(October 30, 2014 at 10:53 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Christianity was violent at one time and still is in some corners of the world. Once in a great while, Christian terrorism manifests even in the civilized first world countries (see Timothy McVey and anti-abortion assassins). Still, civilization seems to have done a good job overall of restraining and moderating Christianity. Is there a way to do the same for Islam?

It took the Thirty Years' War and its millions of deaths to make Christians realize the futility of religious war. I don't doubt that it would take something equally as shattering to bring extremist Islam to the same point as extremist Christianity has been sent.

(October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am)xpastor Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When these so-called islamic "moderates" stand up to the mullahs I'll believe they exist. Just like any fucking god needs evidence before I believe they exist. But if they sit there like sheep just watching then they and their bullshit religion can go fuck themselves.

There were certainly some Muslims who denounced the recent attacks on Canadian soldiers. I heard them on the news. Of course, I have no idea what percentage they form of the Canadian Muslim community.

I'm not terribly certain where this idea came from that, unless every member of a group is a murdering cunt that the group cannot be criticized? Not every Nazi was at Auschwitz. They still get tarred with the same brush.

Must we really go through the Monty Python routine every time some muslim decides to act like a barbarian?

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Since the public rant of noted Islamic scholar and mediocre actor Ben Affleck, there has been a divide among progressives between the dewey-eyed "coexist" faction who bristle at public criticism of religion and the so-called "militant" atheists who understand being a progressive must include opposing oppressive and backward ideologies, be they called "religions" or no.

And apparently it must include liberating and progressive ideologies, if they have the label 'Islam' attached to them. Ever hear of an Ahmadi terrorist? An Ismaili terrorist? A Universial Sufi terrorist? The one thing you must NEVER do if you understand being a progressive is use terms like 'Islamism', 'Islamic fundamentalism', 'Islamic extremism', 'Islamic militancy', 'Salafism', or 'Wahabbism' when you can say 'Islam' so you can be sure you don't miss any of the 1.6 billion of them, who are all equally at fault. If you do that, you're a dewey-eyed 'coexister' who bristles at criticism of religion, and apparently hold the dewey eyed notion that coexistence with a quarter of the world's population might be a better way to go than NOT coexisting with them.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: "What about the moderates?" we are asked, accompanying the bare assertion that the hardcore fundamentalists, theocrats and terrorists of religions are a tiny minority, who are motivated by non-religious factors such as politics, historical wrongs or economic issues anyway.

However small the minority, it's not small enough. However many they are, how that is supposed to justify ignoring the moderates is pretty mysterious.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: "Moderates" within a faith, I would argue, are those who have watered down their religion with foreign elements such as science or personal conscience.

That's a good thing.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: These accommodations to modernity and compassion are difficult if not impossible to square with scripture or, in some cases, with the very tenets of the faith.

Hard for YOU to square, because apparently, you agree with fundamentalist Muslims on that point. Millions of Muslims manage it. Q.E.D.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: They have few, if any, theological bone fides and sustain their beliefs either by ignoring the inconvenient parts of their religion or by inventing obtuse rationalizations that both non-believers and fundamentalists find laughably ridiculous.

Just like Jews and Christians. Why do you give a fuck if they can satisfy their conformity to modernity with theological soundness to your specifications? What's the problem with that? You remind me of pro-lifers who are against birth control. The best way to prevent abortions is birth control, but promoting birth control gets in the way of the true goal of marginalizing people who choose to get abortions. So shit on them for getting abortions, and if they get birth control, shit on them for that.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: They are more "failed fundamentalists" than a truer representation of their faith, unwilling to follow their religion to its logical conclusions.

If the logical conclusions are a problem for you, why criticize them for avoiding reaching them? They've got mullahs for that.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: For example, a Christian might accept evolution but then he/she must explain what the story of Eden was all about. If it was just a metaphor, then what is Jesus dying to save us from, since the "fall" must also be metaphoric. If Eve was a real person, produced by evolution, then how can we square this with the Christian tenet that death entered the world by sin, which happened by Eve. If Eve brought sin and therefore death into the world, how did evolution produce her without death (a key component in the process of evolution). And what are we to make of passages of the Gospels where Jesus expressed a literal belief in a literal Adam and a literal Noah's Ark?

If they're not trying to get it into our public school system and not bothering US about it, it's THEIR problem, not ours.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Either the Bible IS the Word of God or it is NOT the Word of God.
Either the Koran IS the Word of God or it is NOT the Word of God.
There is no "sorta kinda" option with divine revelation.

But there IS interpretation. We WANT them to interpret their scriptures in a way that allows them to tell themselves they don't have to stone adultresses, don't we? The more back flips they have to go through, the better. I don't think it's a coincidence that reconciliation to modernity is followed by a drop in religiosity. Why do you want to throw sand in the gears of that process?

