Islam - What's your view on it?

[GBO Possum]

Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West - YouTube

"Obsession is a film about the threat of radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television and expert interviews, it reveals an "insider view" of the hatred the Islamists are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces the parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II and the Islamic radicals of today and the Western world's response to both threats."

This is not a film about Muslims in general, it's about radicals.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Thoughts?

 

[Hendren]

Only God needs to punish me for transgressions. No one else has that right or duty. After all "Thou shalt not kill" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged" Simple as that, nothing else applies.

 

[Scaff]

Only God needs to punish me for transgressions. No one else has that right or duty. After all "Thou shalt not kill" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged" Simple as that, nothing else applies.

And that has what to do with this thread?

This is a place for debate and discussion, not preaching.


Now back on topic, this is rather a good article (quite a surprise given the source).

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/15/wak...her_rula_jebreal_and_the_urgent_islam_debate/

 

[Denur]

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/15/wak...her_rula_jebreal_and_the_urgent_islam_debate/

Thank you for that link, as the article expresses so well my feelings on freedom of speech in relation to religion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is a place for debate and discussion, not preaching.

To take issue with that; if a member is of a viewpoint where they believe in God and in Heaven and in Judgement Day (a real generalisation, I know) then wouldn't an atheist such as myself (possibly yourself) see that as "preaching"? That is after all the correct word for spreading The Word. I read a negative tone in your use of the word and simply wondered if actually we should welcome "preaching" as a basis for further discussion?

Now back on topic, this is rather a good article (quite a surprise given the source).

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/15/wak...her_rula_jebreal_and_the_urgent_islam_debate/

An excellent article overall but a very naive conclusion, in my opinion.

The claim to right to "deride" religion (their words) is a fatuous one; to me it says "I am absolutely right therefore I retain the further right to mock you and to rally further mockery upon you".

I happen to agree with the atheist tone of the article but I don't agree that sheer force is the way to win an argument. If I did then I'd be a fundamentalist atheist who was no better than a fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim.

 

[Carbonox]

Fundamentalist atheist? I don't think the godless have any holy texts to take literally.

TBH, I do feel that mocking (and even openly insulting) a religion is kind of a human right in the sense that, deep down, insults are nothing more than words, and words on their own don't exactly hurt people... ultimately they themselves choose to be offended...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fundamentalist atheist? I don't think the godless have any holy texts to take literally.

TBH, I do feel that mocking (and even openly insulting) a religion is kind of a human right in the sense that, deep down, insults are nothing more than words, and words on their own don't exactly hurt people... ultimately they themselves choose to be offended...

But in turn if an atheist is mocked by a preacher then we don't like it, mainly because it's impossible to have a rational discussion in that context.

And I didn't say atheists had holy texts; I objected to fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps I should wink back?

One can hold a belief that's absolute without resorting to the same bully-boy tactics of one's most extreme opponents.

 

[Carbonox]

But in turn if an atheist is mocked by a preacher then we don't like it, mainly because it's impossible to have a rational discussion in that context.

And I didn't say atheists had holy texts; I objected to fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps I should wink back?

One can hold a belief that's absolute without resorting to the same bully-boy tactics of one's most extreme opponents.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion at that point, but freedom of speech still allows people to hurl insults. It comes at a cost though, because then no one will take them seriously in argument situations.

But this was probably pretty self-explanatory to everyone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's impossible to have a rational discussion at that point, but freedom of speech still allows people to hurl insults. It comes at a cost though, because then no one will take them seriously in argument situations.

But this was probably pretty self-explanatory to everyone.

I don't know, I was just answering

I do feel that mocking (and even openly insulting) a religion is kind of a human right in the sense that, deep down, insults are nothing more than words, and words on their own don't exactly hurt people... ultimately they themselves choose to be offended...

That seems to me to be as offensive a way of tackling a topic as any. So what was the point that everybody (but myself, apparently) missed?

