|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law.
The first point is a pretty meaningless sentence, it could be applied to any polity at almost any period of human time -- including Athens, the United Kingdom and even the United States, as late as 1953! -- you dont seem to have a visceral distrust of these states. The second point is true in the sense that somewhere in the Quran there are some sentences that have been interpreted by some scholars and acted upon as you describe it. But again, if Muslim scholars cant coherently articulate a vision of Quranic proscriptions -- and they cant, I gurantee you this if you research into the field on an academic level -- then its a relatively meaningless point. Assholes will find holy scripture that justifies their action. And the third point misconstrues Muslim governance -- whatever that may look -- and modern Islamism. I think the historiography of Islamism is pretty clear that as an idea its a relatively modern one -- really only gaining traction from the 1970s on when Arab nationalism 'failed' as a motivational-organizational ideology. But just as we dont blame Orthodox Christianity for Stalinism, I am not sure that blaming Islam for ISIS is the right way forward.
|
On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS.
|
On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier.
The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now.
|
United States41117 Posts
A mine worker says she was fired because she did not donate to Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray's favored GOP candidates, according to a lawsuit filed last week in a West Virginia court.
The complaint, first reported by the Charleston Gazette, claims that Jean F. Cochenour, a former Murray Energy foreman at a Marion County mine in West Virginia, received multiple letters from the CEO instructing her to donate to specific GOP candidates with strong pro-coal positions, and even included recommended donation sums for Republican Senate candidates like Scott Brown and Terri Land.
Cochenour was then fired in early May for her refusal to donate, and her for gender, she claims. She was reportedly the only female preparation plant foreman at the company.
In response to an inquiry from The Huffington Post, a spokesperson for Murray Energy called the lawsuit "baseless," "blatantly false" and "an attempt to extort money" from the company.
"Ms. Cochenour was fired because she failed to perform her job adequately," the company's statement, emailed to HuffPost, said. "Undoubtedly, her lack of management cost Murray Energy Corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars."
CEO Robert Murray has been a voracious defender of the coal industry, and his Murray Energy Corporation Political Action Committee has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars every year exclusively to Republican candidates. The lawsuit alleges that Murray has a “long history” of requiring his managers to donate to the PAC.
Source
|
United States44449 Posts
On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now.
"All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards".
Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down.
|
On September 12 2014 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam).
You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now. "All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards". Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down.
There's no Christian equivalent of ISIS or Iran or any of the Muslim countries that have enacted Sharia Law in part or in full. Sure, there are Christian elements within Western nations (such as the US) that desire to push their theocratic ideals upon the larger population, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the full-blown institutionalization of these ideals.
|
On September 12 2014 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS.
I think the hypocrisy of supporting Israel is more easily seen in the use of their history in the area as justification for settlements, meanwhile ignoring the crap out of historical residence when it comes to Mexicans in America.
|
On September 12 2014 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS.
You're all just big hypocrites because
1. We created Israel through the ethnic cleansing of the native palestinians because we were the kings of the world after WW2
2. 1967 - now we have supported a violent, oppressive regime built on a foundation of ethnic supremacy
3. You now decry a violent, oppressive rebellion which we handcrafted through our moronic imperialism and continued support of a violent, oppressive regime.
I mean the hypocrisy starts when you see a conservative (aren't the main points supposed to be individual liberty, free markets, religious freedom and guns?) preaching about the glory of Israel which takes those rights away from 1/3 of its population, and limits those rights for another 16% because they worship the wrong god and were born on the wrong side of the wall.
On September 12 2014 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:17 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now. "All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards". Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down. There's no Christian equivalent of ISIS or Iran or any of the Muslim countries that have enacted Sharia Law in part or in full. Sure, there are Christian elements within Western nations (such as the US) that desire to push their theocratic ideals upon the larger population, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the full-blown institutionalization of these ideals.
Apparently you've never heard of the southern half of Africa.
|
On September 12 2014 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
Apparently you've never heard of the southern half of Africa.
Do tell.
|
On September 12 2014 05:31 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:00 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS. Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 05:17 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:
[quote][quote]I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now. "All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards". Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down. There's no Christian equivalent of ISIS or Iran or any of the Muslim countries that have enacted Sharia Law in part or in full. Sure, there are Christian elements within Western nations (such as the US) that desire to push their theocratic ideals upon the larger population, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the full-blown institutionalization of these ideals. Apparently you've never heard of the southern half of Africa.