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Sorry "coexist" liberals but the "moderate" loses, hands down, no contest.

Loses how, and to whom?

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: The other implicit assumption by the "coexist" liberal is that the "moderate" is any better behaved than the fundamentalist when it comes to political matters.

How moderates behave is an empirically matter. If you're not satisfied with their behavior, you may be defining the wrong people as 'moderates'.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Anyone who depends on the moderates as a bulwark against fundamentalism and theocracy might have also depended on the Iraqi army for protection against ISIL.

You were attacked by ISIL?

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: This kind of barrier can melt away in an instant as moderates will often toss their lot in with the fundamentalists whenever they're not in the cross-hairs of the fundamentalist's agenda.

This is different from typical human behavior how? I'd toss in with the fundamentalists if my life or the lives of my loved ones was on the line: and I should. And I don't see how increasing the number of moderates would protect me less than convincing them that they're not fundamentalist enough on theological grounds.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've personally known many "moderate" Christians who accept evolution who will support a "one man, one woman" definition of marriage, vote against women's rights or support a fundamentalist candidate.

Why do you call them moderates? If you do call them moderates, maybe we should be talking about liberals instead.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: If the moderate doesn't aid and abet the fundamentalist directly, then they arguably do indirectly by holding up their scripture as divinely inspired. The fundamentalist starts from this point and then adds, "...and here's what it says."

Fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity. It's recent, historically speaking, in both the Christian and Islamic camps, which were trending towards more liberal interpretations until some charismatic figures started digging in their heels and trying to go backwards. Fundamentalism is failing in the USA and it will fail in the Middle East. How will it profit us in the short or long term to diffuse our focus from countering the extremists? You influence groups of people by treating the ones behaving most like you'd want them to well and the ones behaving least like you'd want them to poorly, and the middle will trend accordingly. Our current policy of overthrowing secular regimes and supporting the main exporter of Wahabbism with our military might seems geared to promoting Islamism. We're getting what we paid for.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Put bluntly, the "coexist" liberal is also enabling the fundamentalist and all their abuses, from acts of violence to intrusive legislation to cruel traditions such as genital mutilations.

I've heard such assertions many times, but it's never backed up with any evidence. The most liberal denominations of Christianity in America are on the typical atheist's side on every issue except agreeing with them about God. They are a force for social change in the direction of modernity, and the resulting demographic shifts are going to be very obvious in about five years. We're winning, not because we're successful at evangelizing atheism, but because we're on the same side as religious liberals, who outnumber us in America by at least an order of magnitude.

(October 27, 2014 at 11:08 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: All of these things are possible only by magical thinking and credence to beliefs about sky daddies. It seems an odd form of "progressive" thinking to not oppose repressive ideologies.

It seems an odd form of 'progressive' thinking to embrace blanket generalization of entire demographics, too, but there you are.

You don't like Islam. I get it. I'm not fond of it, either. But I do like people, and people deserve to be treated fairly, even when they disagree with me. It's clear that our criticism of Christianity is much more nuanced than our criticism of Islam tends to be, and it's clear that the reason for that is our greater familiarity with Christianity and our greater ignorance of Islam. There's also the fact that where we are in the world, Muslims are a despised minority and most of them are here because they largely agree with us that a democratic republic is a better place to live than a theocratic dictatorship. When you 'go after' Islam in a place where they're relatively powerless and disliked and good citizens (comparable to the rates of good citizenship of other demographics, anyway), it can easily morph into oppression, and often has. And it's not unreasonable for a progressive Muslim to be offended at the presumption of someone claiming she's not 'doing it right' because she's not a fundamentalist.

A religion is not just its scriptures. A religon is, more than anything else, the sum of its followers. Do you have a plan to 'deal with' Islam?

---

(October 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When these so-called islamic "moderates" stand up to the mullahs I'll believe they exist. Just like any fucking god needs evidence before I believe they exist. But if they sit there like sheep just watching then they and their bullshit religion can go fuck themselves.

Did you consider Googling 'moderates stand up to mullahs' before you typed that? Your ignorance of the existence and efforts of reformers and activists doesn't mean they don't exist, and we live in an age where it's extremely easy to become informed.

---

(October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am)xpastor Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When these so-called islamic "moderates" stand up to the mullahs I'll believe they exist. Just like any fucking god needs evidence before I believe they exist. But if they sit there like sheep just watching then they and their bullshit religion can go fuck themselves.

There were certainly some Muslims who denounced the recent attacks on Canadian soldiers. I heard them on the news. Of course, I have no idea what percentage they form of the Canadian Muslim community.