 

[Scaff]

To take issue with that; if a member is of a viewpoint where they believe in God and in Heaven and in Judgement Day (a real generalisation, I know) then wouldn't an atheist such as myself (possibly yourself) see that as "preaching"? That is after all the correct word for spreading The Word. I read a negative tone in your use of the word and simply wondered if actually we should welcome "preaching" as a basis for further discussion?

Its adds nothing at all to the discussion in this thread, as such its borderline spam (religious spam is spam none the less) and has no place here.

Oh and any negative tone you read into it is your own (but does add context to your next bit), it was simply a statement of fact, preaching doesn't add to the discussion/debate, in this case its also off topic.

An excellent article overall but a very naive conclusion, in my opinion.

The claim to right to "deride" religion (their words) is a fatuous one; to me it says "I am absolutely right therefore I retain the further right to mock you and to rally further mockery upon you".

I happen to agree with the atheist tone of the article but I don't agree that sheer force is the way to win an argument. If I did then I'd be a fundamentalist atheist who was no better than a fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim.

You seem to have taken something quite different from the article than I did.

The defense of 'offence' has no merit at all, particularly when its applied to a concept such as religion, and is more often than not used to hide behind when presented with information that doesn't gel with the worldview a religion wishes to put up (which may not be accurate).

Based on your point here the film "The Life of Brian" has no justification to exist, as it has been taken as offensive by many.

Why exactly should a religion (any religion) be allowed to overide free speech simply because it cry's offence? Who gets to decide what constitutes offence and on what basis?

But in turn if an atheist is mocked by a preacher then we don't like it, mainly because it's impossible to have a rational discussion in that context.

Personally it doesn't bother me one little bit.

And I didn't say atheists had holy texts; I objected to fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps I should wink back?[/quyote]
You object to something your one citation isn't convinced exists?

One can hold a belief that's absolute without resorting to the same bully-boy tactics of one's most extreme opponents.

And yet those extreme opponents will still call that offensive and demand its banned. As I asked above who gets to define offence against religion and based on what standard?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Scaff, I think I simply found the use of the word "deride" to be very strong in the article's conclusion - up until that point it had seemed measured and sensible. I took issue with being drawn into such a hard conclusion;

One thing is certain: You know you enjoy true freedom of speech when you can mock religion without fear of violence, persecution or ostracism. If, though, you deride faith and you suffer any of these ills, you know the Spirit of Medieval Darkness is still out and about.

The right to use derision as a tool for discussion (and to know that any opponent to it is stuck in medieval thinking) is a ludicrous claim, such attitudes stifle sensible debate, in my opinion.

Regarding the particular post that you answered; I take your point about that and I have nothing further to offer; that user doesn't seem to have undertaken much other debate so I see nothing else to defend there

 

[Carbonox]

That seems to me to be as offensive a way of tackling a topic as any. So what was the point that everybody (but myself, apparently) missed?

All I was trying to say was that people should be able to freely insult religions, even if it goes to the extreme, like with the Mohammed cartoon protest. All these freedom of speech and blasphemy laws shouldn't be altered to suit those who become easily offended, even if they're a potentially dangerous bunch. Gotta show no fear to religious goons. Yeah, I was probably being overly vague earlier.

 

[TenEightyOne]

even if it goes to the extreme, like with the Mohammed cartoon protest.

And I will always disagree with extremism wherever it's found and whatever its root. Why did you think the Mohammed cartoons were extreme?

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, I think I simply found the use of the word "deride" to be very strong in the article's conclusion - up until that point it had seemed measured and sensible. I took issue with being drawn into such a hard conclusion;



The right to use derision as a tool for discussion (and to know that any opponent to it is stuck in medieval thinking) is a ludicrous claim, such attitudes stifle sensible debate, in my opinion.

Regarding the particular post that you answered; I take your point about that and I have nothing further to offer; that user doesn't seem to have undertaken much other debate so I see nothing else to defend there

Its not talking about in the context of debate however (and I would agree that its not a good way to get your point over in a debate), its simply saying that you should be able to deride a religion without fear of violence, persecution or ostracism (regardless of the situation its used in).

