Islam - What's your view on it?

[TenEightyOne]

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

What does multiculturalism have to do with it?

 

[kennylmao]

What does multiculturalism have to do with it?

Because multiculturalism brings different people with different cultures and beliefs together, and then put them in the same location?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because multiculturalism brings different people with different cultures and beliefs together, and then put them in the same location?

I'm okay with the meaning of multiculturalism - that's fine really. I was interested in your reply to my saying;

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

which was

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

I was interested in why you felt multiculturalism was important to add to that. It seemed as though tolerance would be needed more than it would with an identical physiological/cultural housemate who was stealing your bread?

 

[kennylmao]

I'm okay with the meaning of multiculturalism - that's fine really. I was interested in your reply to my saying;



which was



I was interested in why you felt multiculturalism was important to add to that. It seemed as though tolerance would be needed more than it would with an identical physiological/cultural housemate who was stealing your bread?

again, because:

Because multiculturalism brings different people with different cultures and beliefs together, and then put them in the same location?

...and among those people are Muslims (because you can't pick and choose now can you, that would be discriminatory) who happen to be people intolerant of free speech.

Sorry, I'm confused. I don't get the bread part.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...and among those people are Muslims...who happen to be people intolerant of free speech.

I've never met a British Muslim who didn't believe in free speech, or are you reading the Qu'uran? If you're just taking the manual to heart then the same is true (worse) of Christians, right? And you'll find atheists of whom that's true also.

Tolerance has nothing special to do with anything other than Other People.

because you can't pick and choose now can you, that would be discriminatory

That was very funny, thank you. Especially where you picked Muslims to say it.

 

[kennylmao]

I've never met a British Muslim who didn't believe in free speech, or are you reading the Qu'uran? If you're just taking the manual to heart then the same is true (worse) of Christians, right? And you'll find atheists of whom that's true also.

You haven't met Anjem Choudary or any of these 78% of British Muslims (para. 6), have you?

Tolerance has nothing special to do with anything other than Other People.

Okay? And other people (Muslims) don't believe in you or me or anybody criticizing their religion. Tolerate it. That's what multiculturalism is all about isn't it? Tolerance.

That was very funny, thank you. Especially where you picked Muslims to say it.

Identifying a problem which happen to be prevalent in a specific demographic is discriminatory (and I bet racist too ). Okay, now I see how thousands of little girls fall victim to Muslim grooming gangs. smh "Great" Britain.

The follower of which religion rioted and killed people when their religion was made fun of? That is barbaric and uncivilized. Western governments brought those kind of people and placed them in the West. There's your problem.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You haven't met Anjem Choudary or any of these 78% of British Muslims (para. 6), have you?

Yes, 50% of them don't even visit mosques, as you just pointed out. You see the same effect with British Christians - the majority will identify themselves as such but will be what vicars call "BMDs", Births, Marriages and Deaths being the only occasions they go to church.

And other people (Muslims) don't believe in you or me or anybody criticizing their religion. Tolerate it. That's what multiculturalism is all about isn't it? Tolerance.

I quite agree. I just worry that you seem hellbent on binding the concepts of multiculturalism and tolerance, they're separate things.

Identifying a problem which happen to be prevalent in a specific demographic is discriminatory (and I bet racist too )

It's literally discriminatory but not necessarily in a negative way. Dear oh dear, you're sweating.

The follower of which religion rioted and killed people when their religion was made fun of?

Oh come on, that's too easy. Christian. Anders Breivik.

Okay, now I see how thousands of little girls fall victim to Muslim grooming gangs. smh "Great" Britain.

Smh at your geography, you mean Do you know about the UK at all?

You've rather missed the facts of that case too, perhaps you could enlighten us with your own source? I'm not sure you can make a racial issue out of that one other than some of the criminals were Muslim. I presume you're going to try to show that their religion was a driver rather than their criminal perversion?

 

[kennylmao]

Yes, 50% of them don't even visit mosques, as you just pointed out. You see the same effect with British Christians - the majority will identify themselves as such but will be what vicars call "BMDs", Births, Marriages and Deaths being the only occasions they go to church.

Are you correlating mosque attendance to opinion on free speech?

In contrast to the 78%, further down the paragraph there is a not so comprehensive poll (unfortunately) about something which might be offensive to Christians and the result was 17%. Though, polls doesn't matter really. People make fun of Christianity and Jesus all the time: Atheists, South Park, Family Guy, etc. Where are the riots and subsequent deaths by Christians who felt offended?

I quite agree. I just worry that you seem hellbent on binding the concepts of multiculturalism and tolerance, they're separate things.

Are they? What is your idea of multiculturalism then? If immigrants were to adapt then that's considered assimilation.

