(November 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: If moderation and religion don't play well together, can you explain why some quite religious countries have low levels of religious violence?

What are some of these countries?

If you're thinking of "moderate Islamic" countries, I have good reason to think things are not as harmonious as the outside world thinks. Hillary Clinton once praised Indonesia as an example of a country where Islam and democracy mix effectively. I've visited that country on a few occasions. Christians there are terrified of Muslims and with good reason. You have to watch what you say in public and there's always the threat of either violent individuals or the law turning against them.

Quote:If moderation and religion don't play well together, can you explain why some quite religious countries have low levels of religious violence?

The majority has already exterminated the minority?

Just a guess.

(November 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: If moderation and religion don't play well together, can you explain why some quite religious countries have low levels of religious violence?

What are some of these countries?

America was the first country in my mind with that comment. We have about 70% Christians in this country. If moderation and religion don't "play well together", then we should expect to see levels of religious violence that are newsworthy.

But unlike India or Iraq, our levels of religious violence are quite low.

Turkey is 99% Muslim, about 75% Sunni and 24% Shia, yet has remarkably low levels of religious violence, too.

Using violence as the metric for extremism, it doesn't seem that moderation is much of a problem for some countries.

I think it's important to note that the two countries I've mentioned here have a history and tradition of secular governance.

---

(November 3, 2014 at 7:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If moderation and religion don't play well together, can you explain why some quite religious countries have low levels of religious violence?

The majority has already exterminated the minority?

Just a guess.

See above. Next?

Also, I notice that you've no reply to my earlier points, about your moving goalposts and general bias.

Somehow, I'm entirely unsurprised.

Well, here's an example of why there aren't more "moderates."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27776743

Quote:A moderate Muslim cleric has been shot dead in Mombasa, the latest killing of a preacher in the Kenyan city.

BTW, you don't get to define the argument solely as you wish.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: Well, here's an example of why there aren't more "moderates."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27776743

Quote:A moderate Muslim cleric has been shot dead in Mombasa, the latest killing of a preacher in the Kenyan city.

And cherry-picking examples doesn't mean that you've answered the argument.

(November 8, 2014 at 11:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, you don't get to define the argument solely as you wish.

You'll either answer the point, or you won't. If you don't answer a point, it doesn't mean it wasn't made; it just means that you didn't answer it.

Avoiding points that one cannot answer is a tactic we've seen before ... but usually it's Heywood or a drive-by fundy. Repeating one's assertions without acknowledging objections is dishonest argumentation.

You should be better than that. You're supposed to be rational.

(November 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 11:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: Well, here's an example of why there aren't more "moderates."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27776743

And cherry-picking examples doesn't mean that you've answered the argument.

I wouldn't call it cherry-picking. If you read the news, Muslim countries afford plentiful examples of Wahhabi-influenced Sunnis killing or intimidating members of more moderate sects.

(November 8, 2014 at 2:52 pm)xpastor Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: And cherry-picking examples doesn't mean that you've answered the argument.

I wouldn't call it cherry-picking. If you read the news, Muslim countries afford plentiful examples of Wahhabi-influenced Sunnis killing or intimidating members of more moderate sects.

I'm sorry. The cherry-picking isn't Min's; it belongs to the media. Apologies for the poorly-worded reply.

That still doesn't render his repetition of the story to be a refutation to my point, which is that moderate Muslims do speak out against atrocities exactly as he asks, and yet he still moves the goalposts in order to nurture his own bigotry.

(November 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 2:52 pm)xpastor Wrote: I wouldn't call it cherry-picking. If you read the news, Muslim countries afford plentiful examples of Wahhabi-influenced Sunnis killing or intimidating members of more moderate sects.

I'm sorry. The cherry-picking isn't Min's; it belongs to the media. Apologies for the poorly-worded reply.

That still doesn't render his repetition of the story to be a refutation to my point, which is that moderate Muslims do speak out against atrocities exactly as he asks, and yet he still moves the goalposts in order to nurture his own bigotry.

I have consistently argued that there are moderate Muslims speaking out against the extremists, and I have given examples of the same. However, I think it is important to recognize that in many Muslim countries, there are large numbers of extremist Muslims who make a practice of intimidating both non-Muslims and Muslim moderates, and the extremists try to do the same in western nations too.

---

Although I have myself complained more than once in the past about moderates giving cover to extremists by exalting their holy book, I am no longer sure this counts for much. Don't the fundamentalists pass on their fundamentalist convictions about the inerrancy of their book without looking for support from moderates?

(November 8, 2014 at 5:41 pm)xpastor Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm sorry. The cherry-picking isn't Min's; it belongs to the media. Apologies for the poorly-worded reply.

That still doesn't render his repetition of the story to be a refutation to my point, which is that moderate Muslims do speak out against atrocities exactly as he asks, and yet he still moves the goalposts in order to nurture his own bigotry.

I have consistently argued that there are moderate Muslims speaking out against the extremists, and I have given examples of the same. However, I think it is important to recognize that in many Muslim countries, there are large numbers of extremist Muslims who make a practice of intimidating both non-Muslims and Muslim moderates, and the extremists try to do the same in western nations too.

I'm certainly not arguing that extremist Muslims don't exist.

What I'm arguing against is the clear willingness to use a broad-brush regarding Muslims -- and, indeed, other theists -- that is sloppy thinking.

The same guys who say "But Stalin was only one atheist" are very happy to act as if bin Laden represents all Muslims.

And then they turn around and exalt reason above everything else!

Pity they spare themselves the microscope; they'd learn a lot.

This must be a school for "moderates," then?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30005278

Quote:The school that says Osama Bin Laden was a hero

Quote:A hardline cleric in Pakistan is teaching the ideas of Osama Bin Laden in religious schools for about 5,000 children. Even while the Pakistani government fights the Taliban in the north-west of the country, it has no plans to close schools educating what could be the next generation of pro-Taliban jihadis.