Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.

---

quote:

---

Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam [snip]?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The question really is, why the focus on Islam?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam [snip]?

---

Same as it ought to be towards 'bad' Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other ism's?

...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fred Clark of Slacktivist made the argument (his site is currently down or I'd provide a link) that one of the reasons we see religious extremism prosper in certain regions is a consequence of lack of legal protections for religious minorities. When the state can establish an "official" religion it means that, unless the state picks your religion, your 'right' to worship only exists at the suffrance of the state.

---

China has no official religion. Nor does Syria or North Korea.

On the other hand England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Costa Rica do.

So whatever makes a government intolerant of religion it doesn't seem to be having one of their won.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[qb] The question really is, why the focus on Islam?

---

The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I thought the church of Scotland was not stablished anymore, correct me if I´m wrong.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG

---

More specifically, the Jewish law does. I doubt that you can cite any such mandate in the N.T.

---

Hey Olivia. You forgot adultery by stoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG

---

More specifically, the Jewish law does. I doubt that you can cite any such mandate in the N.T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

The best people to interpret the Jewish law are the Jews. They do so with guidance from the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient open book, which in many cases makes radical-sounding strictures practical. If the Jews have not in fact executed witches, astrologers, etc. for a long time, and especially if the Talmud does not actually prescribe that penalty, we have good reason for confidence that the stricture is in abeyance.

However, honor killings in Islamic communities, even in Europe, are hardly unknown, meted out by their own families, especially to young women who appear too enamored of infidel ways.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?

Or should we be concerned *only* about the end result - that someone's human rights are taken away?

I think it's a relevant question because if human rights abuses stem from or are exacerbated by a root cause, tackling that cause may lessen the abuse. But if the abuse stems from an ideology, then that seems less likely to happen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
...It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text. So it´s ok to express an opinion that it´s not only about "bad islam", but islam itself being bad. Surely, that´s not a very politically correct thing to say, but if we live in democratic and free societies, people should be able to express that.

---

quote:

---

If it is okay for people like Richard Dawkins to claim that christianity itself is bad (and not only the "bad christianity"), why is it an ultimate insult for someone to pursuit an opinion that Islam itself is bad?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
...

I'm going off on a tangent now - how to write a conspiracy theory.

Take some true facts that you know are true which support your theory, talk about them exclusively whilst not mentioning other equally true facts you know about that do not support your theory. So depending on your point of view it is possible to make an argument that Islam or Christianity are warlike religions simply by quoting verses from the Bible or Quran. But it's equally possible to show they are peace loving by quoting different texts from the same book. It depends on how you use the text.

...

---

Indeed, Balaam.

The problem with this thread is that there are indeed such half-baked conspiracy theories on the subject under discussion floating around in the media and everywhere else.

Whilst everyone is entitled to his/her opinion there is nothing to guarantee that all opinions are equally valid.

BTW gorpo I'd still appreciate the Quranic reference.


--------------------
Well...

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:

What should we do about human rights abuses?

---

quote:

---

But you're not really interested in the truth are you?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

I would have hoped we'd have learned better by now.

I think evensong is right, if we can figure out a way to deal properly with human rights violations in general, across the board, from all religions, and regardless of who's carrying them out (or how much oil the 'poor and oppressed' are sitting on); then you've got an answer to your question.

Not too long ago, you could have substitued the word 'communist' for every instance of "Muslim" or "Islamist" in this thread and had pretty much the same disscussion.

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[qb] The question really is, why the focus on Islam?

---

The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"

---

It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Thirdly, like it or not, globally a disproportionate number of human rights abuses are carried out under Islam, relative to the number perpetrated in the name of any other single religion/worldview/ ideology, with the possible exception of communism.
...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

I would have hoped we'd have learned better by now.

I think evensong is right, if we can figure out a way to deal properly with human rights violations in general, across the board, from all religions, and regardless of who's carrying them out (or how much oil the 'poor and oppressed' are sitting on); then you've got an answer to your question.