It's literally discriminatory but not necessarily in a negative way. Dear oh dear, you're sweating.

How? Only people who originate from the same group/share the same religion can call them out? Oh dear, now I'm really sweating.

Oh come on, that's too easy. Christian. Anders Breivik.

He didn't do so because someone made fun of Christianity. It wasn't a threat to free speech. In fact according to him it was a response to multiculturalism or more specifically, Muslims immigrating into Europe.

Smh at your geography, you mean Do you know about the UK at all?

Yes, you can shake your head. I'm honestly still quite confused with the British Isles. Like srly.

You've rather missed the facts of that case too, perhaps you could enlighten us with your own source? I'm not sure you can make a racial issue out of that one other than some of the criminals were Muslim. I presume you're going to try to show that their religion was a driver rather than their criminal perversion?

Yes, in fact I will... but I'll leave that for another day. Debating on something as pointless as religion is extremely exhausting.

PS: Islam isn't a race, btw.

 

[Scaff]

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.

Who says we should throw religion out of society?

I fully support people right to practice religion, right up to the point that it impacts on the rights of others. Its quite simply people have rights, religions don't.

As such a separation of religion and state is rather important.

You haven't met Anjem Choudary or any of these 78% of British Muslims (para. 6), have you?

And?

They have a right to hold that opinion, the exact same as I have a right to hold one that is counter to it.

Holding an opinion is not the issue, its acting upon that opinion that matters.

Okay? And other people (Muslims) don't believe in you or me or anybody criticizing their religion. Tolerate it. That's what multiculturalism is all about isn't it? Tolerance.

I have a Mulsim friend who today posted pictures of her family Christmas tree, so it would seem that tolerance is quite fine with some.

Its the same with being critical of religion, plenty of Muslims are more than capable of being critical of religion, and plenty are not. A point you can make for any religion.

Identifying a problem which happen to be prevalent in a specific demographic is discriminatory (and I bet racist too ). Okay, now I see how thousands of little girls fall victim to Muslim grooming gangs. smh "Great" Britain.

While you remain quiet on the thousands of little girls who were imprisoned, abused and used as slave labour by Catholic nuns? What about the hundreds of babies killed of a disposed of in a waste tank in one convent? What about the thousands of children abused by Catholic priests around the globe?

This surely has to be an even bigger issue, given that these are not people who are simply part of a religion, but part of the religious system itself.

People from all religions do terrible things, singling out one religion while ignoring the abuses of the others is quite frankly daft.

The follower of which religion rioted and killed people when their religion was made fun of? That is barbaric and uncivilized. Western governments brought those kind of people and placed them in the West. There's your problem.

Yes because western governments advertised for people to come and riot didn't they!

A rather simplistic and flawed argument.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you correlating mosque attendance to opinion on free speech?

78% of people thought the cartoonist had a right to be judged properly in a court... are you correlating that to a lack of desire for free speech? (Note they wanted prosecution, not guilt).

Are they? What is your idea of multiculturalism then? If immigrants were to adapt then that's considered assimilation.

I think that's a very over-simple view. I have Indian friends who are 5th-generation British but still speak fluent Indian languages and live in an "Indian" way... hard to explain but they're more likely to have Indian parties, eat Indian food and like Om Shanti Om. But I like Om Shanti Om too, the finest rhyming of "disco" and "San Francisco" you'll ever hear, imo.

But then I have Welsh friends too... they speak Welsh, eat Welsh food, hold Welsh festivals and I can't read their road signs. They live 50 miles from me. Who should assimilate, me or them?

And what of my Scottish friends? Or my friends from the South Coast who speak a different dialect, call their churches different things and speak a dialectial English that I could only understand with practice.

It seems that you have a "default" in mind for an average American... when one "assimilates" successfully what does one become?

He didn't do so because someone made fun of Christianity. It wasn't a threat to free speech. In fact according to him it was a response to multiculturalism or more specifically, Muslims immigrating into Europe.

Without checking back on the detail he took that viewpoint as a "threatened" Christian fundamentalist though, didn't he?

Yes, in fact I will... but I'll leave that for another day. Debating on something as pointless as religion is extremely exhausting.

PS: Islam isn't a race, btw.

No, but that distinction isn't so important when racial and religious crimes are pretty much the same thing, effectively two sides of the same coin.

On the subject of revolting Christians, the Vatican felt that the Da Vinci Code could "rightly and justly provoke a world uprising" (Religious Offence and Human Rights: The Implications of Defamation of Religions, Lorenz Langer p53) and there were notable protests over the Life of Brian. Even though the best bits with the Hitlerian character were cut.

As @Scaff pointed out, some of the worst crimes committed by "religion" or its representatives were undertaken by Christians. Very often female Christians, as it happens.

