Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

I do not know what that means.

Both parts were perfectly clear, but let me expand.

The first point highlighted that you are picking an absolutist series of positions, held by almost no-one, and attempting to assign them to a broad group of people. Doing so is a strawman logical fallacy.

The second was an observation/question based around the 'red pill' meme of people heading down a radicalist rabbit hole, in this case the rabid nationalism of Farage, et al. Which given you recent sources seems rather valid.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I already responded and said Islam.

Still not sure why you chose Jainism to compare it to out of all the world's religions.

And now religions that were founded by a single person, like Islam.

How many other founders preached as much violence and themselves took part in violence?

 

[Scaff]

And now religions that were founded by a single person, like Islam.

How many other founders preached as much violence and themselves took part in violence?

Stop being absurdly simplistic (and I've seen this playbook before) and look at the totality of them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Stop being absurdly simplistic (and I've seen this playbook before) and look at the totality of them.

Explain why it's absurd.

I'll explain my reasoning:

• Islam at the present moment is overrepresented in religious violence
• Start by looking at the beginnings of the religions
• Identify any aberrant factors

Which part is wrong here so far?

 

[Scaff]

Explain why it's absurd.

Really!

So you think that (for example) Christianity can be based on just the purported actions of a single person, who may not have existed, didn't work alone. Who's actions were reported not by his contemporaries, but people who lived after he died. Writings that have been rewritten numerous times, hundreds of years after the events.

To be blunt, only one position is absurd here, and it's not mine. Ignoring the root of any religion, ignoring the actions taken since its foundation, and focusing just on a tiny part of it is the absurd position.

 

[HenrySwanson]

 

[Scaff]

Oh dear.

That was poorer than expected, now how about you explain why you believe that focusing on just the founder, and not the totally of a religion is a valid way to assess it.

As right now you're following an all to familiar pattern.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This whole discussion has become pointless... skip to the end. @HenrySwanson what do you want to see happen in order that the coming **** show you're afraid of is averted? Don't post a link to a video or a newspaper article, don't answer with another question, don't assume anyone else here knows what answer you're alluding to - just say it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This whole discussion has become pointless... skip to the end. @HenrySwanson what do you want to see happen in order that the coming **** show you're afraid of is averted? Don't post a link to a video or a newspaper article, don't answer with another question, don't assume anyone else here knows what answer you're alluding to - just say it.

We treat religion like a pathology, but one that can have protective features. Nurture those parts while criticising and becoming intolerant of the bad stuff. Don't attack the person, attack the system; shine a light on its foundation and stop treating it with reverence. Imagine we could skip forward a thousand years and people are part of a religion that glorified Trump. Only, because it's a religion you can't notice anything bad about it, and if you try and point out the bad qualities of it or the guy it all started with you are hounded out and called a bigot.

I want a world where this happens:



A religious idiot is mocked, the "blasphemous" opera sells out, and the world moves on after protests.

We don't have that, with America potentially sliding into authoritarianism depending on who wins next month and globally with the religion of Islam.

Yes, there are extremists found in every group, but we have to resist the bad parts of those groups' core messages and stop blaming the bad stuff on "misinterpretations". We condemn and simultaneously promote the virtuous part(s). It's the only way they will evolve.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@HenrySwanson

Okay, that's a relatively clear objective. I'll pose the following two statements:

- The method by which we enforce behaviour (domestically) in this country is this judicial system, the 'acceptable' behaviours are set by our elected representatives, peers, and the King.

- The way we promote certain behaviour is far more nebulous, but I'll suggest the big two are the Media (encompassing targeted and two way social media, and one way regulated creative & News media), and Education.

These two things all somewhat regulated/legislated/mandated by the government so I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to effectively condemn the bad stuff, and promote the virtuous parts, you require the government to act (how else would you enforce any action)... what do you want those actions to be? How do you want current laws to be amended?

 

[HenrySwanson]

@HenrySwanson

Okay, that's a relatively clear objective. I'll pose the following two statements:

- The method by which we enforce behaviour (domestically) in this country is this judicial system, the 'acceptable' behaviours are set by our elected representatives, peers, and the King.

- The way we promote certain behaviour is far more nebulous, but I'll suggest the big two are the Media (encompassing targeted and two way social media, and one way regulated creative & News media), and Education.

These two things all somewhat regulated/legislated/mandated by the government so I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to effectively condemn the bad stuff, and promote the virtuous parts, you require the government to act (how else would you enforce any action)... what do you want those actions to be? How do you want current laws to be amended?

We get a First Amendment for a start. Me potentially being able to cry victim and have legal recourse if someone calls me bald is ridiculous.

The media and the public become unafraid of offending and start to offend within reason. Play the ball, not the man. People will be attacked. People will die. But it's worth it in the long run otherwise what's the alternative? There are always going to be groups into which humans will split and religions in particular will resist reforming but we can look to the past to see how the Age of Enlightenment won out over Christian orthodoxy for ideas.

Islam is a unique beast however because it's essentially a how-to-live guide for 7th-century Arabia, and so the path to reformation will necessarily be different.