Not too long ago, you could have substitued the word 'communist' for every instance of "Muslim" or "Islamist" in this thread and had pretty much the same disscussion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... We get upset about reports of Christians or other non-Muslims being killed ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
ISTM that you are arguing for intervening in other countries before sorting out our own. Christians have been persecuted in China for decades, possibly centuries; Are you going to let them suffer because China isn't Islamic?

---

I love it when peple make that argument, that just because we're interested in one problem, that necessarily means we can't possibly be interested in any other problem! I'm sure there's a technical name for that logical fallacy. I don't know it so I'll just go

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.

---

It's hard to take this reply seriously, but I'll try.

It isn't about Islam it's about terrorism period.

In my first post on this forum I said

quote:

---

Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means

---

Notice the word Until.

No we have not got all the terrorists in this country, Islamist or otherwise in gaol or under house arrest. But some are, which goes to show that Special Branch and MI5 are doing their job.

More people died in the UK as a result of the Norhern Irish troubles than died in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Unless the provos and the UDF were Islamists I can't see your point. In fact the reason we have such strong anti-terror laws in the UK has more to do with the Irish Troubles than it does Islamic terrorists.

52 people died in the 7/7 attacks on London. 77 people were killed by Anders breivik last year in Norway. Was Breivik an Islamist? Nope he's anti-Islam.

But the alarmists are baying against Islam, equating terror with radial Islam. But it does not add up. In the USA only 6% of terror attacks were by Islamic exremists. In Europe it is even less.

So lets keep it in perspective, Islam is not as big a problem as people make it out to be.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
ISTM that you are arguing for intervening in other countries before sorting out our own. Christians have been persecuted in China for decades, possibly centuries; Are you going to let them suffer because China isn't Islamic?

---

I love it when peple make that argument, that just because we're interested in one problem, that necessarily means we can't possibly be interested in any other problem! I'm sure there's a technical name for that logical fallacy. I don't know it so I'll just go

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

Let's see, we should prop up and support those who torture, rape and slaughter because they are "bulwarks" against people we are claiming torture, rape and slaughter. Is that about right? Unbelievable.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.

---

Frankly, it seems to me that the history of the West's engagement with a chunk of central Asia is several decades of lurching from one wrong horse to the next. I mean, Saddam Hussein is to a large extent a mess of our own making because there was such a massive anti-Iran focus after the Iranian revolution. And half the mess in Afghanistan is a result of people who were backed with enthusiasm when they were fighting against the Soviet Union.

Which one of your options was "back the hell out of it for a change"?...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The question really is, why the focus on Islam?

---

The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"

And it also had a quote that "As soon as we use a preface like Muslim or Afghan, suddenly the issue becomes about culture, not domestic violence."

You'd never, ever have a report that highlighted the fact that a white Anglo-Celtic man of vaguely Christian background beat his wife. You'd just have a 'man' beating his wife.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
In Europe it is even less.

---

First off, the Northern Irish terrorism problem was largely then, this is now. Unless of course you want to cite stats about the number of deaths caused by Fenians and anarchists in the late 1800s...

---

quote:

---

Secondly, your statement is akin to saying 'unless and until we eliminate murder, let's not bother about rape'; to my mind, violence abroad should be no less of a concern to us as Christians than violence 'at home'.

---

quote:

---

Europol has reported concern about the rise in anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric

---

quote:

---

The changing dynamics in our societies, together
with technological advances, may encourage isolated,
disaffected individuals to turn into violent
extremists and even, in extreme cases, to become
‘lone wolf’ terrorists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?

Or should we be concerned *only* about the end result - that someone's human rights are taken away?

I think it's a relevant question because if human rights abuses stem from or are exacerbated by a root cause, tackling that cause may lessen the abuse. But if the abuse stems from an ideology, then that seems less likely to happen.

---

A good question, even if I can't quite get my head around it.

Taken to a logical extreme anything that infringes on another might be taken as abuse?

I suppose it's best to take it on a case by case scenario. But the labeling of abuse will certainly depend on ideology.

We might think wearing a hijab is an abuse - but many women in the Muslim world would not.