EDIT: Just saw this story, I might not agree with religion but I think this Pope might actually have some good ideas.

The pontiff denounced people who say that "all Muslims are terrorists".

"As we cannot say that all Christians are fundamentalists," he said.

See, even the pope doesn't think they're all terrorists. And he wears a dress and lives alone.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Just thought it'd be nice to drop here a link to this article, which underlines most of what I believe to be the flaws and inaccurancies of the "New Atheist" movement.

 

[Scaff]

Just thought it'd be nice to drop here a link to this article, which underlines most of what I believe to be the flaws and inaccurancies of the "New Atheist" movement.

Wow that manages to quote mine a good few time in a relatively short article.

Quite frankly it says as much (if not more) about the bias of its author than it does about those it addresses, indeed the links it makes (all 'New Atheists' are really right wing fascistic sympathizers) are by its own admission tenuous, and what it fails to mention often of the authors own creation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just thought it'd be nice to drop here a link to this article, which underlines most of what I believe to be the flaws and inaccurancies of the "New Atheist" movement.

I find I agree with a few points in there; I'm certainly no fan of the way Dawkins conducts himself at times... but overall the article's a "bit of a turd" I think, nicely phrased around a lack of objective thought.

 

[Famine]

It seems to be "Why I hate Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins", by George Galloway.

 

[Liquid]

Just to chime in a few days late, I disagree with the term 'atheist fundamentalism'. Antitheism is definitely more correct.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just to chime in a few days late, I disagree with the term 'atheist fundamentalism'. Antitheism is definitely more correct.

Yup, fair enough

I do think that the proper definition might be lost in some discussions though; the word can mean different things in differing contexts therefore if one is talking about the most base, fundamental aspects of the atheist then fundamentalist atheism is just as adequate I reckon.

 

[ClydeYellow]

I find I agree with a few points in there; I'm certainly no fan of the way Dawkins conducts himself at times... but overall the article's a "bit of a turd" I think, nicely phrased around a lack of objective thought.

As is most of what passes for opinion journalism on the internet, sadly. I am afraid everything on the Internet is destined by default to remain unsupported by solid logical and factual evidence due to the teal dear paradox. I disagree with the identification of New Atheism as a pretty cover for XXI-century imperialism, anyways - it feels like a ham-fisted conclusion to a good premise.

Antitheism is a very correct term indeed; antitheism being a purely political movement and not a religious one. It is, of course, a matter of mere terms and of semantics, but I believe semantics can be extremely important sometimes, and they surely are in my field of study.

 

[TenEightyOne]

teal dear paradox

Haven't heard of that, what is it?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Haven't heard of that, what is it?

You haven't heard of it because it's not a term in the lexicon of the social sciences... Yet.
We all want people to bring evidence to support their positions, and to explain everything logically, yet we tl; dr (or as some say, "teal deer" - I am afraid I mispelled that) everything that requires more than shallow consideration. The sociological implications of this paradoxical inclination of the average Internet user are quite fascinating, tbh.

tl;dr: a term I came up with to describe the tendency to ask for proof and explaination and then not read it leaving the poor blogger/e-journalist dumbfounded.

 

[TenEightyOne]

tl; dr (or as some say, "teal deer" - I am afraid I mispelled that)

Now it all makes sense! I think you might have coined a phrase there, you can call it "Teal Deer Syndrome", lends itself to a great icon too

 

[GBO Possum]

Here is the "teal dear" on my keyboard

~

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here is the "teal dear" on my keyboard

~

Haha, I see what you did there

I was thinking of something more along these lines (double-teal reference coming up, only one deer);

 

[Famine]

We all want people to bring evidence to support their positions, and to explain everything logically, yet we tl; dr (or as some say, "teal deer" - I am afraid I mispelled that) everything that requires more than shallow consideration.

[Citation needed]

 

[Rage Racer]

Epic stupidity detected.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Epic stupidity detected

Do we have a Russia: Ofitsitalne Pisma or is it just wherever you lay your hat?

That's actually the most sensible and moderate explanation of Sharia by a proponent that I've ever seen... although I accept that these things are relative

 

[Rage Racer]

According to this, any secular country having Muslim population (including Germany, France or UK) violates Muslims' rights and is an oppressor. This guy called the Chechen insurgents "freedom fighters" (of course, a bunch of thugs represent the will of the whole nationality). But somehow he doesn't think the same about ISIS.

 

[ClydeYellow]

According to this, any secular country having Muslim population (including Germany, France or UK) violates Muslims' rights and is an oppressor. This guy called the Chechen insurgents "freedom fighters" (of course, a bunch of thugs represent the will of the whole nationality). But somehow he doesn't think the same about ISIS.