For what it's worth, this might give you a broad outline:

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf...1-2011.pdf

The short version: Muslims in Canada are very diverse and complex in their opinons, averaging between 'confrontational' and 'assimilationist'.

---

(October 30, 2014 at 11:41 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'm not terribly certain where this idea came from that, unless every member of a group is a murdering cunt that the group cannot be criticized? Not every Nazi was at Auschwitz. They still get tarred with the same brush.

More like 'not every German was a Nazi. The problem isn't your condemnation of terrorists. It's your condemnation of people who agree with you about them for an accident of demographics.

Yeah, every time the Israelis drop a cluster bomb on a refugee camp we "denounce" them for it. It never changes a fucking thing and it never stops them from doing it again.

In that sense, denunciations are much like prayer.




Let me know when these "moderates" start informing the police before an attack.

(October 30, 2014 at 3:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yeah, every time the Israelis drop a cluster bomb on a refugee camp we "denounce" them for it. It never changes a fucking thing and it never stops them from doing it again.

In that sense, denunciations are much like prayer.

http://windupmyskirt.files.wordpress.com...othing.jpg


Let me know when these "moderates" start informing the police before an attack.

When was the last time you gave the police advance notice of a drive-by in your city? Does the fact that you didn't give any notice mean that you are culpable?

Islam is not monolithic, not every Muslim knows what every other Muslim plans on doing, and if after 9/11, 7/7, and other atrocities you think Muslim extremists are incapable of opsec, then you haven't been paying attention.

It's good to know that there are moderate Muslims who do the right thing. Two months ago a man was banned from a mosque because of his extremist statements and a member of the mosque reported him to the police. Last Friday he was banned from a second mosque and again reported to the police because he had been ranting that the murderer who shot the soldier in the back at the War Memorial was a hero and a martyr. The next day he was arrested. Two Ottawa police officers stopped him for traffic violations; he punched the one officer and ran away. However, the Mounties had already placed him under surveillance, and the plainclothes officer tailing him cut off his escape. One of the Ottawa officers brought him down with a taser.

You can read the article here.

That is refreshing to see, X-P.

I don't buy the notion that these "lone wolves" are all that alone. They have friends, they have acquaintances, they have family. Those people should be worried about what will happen to their loved one if they do go off on a personal jihad. These things rarely end well. "No man is an island," as John Donne said.

(October 31, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That is refreshing to see, X-P.

I don't buy the notion that these "lone wolves" are all that alone. They have friends, they have acquaintances, they have family. Those people should be worried about what will happen to their loved one if they do go off on a personal jihad. These things rarely end well. "No man is an island," as John Donne said.

I notice you ignored my point.

Sentence #2, in case you can't follow things without a map.

I can honestly say that I have no friends who would even consider conducting a drive-by shooting but I'm sure that those who do have friends who elect to say nothing for fear of being called a "rat." I suspect that deep down that is the problem of these alleged muslim "moderates" that you're whining about.

Meanwhile, let's stand back and see what the "moderates" have to say about this one.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/niger...r-husband/

Quote:Nigerian child bride faces the death penalty for allegedly murdering her husband

Quote:A 14-year-old Nigerian girl accused of murdering her 35-year-old husband by putting rat poison in his food could face the death penalty, Nigerian prosecutors said Thursday.

The trial of Wasila Tasi’u, from a poor northern Nigeria family, has sparked a heated debate on the role of underage marriage in the conservative Muslim region, especially whether an adolescent girl can consent to be a bride.

(October 31, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That is refreshing to see, X-P.

I don't buy the notion that these "lone wolves" are all that alone. They have friends, they have acquaintances, they have family. Those people should be worried about what will happen to their loved one if they do go off on a personal jihad. These things rarely end well. "No man is an island," as John Donne said.

I think "lone wolf" is meant to imply primarily that these individuals acted on their own rather than being part of a cell with a co-ordinated plan. An example of the latter was the Toronto Eighteen who had grandiose plans to blow up several buildings including Parliament and to behead the prime minister; they were stopped in their tracks because one of them was in fact a mole, reporting to the Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS).

My general impression (borne out by the two most recent cases) is that these "lone wolves: do not in fact have friends. Both of the men who murdered the Canadian soldiers. Both of them had a history of drug abuse and criminal records.

They have family of course, but they don't always know what is going on and after the event they are too emotionally entangled to reach a balanced judgment.

For instance, the mother of the man who shot the soldier at the War Memorial had only recently seen him for the first time in five years. After his crime she said that she "hated" her son and had been crying all day for the young soldier he killed. Then a week later she said that her son's act had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with mental illness, a sentiment echoed in some editorials. Personally, I don't see why terrorism and mental illness must be an either-or rather than a both-and.