Islam - What's your view on it?

[Mr Tree]

What and what?

Sorry mate missed the accreditation and decennia was the dutch word for decades that slipped in edited

 

[Johnnypenso]

I went to the catholic schoolsystem and yes we did get the knowledge we needed. But apparently when they start checking the religiously segregated schools, they often are very creative with this. Get their accreditation and don't get looked at again for decades some times. Within these decades they thaught children creationism.

So yeah I'm not saying all of them are bad

@Imari you haven't made any assumptions as far as I knew of. I was talking more to everyone and stating I have made wrong assumptions in this thread. Yet I don't see it as not being willing to think critically as long as you're ok with being corrected. Something you guys did with me this discussion. You corrected a lot of fallacious ideas of mine! Ty

This tells me there's a problem with government oversight then, something easily resolved with a little more...oversight. I would assume there's some kind of standardized testing done on the students and any red flags would be immediately addressed. Either way it's not an insurmountable problem that, to me anyway, should lead to the scrapping of private schools in favour of an all public system.

 

[TexRex]

Within these decades they thaught children creationism.

I mean...are the two (creationism and Catholicism) really that far removed from one another?

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean...are the two (creationism and Catholicism) really that far removed from one another?

Yes. It's all in what they take as literal and what they see as metaphorical. In example, i know a fair number of Catholics, most of them subscribe to evolution and to some extent the current model of universe age, if not the way it was created. They also follow the notion of the different ages and creatures that lived in them.
Creationists tend too take far more of the bible literal. The earth is 6000 years old, evolution is fake, man walked with dinosaurs, etc.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I mean...are the two (creationism and Catholicism) really that far removed from one another?

Yes. And no. And sometimes

The first is a fundamentalist, literalist view that can occur in any religion. The second is a religion where creationism can occur but doesn't necessarily.

 

[TexRex]

Yes. It's all in what they take as literal and what they see as metaphorical. In example, i know a fair number of Catholics, most of them subscribe to evolution and to some extent the current model of universe age, if not the way it was created. They also follow the notion of the different ages and creatures that lived in them.
Creationists tend too take far more of the bible literal. The earth is 6000 years old, evolution is fake, man walked with dinosaurs, etc.

Well it's all subject to interpretation. Indeed, the Catholics I know who have noted their process of belief indicate the creation of life capable of evolving.

Perhaps it comes down to a difference between "creationism" and "Creationism"; "God created life" versus "God created life as we know it." The former I can actually wrap my head around as a "logical" (not the appropriate word but the best I can come up with right now) conclusion in the absence of data and/or a means to interpret it, but the latter strikes me as wilful ignorance.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to continuing this discussion, in fact I appreciate alternate takes, but this probably isn't the appropriate thread to continue. Feel free to tag or quote me in a more general discussion thread.

 

[PeterJB]

Generally speaking it's Southern Baptists and Evangelicals that take issue with evolution, not Catholics.

 

[Scaff]

Generally speaking it's Southern Baptists and Evangelicals that take issue with evolution, not Catholics.

My Catholic father in law would disagree with that, he's of the opinion that Darwin was a product of the devil (not hyperbolic).

Modern Catholics maybe, but the old school like him (he's in his 80s), still do.

 

[Imari]

I went to the catholic schoolsystem and yes we did get the knowledge we needed. But apparently when they start checking the religiously segregated schools, they often are very creative with this. Get their accreditation and don't get looked at again for decades some times. Within these decades they thaught children creationism.

Again, I think you're saying something that you don't really mean. The problem isn't teaching children creationism. It's teaching creationism and misleading them into believing that the evidence for creationism is more compelling than the naturalistic history of the world that science has pieced together.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it, but as a critical thinking tool (especially at higher levels) it can be helpful. You're both directly addressing a concept that they're likely to run into at some point, and you're teaching them how to think about why one should prefer one hypothesis or theory over another. It's all about how it's presented.