Well, he is right. Kinda. Chechen insurgents fight for the right of women that choose to do so to wear the veil (which he says the Russian government forbides - I actually don't know if that's correct). Of course we know that's not exactly what the Chechen want: but if it were, then they would be freedom fighters.

He's basically saying that fighting for the right of women to follow Sharia law and wear the veil is not the same as fighting to force women to follow Sharia law and wear the veil, which is a view that I share (although I feel the need to repeat that I don't believe the Chechen to be freedom fighters, for other reasons).

 

[Carbonox]

Well, he is right. Kinda. Chechen insurgents fight for the right of women that choose to do so to wear the veil (which he says the Russian government forbides - I actually don't know if that's correct). Of course we know that's not exactly what the Chechen want: but if it were, then they would be freedom fighters.

He's basically saying that fighting for the right of women to follow Sharia law and wear the veil is not the same as fighting to force women to follow Sharia law and wear the veil, which is a view that I share (although I feel the need to repeat that I don't believe the Chechen to be freedom fighters, for other reasons).

You know, many people (including me) would like to heavily question whether or not these women genuinely want to wear a veil. Maybe some of them do, but my speculation is that a lot of them have been brainwashed, emotionally blackmailed and of course, threatened with nasty consequences if they were to refuse.

 

[ClydeYellow]

You know, many people (including me) would like to heavily question whether or not these women genuinely want to wear a veil. Maybe some of them do, but my speculation is that a lot of them have been brainwashed, emotionally blackmailed and of course, threatened with nasty consequences if they were to refuse.

That, of course, is a very valid question. The possibility that they've been coerced is always there - and it may be something far more subtle than "brainwashing" or emotional or physical blackmail, it may be the product of a culture that paints women as inferior to the point where women actually believe it (and need I remind that in our Western world some of the fiercest opposers of the women suffrage movement were women).

The sociological (and philosophical) debate on whenever the veil is a tool of oppression, one of identification, or both is very much open.

In the case we were discussing, that of Chechnya and the Republic of Ichkeria, I think it's a safe assumption that Dudayev and the following Chechen leaders (Yandarbiyev and Mashkadov) wanted women to be free to wear the veil should they feel like that, a freedom that was denied by the Russian government in fear that the Chechens may develop a national identity of their own and break away from Russia as many other ex-USSR areas did in 1991. Things went to **** with Sadulayev who was a salafist religious zealot who tried to make Chechnya into a hardcore Islamic Emirate, a design in which Dokka Umarov succeeded.

Reality is never bi-dimensional or simple, though, and trying to simplify it too much can only be detrimental to our understanding of it.

 

[Rage Racer]

Well, he is right. Kinda. Chechen insurgents fight for the right of women that choose to do so to wear the veil (which he says the Russian government forbides - I actually don't know if that's correct).

One of the reasons why I find that statement idiotic is because there is no such law in RF forbiding to wear a veil in schools or universities. I don't know where such stereotype ("Russians oppress Muslims") comes from. In Chechen schools, girls wear veils if their parents feel it necessary. Meanwhile in Turkey and Azerbaijan, veils are not allowed in state institutions.

In the case we were discussing, that of Chechnya and the Republic of Ichkeria, I think it's a safe assumption that Dudayev and the following Chechen leaders (Yandarbiyev and Mashkadov) wanted women to be free to wear the veil should they feel like that, a freedom that was denied by the Russian government in fear that the Chechens may develop a national identity of their own and break away from Russia as many other ex-USSR areas did in 1991.

The reality was pretty complicated. The power in Chechnya was taken by armed clans, and Dudayev was more like a nominal leader. Those clans didn't care much about Islam, they just wanted an AK and an opportunity to fire it. For three years, from 1991 to 1994, the republic turned into a black hole. Banditism, money laundering, drug trafficking, arms dealing (the Grozny Airport was used as a transport node to deliver weapons to conflict zones all over the world), people kindapping, human trafficking, slavery, murders of the ethnic Russian population - this is what Chechnya was full of during those years. Yeltsin tried to regain control on this area and thought it would be easy and quick, but this turned into a bloody mess. The First Chechen War resulted in a draw (the feds were close to the victory, but that drunkard decided to stop for the 1996 elections, signing the Khasavyurt treaty), and CRI became de-facto independent for five years - from 1996 to 2000. Some time after the war, many of the Chechen nationalists who used to see independent Chechnya as a democratic state and thought they'll live like in Dubai were seriously disappointed when Islamists took the lead. They decided to rather stay with Russia than those crazy Islamic fanatics, and started defecting to the RF federal forces. One of them was Akhmat Kadyrov, who was fighting for the separatists during the first war, but then defected to RF with his clan and became the president of Chechen Republic (his son, Ramzan, is the CR president now).