|
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 November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had.
|
The Times just took off the gloves and called Trump a racist liar that makes shit up. I am hoping more news agencies follow and stop trying to get quick hits by humoring his bullshit.
|
On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had.
What purpose does knowing the role that religion plays in Islamic extremism serve, though? What would you be able to do if you knew with certainty that being born a Muslim made you more likely to be a terrorist that you would not be able to do if you did not know that with certainty? Besides argue with people on the internet, of course.
Would you tell people to beware Muslims-or Middle Eastern people-or use enhanced screening procedures? All you need to say that is an association, not a cause, and we do that already as a result.
|
On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had.
Religion isn't any more of the problem than it is anywhere else. Isis is largely made up of old Iraqi Baathist military, that's as close to secularism as you're going to get in the Middle East.
Isis gained traction six months after the US overthrew the Iraqi government and installed a Shia minority government leading to the guys mentioned above being kicked out. They run the entire command structure. That they're cosplaying as religious extremists is irrelevant. I am aware that you'll never acknowledge the role the US had in creating Isis, but to act like this is some spiritual Muslim mind control borders on dementia.
|
On November 25 2015 06:27 Plansix wrote:
The Times just took off the gloves and called Trump a racist liar that makes shit up. I am hoping more news agencies follow and stop trying to get quick hits by humoring his bullshit.
Trump's right when he says it only helps him. No one who is or might support him cares, or they just think it's more liberal media bias.
They relate to being called racist liars when they believe they are neither (despite the evidence). Trump is saying the stuff they post on their social media (or in the recent incident straight up retweeting neo-nazi propaganda) they get called racist liars, Trump gets called a racist liar, andthey look at each other and say "can you believe these guys calling us racist liars!?". "Typical liberal, pc, sjw, etc... What am I supposed to check every statistic to make sure it isn't neo-nazi propaganda!?"
|
On November 25 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
Cruz is the only one who hasn't felt the wrath of the Trump yet. I suspect it won't be long with Cruz near the top in Iowa before Trump brings up he's the son of a former communist terrorist. Though really Cruz is just a smarter, more politically aware version of Trump.
I'm sure Trump will say something in his typical, back-handed passive aggressive style:
"Some people are saying that Cruz's father was a communist terrorist. Did you know that? I didn't know that! Maybe Cruz is a communist terrorist too. Who knows?"
|
You can read accounts by Muslims that were captured by ISIS and how they are not "very Muslim". One woman described as more of a nightmare frat house than being captured by religious fanatics.
|
On November 25 2015 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
Cruz is the only one who hasn't felt the wrath of the Trump yet. I suspect it won't be long with Cruz near the top in Iowa before Trump brings up he's the son of a former communist terrorist. Though really Cruz is just a smarter, more politically aware version of Trump. I'm sure Trump will say something in his typical, back-handed passive aggressive style: "Some people are saying that Cruz's father was a communist terrorist. Did you know that? I didn't know that! Maybe Cruz is a communist terrorist too. Who knows?"
Yeah that pretty much nails it, and Cruz doesn't have a chance trying to use his debate training in fighting against Trump and his supporters.
|
On November 25 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:
You can read accounts by Muslims that were captured by ISIS and how they are not "very Muslim". One woman described as more of a nightmare frat house than being captured by religious fanatics.
How often do you see Muslims say "Yeah, ISIS is totally Islam"?
|
United States43296 Posts
On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had.
Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy.
If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS.
If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one".
Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees?
|
A nonprofit founded to combat obesity says the $1.5 million it received from Coca-Cola has no influence on its work.
But emails obtained by The Associated Press show the world's largest beverage maker was instrumental in shaping the Global Energy Balance Network, which is led by a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Coke helped pick the group's leaders, edited its mission statement and suggested articles and videos for its website.
In an email last November, the group's president tells a top Coke executive: "I want to help your company avoid the image of being a problem in peoples' lives and back to being a company that brings important and fun things to them."