And ultimately the idea of school shouldn't be to stuff kids with random facts, although that's unfortunately how it turns out a lot of the time. Ideally, it would be to teach them critical thinking skills and then show them how to use those to follow in the path of other great thinkers. It's one thing to tell children that gravity obeys an inverse square law. It's another to teach them how to figure that out from first principles, which really isn't that hard once you know what you're doing. All you need is a stopwatch, a ruler and some Hot Wheels track.

In that style of learning creationism becomes a great object lesson on how to avoid getting your head stuck up your own butt because of preconceptions.

I mean...are the two (creationism and Catholicism) really that far removed from one another?

Are Islam and terrorism really that far removed from each other? Don't let a vocal minority fool you into thinking that the silent majority don't know the difference between literal truth and an allegory.

 

[Mr Tree]

I mean...are the two (creationism and Catholicism) really that far removed from one another?

Depends. In what time and where you ask this. The pope has come out and accepted evolution by now.

Also I geuss you referred to thz catholic schools. A'd you'll have to look at it differently. Our catholic school has to be looked at more as the conventional public schools. They don't have a mass, they have seculars, they have muslims,...
They follow the curriculum and the only religious teaching isn't all to catholic either and more of a philosophy class taking up 2hour of the week (this is the same for public schools but the class is actually called 'ethics lesson')

 

[Dotini]

IMO, not only migration, but fertility and religious switching has played a role in the net increase of Muslims in Europe.

 

[Scaff]

IMO, not only migration, but fertility and religious switching has played a role in the net increase of Muslims in Europe.

You forgot people bombing the crap out of the middle east...................................................................


The largest and quickest growing 'worldview' in Europe however (by quite a margin) is non-religious.

Please tell me you are not heading down the utterly ******** Eurabia conspiracy nonsense!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia

 

[Dotini]

You forgot people bombing the crap out of the middle east...................................................................


The largest and quickest growing 'worldview' in Europe however (by quite a margin) is non-religious.

Please tell me you are not heading down the utterly ******** Eurabia conspiracy nonsense!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia

I'm not heading down the utterly ******** Eurabia conspiracy nonsense!
IMO, your (and our) fanatical obsession with regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east is the base reason for the migration. We have made it a hell hole and they are trying to get out. Like the fertility and religion swapping, you have only yourselves (and ourselves) to blame.
Prediction: Once the percentage gets to the 12% to 15% point, the #1 domestic policy problem/objective will be be in mediating relations with the Muslim population.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not heading down the utterly ******** Eurabia conspiracy nonsense!
IMO, your (and our) fanatical obsession with regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east is the base reason for the migration. We have made it a hell hole and they are trying to get out. Like the fertility and religion swapping, you have only yourselves (and ourselves) to blame.

Mine?

Prediction: Once the percentage gets to the 12% to 15% point, the #1 domestic policy problem/objective will be be in mediating relations with the Muslim population.

If.

 

[Dotini]

Mine?

If you failed to protest the many wars your country became accomplice to in the middle east, then yes, you. I own my country's interventions, despite the fact I protested our invasions. I marched, carried home made signs, shouted myself hoarse, and beat on my drum. It didn't do a damn bit of good. But I'm less guilty than I otherwise would have been.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Prediction: Once the percentage gets to the 12% to 15% point, the #1 domestic policy problem/objective will be be in mediating relations with the Muslim population.

I'd say that more Muslim British feel represented by Westminster than white Scots. It isn't as simple a divide as you seem to think.

 

[Lord Kacperov]

You forgot people bombing the crap out of the middle east...................................................................


The largest and quickest growing 'worldview' in Europe however (by quite a margin) is non-religious.

Please tell me you are not heading down the utterly ******** Eurabia conspiracy nonsense!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia

Why are you bringing up “Eurabia”? @Dotini was making a pretty fair argument in that post, and now you’re suddenly being passive aggressive.

And it is true: fertility rates among the Muslim community is quite a bit higher than the fertility rates among non-Muslims.

@Dotini Governments generally don’t really care about what the people have to say. For example, when the “Law” and “Justice” party in Poland reformed the court system back in early 2016, massive protest erupted among the Polish people. They didn’t really give a single 🤬, and why would they? These bastards already had the (incompetent) president protecting them.