I typed southern african theocracy into google and the only result that seemed relevant is muslim Sudan. Could you point me to these african christian theocracies? Because if those exist they can fuck off just as much as the muslim ones I assure you.
|
On September 12 2014 05:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:31 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 05:00 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS. On September 12 2014 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 05:17 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now. "All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards". Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down. There's no Christian equivalent of ISIS or Iran or any of the Muslim countries that have enacted Sharia Law in part or in full. Sure, there are Christian elements within Western nations (such as the US) that desire to push their theocratic ideals upon the larger population, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the full-blown institutionalization of these ideals. Apparently you've never heard of the southern half of Africa. I typed southern african theocracy into google and the only result that seemed relevant is muslim Sudan. Could you point me to these african christian theocracies? Because if those exist they can fuck off just as much as the muslim ones I assure you.
I don't think a christian theocracy exists, but in Uganda and several other countries in the region Lord's Resistance Army lead by Joseph Kony is pushing a rather extreme form of christianity.
|
Are we seriously trying to argue an equivalency between ISIS and Christian fundamentalism?
I would also point out that saying Islamism is more violent and oppressive than other religious governments is not repeat NOT the same as saying all Muslims are violent and oppressive.
|
Vatican City is a Christian theocracy.
<.<
Seriously though, is who did what to whose minorities in the past relevant? The whole "Europe is Christian because genocide" is so overdone I don't know what to even say. The whole "Isis is the embodiment of correct Islam" is even more sickening (Who died and made you Bill Maher, the chosen one given to tell people what their own religious beliefs are?)
Isis is a totalitarian regime. They happen to use a Muslim ideology just as Imperial Spain used a Christian one, Imperial Japan a Buddhist one, and various communist dicatorships used Atheistic/Marxist ones. The Papacy was horrified by the Spanish Inquisition, plenty of Buddhist monks objected to the militarized understanding of their faith, and there are plenty of communists and atheists out there who haven't summarily executed anyone today.
|
On September 12 2014 06:41 coverpunch wrote:
Are we seriously trying to argue an equivalency between ISIS and Christian fundamentalism?
I would also point out that saying Islamism is more violent and oppressive than other religious governments is not repeat NOT the same as saying all Muslims are violent and oppressive.
And that's the problem that I have with people on the left. They'd rather trip over themselves to deflect the issue rather than have a serious, adult conversation about the problems with modern-day Islam. We're going on four pages of this nonsense in this thread.
|
On September 12 2014 06:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 06:41 coverpunch wrote:
Are we seriously trying to argue an equivalency between ISIS and Christian fundamentalism?
I would also point out that saying Islamism is more violent and oppressive than other religious governments is not repeat NOT the same as saying all Muslims are violent and oppressive.
And that's the problem that I have with people on the left. They'd rather trip over themselves to deflect the issue rather than have a serious, adult conversation about the problems with modern-day Islam. We're going on four pages of this nonsense in this thread.
The real irony of it is that President Obama has bent over backwards to emphasize that the biggest victim of Islamism has been Muslims. We will fight them because of the threat they present to American citizens, but ISIS is a scourge for the many human rights violations it has already committed and is apparently dedicated to continuing.