And quite frankly you should be able to.

Its not saying others have to agree with you, rather that they should not be able to cause you harm or limit your rights for doing so.

A religion has no more right to be protected from derision that Beaber (insert anyone you have ever derided in place) does, yet may theists believe it should and that demand for 'special status' is not based in logic and can (and does) lead to violence, persecution and ostracism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Its not talking about in the context of debate however (and I would agree that its not a good way to get your point over in a debate), its simply saying that you should be able to deride a religion without fear of violence, persecution or ostracism.

And quite frankly you should be able to.

Its not saying others have to agree with you, rather that they should not be able to cause you harm or limit your rights for doing so.

I agree that that's all correct, and I'm sure I don't need to explain that I take a more ameliorative line in debate.

I did read the article as being intended to instruct on how to hold a rational debate, that's why I found the closing statement (while correct) to be harshly at odds with the rest of the piece.

My own belief is that we're in a period of social evolution; to deride religion is to deride the social foundations that most of us (in my belief) come out of. It seems terribly teenaged to say "omg you're all so crap and I'm right" when social history shows us that societies built in non-extremist religion don't actually turn out bad people as a whole. There is some good in religious teaching whilst atheist teaching seems to simply highlight the negatives whilst failing to provide a path of its own.

I remain atheist but wary of similar tracts that seemingly refuse to accept that there are many Ways, not just one.

 

[Scaff]

I agree that that's all correct, and I'm sure I don't need to explain that I take a more ameliorative line in debate.

I did read the article as being intended to instruct on how to hold a rational debate, that's why I found the closing statement (while correct) to be harshly at odds with the rest of the piece.

My own belief is that we're in a period of social evolution; to deride religion is to deride the social foundations that most of us (in my belief) come out of. It seems terribly teenaged to say "omg you're all so crap and I'm right" when social history shows us that societies built in non-extremist religion don't actually turn out bad people as a whole. There is some good in religious teaching whilst atheist teaching seems to simply highlight the negatives whilst failing to provide a path of its own.

I remain atheist but wary of similar tracts that seemingly refuse to accept that there are many Ways, not just one.

I would again ask why its wrong to be able (should you wish) to deride religion or social foundations without fear of a loss of rights?

It doesn't matter one jot if its seen as 'teenaged' to do so, one should not be subject to a withdrawal of rights for doing so.

To label all forms of derision as teenage is also to me rather lazy, and also misses the point that many theists will flag any critique of the faith as derision, I also find it bizzare to claim that all atheist teaching is 'highlighting negatives'. As once again that would require an agreed atheist doctrine to be in place, and that doesn't exist.

The closest you are going to get is Humanists (who are all atheists, but not all atheists are humanists) and humanism has nothing negative about it at all. Personally I see all of the Abrahamic faiths as limiting potential in the now for a promise of a reward when you die (based on 'because it was written in the bronze age), and I see little positive in a death cult! A view that many theists would see as deriding their faith. Do I deserve to lose my rights based on that view? Should I be censored from publicly voicing that opinion?

It has nothing at all to do with "omg you're all so crap and I'm right" and everything to do with being able to raise issue (in a polite or impolite manner) without fear or censor.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I would again ask why its wrong to be able (should you wish) to deride religion or social foundations without fear of a loss of rights?

I cannot say that it is literally wrong. What I can say is that derision is tied up with contempt, contemptous discussion is no discussion. That's not bound in any right of course, more in nicety.

It has nothing at all to do with "omg you're all so crap and I'm right" and everything to do with being able to raise issue (in a polite or impolite manner) without fear or censor.

Absolutely, but if one enters a discussion with that "teenage" attitude then one can expect the discussion to quickly become non-productive, surely? So effectively with the more extreme of the two attitudes one is isn't actually having a discussion, it's more like explaining how things are. Which isn't so different to the fundamentalist religious attitudes that one wants to challenge.