I guess I draw the line in terms of danger to physical health and wellbeing.

If someone's life is at risk - my warning bells would be going off.

---

quote:

---

If making money is more important than respecting human rights, that's already an ideology in itself

---

quote:

---

Because Islamism, if not Islam, is an ideology to which millions subscribe all over the world. When an abuser of human rights appeals to it, we have a problem that does not apply to those who abuse them for self-aggrandizement.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda.

And then I'm still undecided...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:

What should we do about human rights abuses?

---

It would not necessarily be a better question, just a different one

---

That's my point. It is not a different question.

Are "Islamist" abuses really that different from those in Burma or China or North Korea?

Slightly different ideologies perhaps - same result. Humans suffer.

But seeing as you're all gung ho about stopping abuses in the Middle east all I can say is go for it. Excellent.

We did fuck all while a million odd Rwandans died in flat out genocide.

Time to say something right?

Oh no wait....the Rwandans are Christians..... that doesn't work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

That's what caused all the trouble in the first place. Why do you think Islam has become more militant recently?

And Saudi Arabia is the most extreme in its particular sect of Islam yet is the closest western ally in the middle east.

So how does that work?

The chaplain to the Archbishop of the Middle East recently came to visit us and said no one there wants "advice" from the US. The US have a bad reputation.

I can only assume it's because of their terrible foreign policy that seeks only to protect its economic interests.

Edited to include a to irish_lord

[ 17. April 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oooh. Or rather OOh-ooh-OOh-ooh-ooh NightOwl2 wit-to-who. If we'd let Stalin take out Mossadeq and the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, would that have been better ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:

10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.

---

Let's see, we should prop up and support those who torture, rape and slaughter because they are "bulwarks" against people we are claiming torture, rape and slaughter. Is that about right? Unbelievable.

---

You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.

(I opposed the war too, but for different reasons).

Actually, the classic case of realpolitik in modern history was the western democracies' support of Stalin against Hitler - now there's a case of "torture rape and slaughter" against "torture rape and salughter".

---

Sadly, Kaplan Corday, I think it's the way you framed your first post which led to grave misunderstanding and internal agony for some of us.

As someone who does know something about both Islam and the Middle East, I regret the fact that Radical Whig, a former British naval intelligence officer and now academic in that area, with on-the-ground experience in Iraq, appears to have left the boards because he added real depth of knowledge to these discussions.

You see, in matters like this, I think we need to 'see ourselves as others see us'. In that regard, I think we all need much, much more real information about what is happening at all the little Ground Zeros we are creating.

Sadly, our response to 9/11 has been grossly, insanely disproportionate and inappropriate.

As I said previously, I think George W Bush's 'War on Terror' as it grew out of all proportion, became what the entire Muslim World - not just the crazed loonies such as bin Laden, labelled 'Islamicists' for our convenience - saw and see as 'The War on Islam'. That is something we, in the West, now have to live with.

Amongst consequences are the deaths and permanent disablement of so many of our own service personnel; devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan with the loss and disablement of so many locals; the vast reduction of the ancient Christian communities of Iraq etc.

Women's rights in places such as Afghanistan are as bad as they were under the Taliban. Read Malali Joya's book if you don't believe me. This actually makes the 'beating women in Islam' issue pale in comparison, which is bad. Rape, torture, abduction etc. are all horror stuff.

The catalogue of horrors continues. When will it ever cease?


--------------------
Well...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
...It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text...

---

Would you have a Quranic reference for this gorpo?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Is the Western European Enlightenment (capital E) the standard to which all ought to aspire?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Also, claiming that all 'bad Islam' is a manifestation of a single problem is a bit like saying that child abuse in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria and pentecostals killing children as a byproduct of exorcisms in the UK are all part of a single 'bad Christianity'.

---

quote:

---

Also, framing Islamism as a problem that not enough was being done about was exactly what motivated Anders Breivik to kill seventy or so children.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
I think it is ridiculous to claim that Christianity is so much better when Western societies are freer because they have gradually become less Christian.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.

---