 

[Scaff]

Why are you bringing up “Eurabia”? @Dotini was making a pretty fair argument in that post, and now you’re suddenly being passive aggressive.

It's a legitimate question given his posts in other threads and in the past.

And it is true: fertility rates among the Muslim community is quite a bit higher than the fertility rates among non-Muslims.
View attachment 723688

As are the rates for any first or second generation immigrants from developing countries, which then reduce as the generations go on.

What I always find interesting about quotes from the pew report is just how selective people are with it, and just how often this little bit gets missed of.

"The growth of the global Muslim population, however, should not obscure another important demographic trend: the rate of growth among Muslims has been slowing in recent decades and is likely to continue to decline over the next 20 years, as the graph below shows. From 1990 to 2000, the Muslim population grew at an average annual rate of 2.3%. The growth rate dipped to 2.1% from 2000 to 2010, and it is projected to drop to 1.7% from 2010 to 2020 and 1.4% from 2020 to 2030 (or 1.5% annually over the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030, as previously noted)."
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/

Which paints quite a different picture.

If you failed to protest the many wars your country became accomplice to in the middle east, then yes, you. I own my country's interventions, despite the fact I protested our invasions. I marched, carried home made signs, shouted myself hoarse, and beat on my drum. It didn't do a damn bit of good. But I'm less guilty than I otherwise would have been.

You don't get to transfer your own feelings of culpability onto others.

 

[Imari]

If you failed to protest the many wars your country became accomplice to in the middle east, then yes, you. I own my country's interventions, despite the fact I protested our invasions. I marched, carried home made signs, shouted myself hoarse, and beat on my drum. It didn't do a damn bit of good. But I'm less guilty than I otherwise would have been.

I see that you're one of those that holds people responsible for the sins of their fathers. It seems like a bit of an odd moral code, to hold people responsible for crimes committed by others. Crimes that were potentially committed without their consent, against their will, or even before they existed. Do you also hold current day Germans responsible for their country's actions in WW1 and 2?

Personally, I only hold people responsible for acts that they themselves committed. It seems more rational and a more appropriate way for a community to police behaviour.

 

[Dotini]

I see that you're one of those that holds people responsible for the sins of their fathers. It seems like a bit of an odd moral code, to hold people responsible for crimes committed by others. Crimes that were potentially committed without their consent, against their will, or even before they existed. Do you also hold current day Germans responsible for their country's actions in WW1 and 2?

Personally, I only hold people responsible for acts that they themselves committed. It seems more rational and a more appropriate way for a community to police behaviour.

No, I do not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers. My generation participated both in wars and in protests. If you were a child during your nation's intervention against foreign nations, then of course you were not accountable for failing to protest. In a democracy, you should be participating in the political life of your country. I marched for civil rights in the 60's, against the Vietnam war, and against the Iraq War II. But I'm old now, and my days of protesting are over.

 

[guyabsher]

Well, go ahead. What's your view on it?

what the hell does it have to do with racing,

 

[Scaff]

No, I do not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers. My generation participated both in wars and in protests. If you were a child during your nation's intervention against foreign nations, then of course you were not accountable for failing to protest. In a democracy, you should be participating in the political life of your country. I marched for civil rights in the 60's, against the Vietnam war, and against the Iraq War II. But I'm old now, and my days of protesting are over.

And yet even with that your original point was far from that nuanced:

"IMO, your (and our) fanatical obsession with regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east is the base reason for the migration."

The issue is that I don't have a 'fanatical obsession with regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east'.

what the hell does it have to do with racing,

Nothing.

However this is the Off-Topic Opinions & Current Events thread, so its a perfectly fine thread and discussion.

 

[Imari]

No, I do not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers. My generation participated both in wars and in protests. If you were a child during your nation's intervention against foreign nations, then of course you were not accountable for failing to protest. In a democracy, you should be participating in the political life of your country.