|
The Value of a College Degree This post is the first in a series of four Liberty Street Economics posts examining the value of a college degree. Not so long ago, people rarely questioned the value of a college degree. A bachelor’s degree was seen as a surefire ticket to a career-oriented, good-paying job. Today, however, many people are uncertain whether going to college is such a wise decision. It’s easy to see why. Tuition costs have been rising considerably faster than inflation, student debt is mounting, wages for college graduates have been falling, and recent college graduates have been struggling to find good jobs. These trends might lead one to believe that college is no longer a good investment. But when you dig into the data, is this really true? This week, we examine the value of a college degree in a four-part blog series. In this first post, we do the basic math and show that despite what appears to be a set of alarming trends, the value of a bachelor’s degree for the average graduate has held near its all-time high of about $300,000 for more than a decade. ... + Show Spoiler +
Link
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 12 2014 05:57 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 05:45 Crushinator wrote:On September 12 2014 05:31 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 05:00 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2014 01:34 Jormundr wrote:On September 12 2014 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. On September 11 2014 23:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why all of you sensible liberals are okay with Muslims charging non-Muslims a special tax to simply exist in their countries. Somehow I don't think that such discrimination would fly today. Allowing non-Muslims into positions of power doesn't quite make it right. And again, like I pointed out earlier, this is was the status quo during the best of times for non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Take a look at what happened during the Muslim conquests or even during the latter stages of Al Andalus to get a more complete picture. I get the idea that oppressive regimes are tolerated only if Muslims are running the show. You're allowed to turn a blind eye to history if its the history of Muslim conquest, but the crusades are definitely still super relevant. A successful group of Islamic terrorists? Clearly fringe, as if Sharia law's something new, convert/cower/die is something new, and wiping out native populations represents such a grave departure from Muhammed's teaching that they're not really Muslims anymore! Grow up in your understanding of Islam, and even just power and use of force, and don't waste hours pointing out nuances in the history of war and genocide. This religion would just be a no-name sect hidden in the Arabian peninsula without Jihad and the periodic rise of aggressive military leaders. Yeah we only "tolerate" "oppressive regimes" when they're muslim. Which is why the conservatives dance for the national zionists (or nazis for short). But hey, the Palestinians deserve to be slaughtered for Israeli political games every 3-5 years. They are muslims after all so conservative (christian) wisdom would dictate that their lives are of no value. You're really grasping at straws if you want to compare ISIS to Israel in this context. I do see why you wish there was some kind of moral parallel here, because then we'd all just be big hypocrites supporting Israel and opposing ISIS. On September 12 2014 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 05:17 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:56 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2014 04:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Israel has nothing to do with this. All it takes is a cursory review of the past 2 pages of this thread to see liberal apologism for Islam in action. It is literally a historical fact that throughout most of its history the Caliphates have treated non Muslim minorities with far, far more tolerance than the west ever did. The reason we ended up with religious homogeneity in the west is because we literally committed genocide. We butchered Jews, we butchered pagans, we butchered Bogomils and Cathars, hell, the Protostants tried to ethnically cleanse the Catholics from Ireland. When we took Muslim lands we massacred them or drove them out. Compare that to the Ottoman empire which, in five centuries of rule, left the Armenian church untouched until the Great War. Or the flourishing of the Christian populations of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. There is a reason that the Balkans is such a powderkeg of little ethnicities and religious feuds while the western nations are not and that reason is that no central power genocided them and replaced them with a homogenous group with which a nation could be built. The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, that stable nations are built on genocide. You kill everyone not like you, replace them with people like you and then agree about how shit should be run. The problems endemic in the old Ottoman Empire are a testament to how unwilling they were to butcher the minorities. I don't really disagree with any of this. There certainly is an argument to be made that, compared to Christians, Muslims were more tolerant of minorities. My only points are as follows: 1) per modern standards, the way that Muslims treated minorities is unacceptable; 2) this impermissible mode of treatment is prescribed by Muslim religious texts; and 3) these prior two facts cannot be dismissed when considering the current state of Islam and the prospect(s) of states emerging that are governed by Muslim law. And the extermination of heretics were sanctioned by the Pope, literal orders of genocide written down by the heir of Saint Peter. And yet we give Catholics the benefit of the doubt now because we get that they're capable of not being dicks, why should we not give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt on the basis of their lesser sins during the Medieval period. I don't apologise for Medieval Islam, it was shitty. When identifying the cause of that shitty though I highlight the word Medieval, it was shitty because it was in a shitty time filled with shitty people who by their nature wanted to do shitty things. If you oppose that theory and wish to blame Islam for the shittiness then you're free to do so but you better do so consistently which means treating modern Christians like they're way bigger assholes than Muslims are cause Medieval Christianity was way shittier. The difference is that the West has become so secularized that Christianity plays a comparatively minor role in the West's laws and institutions. Islam has not undergone the same kind of transformative process that Christianity has. The history is irrelevant. What matters is the now. "All real Muslims are bastards and all real Christians are bastards but the Christians I know aren't real Christians so they're excluded while all Muslims are real Muslims and are therefore bastards". Secular Islam does exist, as does Fundamentalist Christianity. You've effectively rounded all Christians up and all Muslims down. There's no Christian equivalent of ISIS or Iran or any of the Muslim countries that have enacted Sharia Law in part or in full. Sure, there are Christian elements within Western nations (such as the US) that desire to push their theocratic ideals upon the larger population, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the full-blown institutionalization of these ideals. Apparently you've never heard of the southern half of Africa. I typed southern african theocracy into google and the only result that seemed relevant is muslim Sudan. Could you point me to these african christian theocracies? Because if those exist they can fuck off just as much as the muslim ones I assure you. I don't think a christian theocracy exists, but in Uganda and several other countries in the region Lord's Resistance Army lead by Joseph Kony is pushing a rather extreme form of christianity.