Coke executives had similarly high hopes. A proposal circulated via email at the company laid out a vision for a group that would "quickly establish itself as the place the media goes to for comment on any obesity issue." It said the group would use social media and run a political-style campaign to counter the "shrill rhetoric" of "public health extremists" who want to tax or limit foods they deem unhealthy.
When contacted by the AP about the emails, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent said in a statement that "it has become clear to us that there was not a sufficient level of transparency with regard to the company's involvement with the Global Energy Balance Network."
"Clearly, we have more work to do to reflect the values of this great company in all that we do," Kent said.
The Atlanta-based company told the AP it has accepted the retirement of its chief health and science officer, Rhona Applebaum, who initially managed the relationship with the group. It said it will not fill the position as it overhauls how it goes about its health efforts. It also said it has stopped working the Global Energy Balance Network.
It's just the latest example of Coke working with outside experts to promote messages that benefit the company.
Coke has long maintained that the academics and other experts it works with espouse their own views. But the collaborations can be fraught and blur the lines between advertisements and genuine advice. In February, several health and fitness experts paid by the company wrote online posts with tips on healthy habits. Each suggested a mini-soda as a snack idea.
Source
|
On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees?
So, really, what your saying its not religion, but western civilization and values that are superior. However, many (most?) of the people who complain about describing it as "Islamic Extremism" also disagree with that premise, as they are cultural relativists. The President certainly is one.
|
United States43296 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees? So, really, what your saying its not religion, but western civilization and values that are superior. However, many (most?) of the people who complain about describing it as "Islamic Extremism" also disagree with that premise, as they are cultural relativists. The President certainly is one.
Western civilization, when it gets shit right, is superior. We sometimes get things very wrong and it sometimes takes us a long time to get places but yes, I agree that in principle we have some things worked out that other civilizations do not. I imagine you could make a strong argument against this with the whole Holocaust/colonialism/slavery thing but whatever, I'm a western apologist, those were growing pains.
I don't think it's gender, skin colour, or even religion (or lack thereof) that makes me better, it's the context that I was raised it. And the President is a politician and my view is extremely patronizing to people who disagree. It's basically the geopolitical equivalent of "you think you feel that way but you'll understand why I'm right one day when you grow up". The President does not have the same freedoms that I have. Additionally the President has to pander to Americans and Americans would only accept my view if it included America as a shining beacon of hope to the world. It's far better to say "everyone is special, God bless America" than "we checked and it turns out Norway is the best country, let's all try and follow Norway's example".
|
On November 25 2015 06:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. What purpose does knowing the role that religion plays in Islamic extremism serve, though? What would you be able to do if you knew with certainty that being born a Muslim made you more likely to be a terrorist that you would not be able to do if you did not know that with certainty? Besides argue with people on the internet, of course. Would you tell people to beware Muslims-or Middle Eastern people-or use enhanced screening procedures? All you need to say that is an association, not a cause, and we do that already as a result.
It goes without saying that you can't solve a problem unless you fully understand it and are honest about its causes.
|
Someone post the "America isn't the greatest country in the world any more" speech from News Room. Its so relevant right now.
|
On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees?
This kind of equivocal analysis serves no purpose other than to give Muslims cover for the high incidence of radicalism within their ranks.
Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons. Why do you think those wars stopped?
|
On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees? This kind of equivocal analysis serves no purpose other than to give Muslims cover for the high incidence of radicalism within their ranks. Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons. Why do you think those wars stopped?
Please pose a solution rather than ask leading questions like you normally do. We know your views on Islam, so please explain how you plan to fix them.
|
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive.
|
Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons.
We not counting that whole Ireland thing?
|
Yes, but religious fanaticism is common among all religions. Lords Resistance army exists and it’s is made of Christians. Islam isn’t special in this regard and the way fanaticism is dealt with is the same for all religions, by removing the social causes that drives people to those beliefs and reform within the religion.
The religion if Islam isn’t going anyplace. It will be here long after we all pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