On the subject of religious effectiveness; I can see how it's worked as tool for greater social order (rather than worse) in some societies. That can't be discounted, surely? We have to accept the parts of a good, considerate society however they came about.

 

[Carbonox]

And I will always disagree with extremism wherever it's found and whatever its root. Why did you think the Mohammed cartoons were extreme?

It was a pretty direct provocation. Taking a big-time prophet and not only drawing his face (which, by the way, is already forbidden in Islam) but also presenting him as a terrorist, that's a pretty extreme form of freedom of speech especially considering the reactions. Not that I condemn the drawings in the slightest, I actually found them funny...

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was a pretty direct provocation. Taking a big-time prophet and not only drawing his face (which, by the way, is already forbidden in Islam) but also presenting him as a terrorist, that's a pretty extreme form of freedom of speech especially considering the reactions. Not that I condemn the drawings in the slightest, I actually found them funny...

Which were the terrorist ones? I thought there were only 12 and that I'd seen them...

 

[Carbonox]

Which were the terrorist ones? I thought there were only 12 and that I'd seen them...

This one. (I'll just hide it behind a link in case the staff consider direct posting of the image a rule violation)

http://onemansthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mohammed.jpg

 

[TenEightyOne]

This one? That can't be against AUP, if it is then I shan't be back

I see someone with a comedy 1890's bomb-hat, I saw that more as a link to outmoded battle methods than anything, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Scaff]

I cannot say that it is literally wrong. What I can say is that derision is tied up with contempt, contemptous discussion is no discussion. That's not bound in any right of course, more in nicety.

That is true of either side, but once again that's missing the point being made, which is that no one's rights shoudl be violated for doing so.

Absolutely, but if one enters a discussion with that "teenage" attitude then one can expect the discussion to quickly become non-productive, surely? So effectively with the more extreme of the two attitudes one is isn't actually having a discussion, it's more like explaining how things are. Which isn't so different to the fundamentalist religious attitudes that one wants to challenge.

Again it comes back to the question of who gets to decide what standard is set to judge this one?

Most theists strongly object to any form of humour that targets religion, yet humour and satire in particular is an effective tool for easily communicating a point. It is however very different from the fundamentalist religious attitudes in that the last time I checked derision never killed anyone, or called for the death of anyone, or removed rights from anyone.

On the subject of religious effectiveness; I can see how it's worked as tool for greater social order (rather than worse) in some societies. That can't be discounted, surely? We have to accept the parts of a good, considerate society however they came about.

I've never claimed that good can't come from religion, however that good can't be used to blank out the harm that has come out of it. As far as a balance goes I personally think that it still to this day falls a long way on the harm side of the scale.

Social order and rights have been limited far more by religion than they ever have been expanded by it, the entire US constitution is based on that exact point. as one rather obvious example (as it was written as a direct result of the lessons learnt from contemporary European religious persecution).

The bottom line for me is that religion is not required for a moral social order at all, as such it doesn't matter what the root is, religion is not required to continue it and often does far more to curtail it that expand it. After all which is the main group calling for limits on gay marriage and rights? Who is it that is calling for valid science to be replaced by dogma in the classrooms of the world? None of these expand on the social order and rights, rather they limit them for groups who simply don't agree with a bronze age world view.

And on that note I head off to sleep.

 

[BobK]

which, by the way, is already forbidden in Islam.

Not being Moslem, can you or anybody explain to me why I or any other non-Moslem should be bound by that injunction?

 

[Carbonox]

Not being Moslem, can you or anybody explain to me why I or any other non-Moslem should be bound by that injunction?

That's the point... certain folks can't grasp that their rules don't apply to non-followers...

 

[kennylmao]

Not being Moslem, can you or anybody explain to me why I or any other non-Moslem should be bound by that injunction?

