|
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 07:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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 guess that I'm not surprised that you think "why" questions are leading questions. And anyone who has paid attention to my prior posts on the subject already knows where I am going with this.
|
United States44287 Posts
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?
We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state.
A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing.
It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here.
|
On November 25 2015 07:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:26 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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 guess that I'm not surprised that you think "why" questions are leading questions. And anyone who has paid attention to my prior posts on the subject already knows where I am going with this.
We all end up in the same place every time. I was just moving the process forward.
What is your solution? How do you stop radicalization? How do you reform Islam?
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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.
Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith".
The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem.
|
On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive.
"might" "counterproductive"
pls, its straight up bigoted bullshit to blame muslims for that.
|
On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here.
You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century.
|
On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem.
Islam jihadis are a problem in Africa what are you talking about. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups operate there.
|
On November 25 2015 07:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:26 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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 guess that I'm not surprised that you think "why" questions are leading questions. And anyone who has paid attention to my prior posts on the subject already knows where I am going with this. We all end up in the same place every time. I was just moving the process forward. What is your solution? How do you stop radicalization? How do you reform Islam?
Historically, movements such as radical Islam have been stopped with the crushing application of military force.
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here. You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century.
Fortunately I referred explicitly to the Holocaust.
However if we're going to debate this I also believe that Stalinism more closely models a religious theocracy than anything else. It was built on the denial of reality in favour of faith, while it claimed to be atheistic it replaced the old Orthodox structures with new Stalinist structures and pushed devotion and faith over critical analysis. Also, like both Islam and Christianity, it was explicitly expansionist. The largest and most brutal front of the Second World War cannot be separated from the ideology that dominated it.
|
On November 25 2015 07:44 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. Islam jihadis are a problem in Africa what are you talking about. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups operate there. It's not all about oil.
So are Christian fanatics. And a strong history of ethnic warfare as well. Africa has a lot of poor, impoverished nations where fanaticism thrives. Its not specifically about Islam.
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:44 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. Islam jihadis are a problem in Africa what are you talking about. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups operate there.
It's a big continent. There are extremists from both sides. If you think I was trying to characterize Al Qaeda as a Christian group then I am very sorry for your confusion. When I was referring to militant Christianity in Africa I was referring to the militant Christians, not Al Qaeda. Hopefully that clears up your misunderstanding.
|
On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem.
This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds.
As simply as I can :
1) Jihadists have religious revendications
2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam.
3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation.
|
On November 25 2015 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here. You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century. Fortunately I referred explicitly to the Holocaust. However if we're going to debate this I also believe that Stalinism more closely models a religious theocracy than anything else. It was built on the denial of reality in favour of faith, while it claimed to be atheistic it replaced the old Orthodox structures with new Stalinist structures and pushed devotion and faith over critical analysis. Also, like both Islam and Christianity, it was explicitly expansionist. The largest and most brutal front of the Second World War cannot be separated from the ideology that dominated it.
The Holocaust wasn't about religious struggle. Hitler detested all religion. He was just particularly bigoted against the Jews as a race. If anything, the Holocaust was the ultimate expression of nationalism: the purification of the master race. And it is hilarious that you would characterize Stalinism as a religion. Sure, the cult of personality that was part of Stalinism certainly resembles religion, but the fact remains that Stalinism (and communism) are strictly secular.
So no, WW2 clearly was not about religion.
|
On November 25 2015 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:34 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:26 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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 guess that I'm not surprised that you think "why" questions are leading questions. And anyone who has paid attention to my prior posts on the subject already knows where I am going with this. We all end up in the same place every time. I was just moving the process forward. What is your solution? How do you stop radicalization? How do you reform Islam? Historically, movements such as radical Islam have been stopped with the crushing application of military force.
You gunna get all of it? Just go across the middle east and get all them terrorist? Or just lay siege to Mecca and get them all to come to us? We would likely need to institute the draft and raise taxes to get that done too.
|
On November 25 2015 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:34 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:26 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote: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 guess that I'm not surprised that you think "why" questions are leading questions. And anyone who has paid attention to my prior posts on the subject already knows where I am going with this. We all end up in the same place every time. I was just moving the process forward. What is your solution? How do you stop radicalization? How do you reform Islam? Historically, movements such as radical Islam have been stopped with the crushing application of military force.
Which movements are you thinking about ? Don't you think jihadism has some specificity that might make it a bit more resilient than others ? And don't we have other specificities that make us weaker against such methods and opponents ?
And if "the crushing application of military force" is enough, I guess you'll agree with Putin that all is well in Caucasus.
|
United States44287 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation.
The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers
When the Pope launched a crusade against France there was a question of how to tell the good French Catholics from those who had been corrupted by the teachings of the Cathars. Obviously they wanted to kill all the Cathars, who were Christians but didn't recognize the Pope, but how can you tell who the Cathars are. The Papal Legate had a rather ingenious solution, kill everyone, Cathar and Catholics alike. After all, the good Catholics would go to heaven.
I point this out not to bash on Christianity, this was a while ago, most Christians have learned from this experience (maybe not Ann Coulter et all) but to illustrate that there is absolutely nothing uniquely Islamic about the kind of violence ISIS is doing. You look at ISIS and see Islam, I look at ISIS and see religion.
|
The officer accused of fatally shooting a Chicago teen 16 times in October 2014 was charged with first-degree murder Tuesday, as the city braces for the moment video of the "disturbing" shooting is released to the public.
Officer Jason Van Dyke, 37, turned himself in to authorities Tuesday morning and was later ordered held without bail in connection with the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, according to the Cook County State's Attorney's office. Van Dyke is scheduled to appear in court again Monday as Judge Donald Panarese said he wants to see video of the shooting.
The dash-cam video, which a judge ordered police to release by Nov. 25, is said to show the teen holding a small knife and walking away from officers when one unexpectedly opens fire, spraying the teen with more than a dozen bullets and continuing to shoot as McDonald lies lifeless on the ground, according to an attorney for the McDonald family.
Prosecutors said in court Tuesday that the shooting happened within 15 seconds, but for 13 of those seconds McDonald was on the ground. They added the video "clearly does not show McDonald advancing toward [Van Dyke]."
Source
|
On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so.
I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though.
|
On November 25 2015 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:44 Deathstar wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. Islam jihadis are a problem in Africa what are you talking about. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups operate there. It's not all about oil. So are Christian fanatics. And a strong history of ethnic warfare as well. Africa has a lot of poor, impoverished nations where fanaticism thrives. Its not specifically about Islam.
I'm not saying Islam is specifically the problem in Africa. Africa has many natural resources and is full of conflict, and Islamic terrorism is prevalent throughout the continent (at least greater Africa).
The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem.
There is no reason to bring in militant Christianity into this.The impact of Christian terror is irrelevant compared to Islamic terror.
|
On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
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. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though.
The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