I dunno if Kony could properly be considered an extreme form of Christianity in any sense of the word. They've co-opted the 10 Commandments, but somebody was clearly not paying attention to the Sermon on the Mount. But it's more than that- from Colonel Skow's summary of the LRA's beliefs, they've mix-and-matched a variety of beliefs to create a cocktail from hell. It isn't an issue of orthodox belief vs fringe belief or denominational disagreements. Its a grab-bag of religions and indigenous beliefs to suit a tyrannical terrorist leader.
|
On September 12 2014 06:48 Yoav wrote:
Vatican City is a Christian theocracy.
<.<
Seriously though, is who did what to whose minorities in the past relevant? The whole "Europe is Christian because genocide" is so overdone I don't know what to even say. The whole "Isis is the embodiment of correct Islam" is even more sickening (Who died and made you Bill Maher, the chosen one given to tell people what their own religious beliefs are?)
Isis is a totalitarian regime. They happen to use a Muslim ideology just as Imperial Spain used a Christian one, Imperial Japan a Buddhist one, and various communist dicatorships used Atheistic/Marxist ones. The Papacy was horrified by the Spanish Inquisition, plenty of Buddhist monks objected to the militarized understanding of their faith, and there are plenty of communists and atheists out there who haven't summarily executed anyone today.
The Spanish Inquisition is almost certainly blown out of proportion. The only extensive records of its cruelty we have are from the English, and at the time England and Spain hated each other. There's no evidence not of English origin that suggests that the Spanish Inquisition was any worse than any other, lesser known, inquisition.
|
On September 12 2014 06:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2014 06:41 coverpunch wrote:
Are we seriously trying to argue an equivalency between ISIS and Christian fundamentalism?
I would also point out that saying Islamism is more violent and oppressive than other religious governments is not repeat NOT the same as saying all Muslims are violent and oppressive.
And that's the problem that I have with people on the left. They'd rather trip over themselves to deflect the issue rather than have a serious, adult conversation about the problems with modern-day Islam. We're going on four pages of this nonsense in this thread.
Religion in general has a lot of problems, specifically the whole irrationality of it. However, a lot of people have learned that there is just no point in telling that to religious people. They will not accept it, and they will not change. Furthermore, a lot of religious people manage to skip the negative aspects of their faith, so if they want to believe something irrational, why should i interfere? The problem only appears once people try to push some irrational agenda based on that faith.
You want to tell people that Islam is a bad religion, but ignore the fact that pretty much any religion is more or less the same to a nonbeliever. Weird irrational rules that make no sense whatsoever, usually discriminating against someone or other, and the absurd belief that you are better than others because you believe in that specific faith. Islam is not fundamentally worse than Christianity. The average western christian is just a lot less serious about his religion.
Of course it would be better if people would realize how insane the whole concept of religion in general is, but baring that, it is usually a better choice to just let them believe what they want and try to stop if from affecting other people. Religion is acceptable in a secularized society where it doesn't actually effect other people. Any sort of religious state is not a good idea. Sadly, a lot of middle eastern muslims appear to want their theocracies. I do not understand that, but i generally do not understand the appeal of religion at all. Also, this is not something a western power can reasonably influence. So the reasonable reaction is to go after the most insane theocrats, the ones so crazy that even their fellow religious monarchies hate them. And then hope that at some point, hopefully rather soon, the middle east will have the same developement as europe had to basically get rid of christianity as a major factor. And for their own sake it is to hope that they are faster than europe was. But that is something they need to do on their own, not something someone on the outside can force upon them.
So the problem is not Islam as a specific religion, it is people taking religion serious. And that is something that is very hard to influence.
|
"Islam is not fundamentally worse than Christianity..." This post of yours was really good besides that. Be politically correct as you want, but learn some history when it comes to the two faiths roots, and main beliefs. Islam has conducted jihad like acts since its formation. IS. Is the Islamic State. I completely agree with the majority of your post though, the way this ends is not through western acts, at least not the way weve been doing things. All we need now is someone to say Islam is the religion of peace to take the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