Because Islam is the 'one true religion' and Muslims hold the duty of defending it from ridicule or insult. And according to Western secular governments, to respect religious beliefs, even if you do not hold those beliefs yourself. Tolerance, it's called.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The bottom line for me is that religion is not required for a moral social order at all, as such it doesn't matter what the root is, religion is not required to continue it and often does far more to curtail it that expand it. After all which is the main group calling for limits on gay marriage and rights? Who is it that is calling for valid science to be replaced by dogma in the classrooms of the world? None of these expand on the social order and rights, rather they limit them for groups who simply don't agree with a bronze age world view.

I agree. But... while religion isn't required to continue social order we can't ignore that in many places social order has been achieved primarily through the work of religion in communities. Simply ripping that system out won't work.

We can see that hardcore religious teaching is a negative - more because it's an exclusive doctrine than because of particularly negative content, although there's definitely some bad content too. When we talk about the church and religion as enemies I think we most commonly mean the dogmatic fundamentalists; my granny would consider herself 100% Christian but was sensible, kind, lived a full and happy life and was an inspiration to drinkers in their 80s everywhere. There's no battle to be had there (unless you don't finish your... shudder... broccoli) and it's easy to think of many atheists who'd be a worse replacement for her*.

Between Judaism where the Rabbi bites the end of each male child's penis off on the 8th day (big rise in neo-natal herpes since naturally immunity dropped), Isla'am where women are hidden under veils and/or stoned to death for entertainment or Christianity where you have exquisite descriptions of worshipful torture you can easily see the mad extremes of the doctrine. But for most "religious" people it really isn't like that day-to-day - Orthodoxy isn't as common and, oddly, is losing support from other parts of fellow religions. The point is that not all religious society is zealously mad and in fact the majority aren't. You never see moderates from any walk of life on the front of the papers of course.

I'm not arguing that we should perpetuate religion but I think there has to be some practical consideration of how the "transition" might occur and exactly what kind of ground the seeds land in. It's our time to spread the Good Word


*Unless they knew that broccoli and slow-cookers don't go together.

Because Islam is the 'one true religion' and Muslims hold the duty of defending it from ridicule or insult. And according to Western secular governments, to respect religious beliefs, even if you do not hold those beliefs yourself. Tolerance, it's called.

Tolerance isn't a religious construct, it's just a mark of sensible respect.

And according to people, to respect beliefs, even if you do not hold those beliefs yourself. Tolerance, it's called.

 

[BobK]

Because Islam is the 'one true religion' and Muslims hold the duty of defending it from ridicule or insult. And according to Western secular governments, to respect religious beliefs, even if you do not hold those beliefs yourself. Tolerance, it's called.

Yeah, so much for freedom of expression, then.

You'd understand, then, if I were to explain that my religion is the 'one true religion' and freedom being a central tenet of it, it obligates me to use whatever is necessary to suppress those who don't agree, right? Especially those who call for the deaths of cartoonists?

 

[Carbonox]

Yeah, so much for freedom of expression, then.

You'd understand, then, if I were to explain that my religion is the 'one true religion' and freedom being a central tenet of it, it obligates me to use whatever is necessary to suppress those who don't agree, right? Especially those who call for the deaths of cartoonists?

Is the illegalization of death threats an infringement on free speech?

 

[kennylmao]

Yeah, so much for freedom of expression, then.

You'd understand, then, if I were to explain that my religion is the 'one true religion' and freedom being a central tenet of it, it obligates me to use whatever is necessary to suppress those who don't agree, right? Especially those who call for the deaths of cartoonists?

I know. And apparently, if you do so in Europe you are guilty of "hate speech".

Absolutely. You don't even need a religion with freedom being a central tenet, 'freedom' is what the West stands for (or at least America). Like Bill Maher said, "liberals need to stand up for liberal principles", but they don't. I dread to see what the West will turn into in the future.

Tolerance isn't a religious construct, it's just a mark of sensible respect.

Yeah but either way you're gonna have to if you intend to live in a multicultural society.