Perhaps. But I'm not seeing the link between participating in a democracy and being responsible for actions of a government that you disagree with. Remember that in a democracy a significant amount of people have voted against the ruling party. Are they also responsible, despite taking probably the most effective legal action possible to stop a government they disagree with? It's certainly a more effective way to get what you want to vote than it is to protest.

I marched for civil rights in the 60's, against the Vietnam war, and against the Iraq War II. But I'm old now, and my days of protesting are over.

And so by your logic you're now more guilty of any wars or crimes that your country commits, even though you may not approve and you may have voted against the government in power. You aren't protesting invasions any more.

Or are you now excused simply by virtue of being old? You sure you don't want to change your position that people who don't protest are guilty of endorsing any action their country might take?

 

[Dotini]

The issue is that I don't have a 'fanatical obsession with regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east'.

Your government does. Your NGO's and elite do. But you are not of them. I will accept that. I'm still disappointed that you have not personally protested.

Perhaps. But I'm not seeing the link between participating in a democracy and being responsible for actions of a government that you disagree with. Remember that in a democracy a significant amount of people have voted against the ruling party. Are they also responsible, despite taking probably the most effective legal action possible to stop a government they disagree with? It's certainly a more effective way to get what you want to vote than it is to protest.



And so by your logic you're now more guilty of any wars or crimes that your country commits, even though you may not approve and you may have voted against the government in power. You aren't protesting invasions any more.

Or are you now excused simply by virtue of being old? You sure you don't want to change your position that people who don't protest are guilty of endorsing any action their country might take?

To clarify: I'm not technically guilty of the sins of my country. But I do feel somewhat guilty about our invasions of foreign countries under false pretenses. I feel less guilty because I have protested them. I think protest is a traditional prerogative of Americans. If you do not feel you have that right and privilege and responsibility, then okay. That's you and your country, and it's not my concern.

 

[Scaff]

Your government does. Your NGO's and elite do. But you are not of them. I will accept that.

I'm not indeed, as I said.

I'm still disappointed that you have not personally protested.

Oh dear, you seem to have made an assumption in your desire to still try and hammer than point home. An inaccurate one at that.

 

[Dotini]

Oh dear, you seem to have made an assumption in your desire to still try and hammer than point home. An inaccurate one at that.

Oh, then you have protested! That's different. I missed where you affirmed that.

 

[Scaff]

Oh, then you have protested! That's different. I missed where you affirmed that.

I'd didn't either way, as its not in my opinion related to an individual being responsible for the actions of the state.

That's doesn't however mean you should assume either way, next time be specific and ask.

 

[UKMikey]

To clarify: I'm not technically guilty of the sins of my country. But I do feel somewhat guilty about our invasions of foreign countries under false pretenses. I feel less guilty because I have protested them. I think protest is a traditional prerogative of Americans. If you do not feel you have that right and privilege and responsibility, then okay. That's you and your country, and it's not my concern.

It's not me and my country. I took part in the protest at the time alongside 400,000 of my countrymen. For all the good it did it may as well have been what the alt-right sneeringly refer to as virtue signalling, although I'm not sure how else we could make our feelings known in the days before mass social media had taken a hold of the public consciousness. Sternly worded letters to the Times maybe?

 

[Liquid]

In a democracy, you should be participating in the political life of your country.

In a democracy you are entitled to partake in political life but I do not believe you are obligated to do so.

What does this circular discussion of personal culpability for previous actions have to do with Islam in particular?

 

[Dotini]

In a democracy you are entitled to partake in political life but I do not believe you are obligated to do so.

What does this circular discussion of personal culpability for previous actions have to do with Islam in particular?

I agree that protest is not obligatory. However, I personally felt obliged to march for civil rights in the 60's, and against unjust wars.

This is apropos because of the migration issue currently taking place in Europe due to the middle east becoming a hell-hole at ("our") western doing .

...regime change and fomenting of war and and revolution in the middle east is the base reason for the migration. We have made it a hell hole and they are trying to get out. Like the fertility and religion swapping, you have only yourselves (and ourselves) to blame.