throats. We can, by way of the constitution, successfully oppose a theocracy without trampling on a part of the constitution that just happens to be one of the greatest strengths of our country. Let me be clear about this. Once we remove from our constitution religious protections, even selectively, some religious group will win the battle for supremacy over the people and we will become a theocracy. And it will be done by a majority vote.
And that scares me way more than upholding the constitution as it is now written, even if that does cause some people some discomfort.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 20:50:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Let me be clear about this. Once we remove from our constitution religious protections, even selectively, some religious group will win the battle for supremacy over the people and we will become a theocracy. And it will be done by a majority vote. |
You know, things might be different if we're taking a stand on principle just for the sake of principle, but Kil's got it right: we stand on principle in support of the legal precedents already in place. If the precedent changes, we'll all be screwed.
And one of the biggest problems with Christians who think that the First Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from religion is that they really don't think it's possible that there will ever be a Muslim or Hindu or some other non-Christian majority in this country. Perhaps if they succeed in legislating Christianity, they'd be correct, but right now, they're not and their denial of even the merest chance of them being subject to mandatory non-Christian religious rites is short-sighted, at best.
But perhaps that's why they're protesting mosques across the country, and not just in NYC. Perhaps they think that America really is all about mob rule, and if Muslims gain the smallest majority, it'll be all over and they'll be forced at gunpoint to bow to Mecca five times a day.
That must be terrifying as hell. But the answer isn't to discuss the tenets of Islam or suspend the Constitutional rights of Muslims, but is instead to give people a better education in Constitutional law to begin with, how it works and why it matters. |
- 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 - 08/23/2010 : 02:20:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
I do not know what Reza Aslan believes, but the doctrine is clear. If Reza Aslin self-identifies with a doctrine that prescribes killing apostates, then, if you are an apostate, it probably reasonable to exercise caution.
|
But he states himself that he doesn't self-identify with a doctrine that prescribes killing apostates.
He also self-identifies as muslim.
Are you going to play the "no real scotchman"-card now? Or are you going to let it sink in that different muslims have different opinions on what constitutes "islam doctrine"? Just as different Christians have different opinions on what constitutes "christian doctrine". |
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- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 03:25:23 [Permalink]
|
I found this little gem here.
All things evolve, one way or another. My feelings on this matter have gone from ambivalent to disgust, to outright loathing, then to the same, sour amusement I get when I see some dungwit feeding the bears -- when one of them gets mauled, I have small sympathy. Stupidity should, must be painful lest the lesson not be learned.
Of course we, as semi-intelligent primates addicted to religion, will not learn much of anything from Park51. That includes our lame national media and the politicians, who feed this bear. If there is a mauling, it will be a damned shame that they will not on the bloody end of it. They won't be; rather they will go on to feed another bear, using, as usual, someone else's hand. Thus the lesson will not be learned by those who need the instruction the most.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 13:31:18 [Permalink]
|
Quoth Dave:
"Then which side are you on, dglas?"
And that reflexively polarizing question pretty much says it all, which is why there is no possibility of progress in this discussion here.
It's not like anyone is going to entertain that my point might be beyond the building of one mosque at one particular place. It's not like anyone will even entertain that my point might extend beyond just islam.
This is why I rarely post on these forums. The acuity level here simply will not permit even the possibility of advancing the subject matter. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 13:52:55 [Permalink]
|
How's 'bout this?
The constitutionality of the whole thing is obviously without question but....
I think this would be a great time to compromise. I have been hearing much talk about about NYC offering to help find a place that would be benificial to all parties. This would be a good time for the Muslim community to show some good faith and compassion for the citizens of NYC. It sure would help them integrate into American culture if they did.
BTW, do we ever hear anything from the Muslim community?
I dunno, maybe I'm just a hippy dreamer. |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 13:55:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Quoth Dave:
"Then which side are you on, dglas?"
And that reflexively polarizing question pretty much says it all, which is why there is no possibility of progress in this discussion here. |
You're the one who said, "Note that there are two sides, each demonizing the other." I was giving you the opportunity to correct yourself. Instead, you've done nothing but insult me again.| It's not like anyone is going to entertain that my point might be beyond the building of one mosque at one particular place. It's not like anyone will even entertain that my point might extend beyond just islam. |
I did entertain it. You chose to deliver yet another insult: pretending that I didn't.| This is why I rarely post on these forums. The acuity level here simply will not permit even the possibility of advancing the subject matter. |
You are the stumbling block to advancing the discussion here, dglas. You refuse to actually engage, instead preferring pontification and insult.
If you want the discussion to move forward, then move it forward instead of complaining about how it's not moving forward. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 14:02:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
I think this would be a great time to compromise. I have been hearing much talk about about NYC offering to help find a place that would be benificial to all parties. |
That's why the Imam wants the center where it's going to go. To benefit as many people as possible, in his mind.| This would be a good time for the Muslim community to show some good faith and compassion for the citizens of NYC. |
What about the Muslim citizens of NYC? What about the friends and families of the Muslim victims of 9/11?| It sure would help them integrate into American culture if they did. |
Who says they haven't integrated? Imam Rauf was an advisor to George W. Bush. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 14:09:19 [Permalink]
|
Well dglas, if you're just going to ignore my response, I can live with that. But I did answer the question that you originally posed.
| You will have to make a choice between islam and your Constitution. The question is when do you make it. |
Okay then... Perhaps I should have just stayed away from this thread. I was unaware that discussion was not a part of the deal here.
| This is why I rarely post on these forums. The acuity level here simply will not permit even the possibility of advancing the subject matter. |
Noted...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
