A Simple Rule

[downbeatplumb]

Education. Exactly. That is what I want, nothing more.

Well, people stopping from killing each other would be nice too.

It depends on the education.

Taliban means "students" in Pashto.

Seems they master in RPGs and AK47s.

[DeistPaladin]

But you are a bigot if you oppose Germans because some of them were/are Nazis. Being a Muslim is more akin to being a German than to Nazi ideology.

NO!
IT'S!
NOT!

Islam is a belief, not a race. Every Muslim can become an ex-Muslim. Sweet Reason, why is this such a point of controversy?

When you say you can't have that discussion without being silenced, you're being disengenuous. It seems to be some kind of code for 'I can't make over-broad generalizations without being called on them and no way am I going to be more specific'.

No, as soon as you start the conversation, people pre-emptively scream you're painting with a broad brush and being prejudiced against an entire people. The recent Affleck-Harris discussion is the perfect example. Harris did specifically open the discussion with "Islamic theocracy". This is specific to extremists and Islamists. Affleck ignored this distinction and accused him of being racist against a billion people, trying to shout him down (and thus proved Harris' point).

Islamic extremism.

Or just plain Islam, at least in its current incarnation.

The Islam in a previous incarnation, pre-Crusades, seemed to promote science and learning. Why is that? What changed? How do we change it back? I'd like to have this conversation.

That's hardly always the case. People openly criticize Islam all the time without serious consequence. Your list is infinitesimal compared to the list of people who have openly criticized Islam without having to go into hiding or receiving a single threat.

Can you cite any examples? "A single threat" and the implication that this list is exhaustive compared to those killed or threatened is quite a claim.

I wonder if the correlation between the danger you're in for not conforming to the majority ideology or religion has more to do with whether your country is an undeveloped mess than exactly which ideology or religion is on top?

An interesting question. There are plenty of poor, undeveloped countries that are non-Muslim in majority that we can compare to test this hypothesis. I'll wager the Abrahamic religions are more violent and less tolerant since ideology has everything to do with what kind of behavior I expect.

If you make their scriptures the problem, reform is impossible.

I wish I had the power to make their scriptures anything. The question is are their scriptures the problem?

It's not an excuse. It's a literal fact that the Muslims who are terrorists are radicals. You're the one who seems to have a problem with that fact.

I don't have a problem with that fact. I keep saying, "show me the radicals of a religion and I'll show you the teachings of that religion".

If any group in a religion IS the religion, it's the majority.

Not necessarily. Fred Phelps doesn't represent a majority of Christians but he does understand what scripture says. Most Christians don't. Most Christians have never actually read the Bible.

So which group represents an ideology? One man who knows it and fully embraces it or ten people who kind of believe in something like it sort of in a way?

[robvalue]

There definitely seems to be people getting more uncomfortable when islam is criticised, as opposed to Christianity. That makes no sense. They are both bonkers religions that are harmful and need gutting (ideally).

In fact, I sympathise more with islam because they often have people actually threatening their life for disbelief rather than just social isolation etc. Once they are in a free country, then they are choosing to continue with the bullshit, rather than having to.

---

Islam, muslim, whatever. If they are making their religion their identity, that's even more insane.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact that new religions can be created doesn't mean the more traditional ones don't need inspection or criticism.

Have I argued otherwise?

Nearly every story I've heard from ex-Christians is that their road to rationality involved a gradual process of increasing moderation until they abandoned their faith completely. The moderation pitstop was an attempt to reconcile scripture with what they knew of the way the world actually works. The final step is when they realize that scripture says what it does and that there's no way to do so.

Every "moderate" Christian I know or knew, at least every one that I can think of right now, is/was a moderate precisely because they can't/couldn't deny that the world is older than 6000 years old and evolution is the explanation for how we came to be. That's kind of why I was so incredulous at even the prospect you outlined. The very reason they're moderates is because they are unable to be fundamentalists. That door is barred shut from the knowledge they acquired. Their moderation is an attempt to cling to their religion against the evidence to the contrary.

I don't care whether they're moderate or extreme on the age of the Earth. I'm much more concerned that they become moderate on things like killing infidels and bashing out baby brains. Hectoring them because they accept a 13.8 billion year timeline for the Universe ("You're not a true Christian!") is not likely to make them accept that timeline. You need look no further than the theists here, digging their heels in even as they're confronted with fact after fact after fact.

---

There definitely seems to be people getting more uncomfortable when islam is criticised, as opposed to Christianity. That makes no sense.

When you consider that xenophobia is behind much of the criticism, it's understandable that criticism should be examined closely.

I don't think DP's critique is rooted in xenophobia. He seems like a pretty thoughtful guy. I don't disagree with much of it.

What I do disagree with is the broadbrushing he says he's not doing, but is, as when he equivocates radical Islam with "just plain Islam".

[abaris]

I wish that were true.

Many of the 9/11 hijackers were educated. Education is no inoculation to religion as we think it ought to be because of the human ability to compartmentalize our minds.

Sure, take a sample group of 19 people being radicalised and present it as some kind of evidence that education doesn't matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Add to this the fact of people losing loved ones to bombs or knowng someone who did and you get that deadly mixture of personal loss, patriotism and feelings of revenge that can be so easily exploited when someone gives them a cause.

I have to say, that's an argument I'm making for the last decade whenever some of these discussions crop up. Everyone should try to reflect on how they would feel when being under attack, when losing either their livelihood or relatives or in many cases both. One doesn't simply wake up one morning and says, hey, it's a good day to become a suicide bomber. There's a process involved and to look at that process is vital.

And the corollary to this is that seeking to explain is not seeking to excuse. Too many people miss that point.

[robvalue]

This is my translation of current terms:

Radical: fundamentalist- actually do and believe what crazy book says
Fundamentalist: moderate- do and believe a fair bit of what crazy book says
Moderate: fucking around- don't do hardly anything crazy book says but enjoy a fuzzy feeling

Just for entertainment purposes.

[Mister Agenda]

For sure. Christianity is not a religion of peace either. The only peace in religion is peace of shit.

Bit of an over-generalization. It is very hard to argue, for instance, that Jains, Quakers, and Ahmahdi Muslims aren't peaceful.

---

For sure. Christianity is not a religion of peace either. The only peace in religion is peace of shit.

Hey hey leave paganism and Buddhism out of it they are the only true peaceful religions and the only true peaceful ones. I mean whens the last time you heard a Buddhist or monk blowing them selves up or commit crimes or a pagan suicide bomber.

Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing. They were largely Buddhist.

---

I just want to live in a world where I can run into a church and laugh at everyone until I puke without being oppressed.

Arresting someone for disturbing the peace is not oppression.

[robvalue]

That was a joke I have a weird sense of humour.

Wow, I guess I've been saying too much crazy stuff lately. I do tend to swap between sensible Rob and psychopath without warning. Maybe I should use colours?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Islam in a previous incarnation, pre-Crusades, seemed to promote science and learning. Why is that? What changed? How do we change it back? I'd like to have this conversation.

I think "seemed" is the operative word. They invaded and incorporated existing knowledge, largely translated for them, by others, and as soon as they ran out of other people to consume they ran out of discoveries conveniently accredited to themselves. "Changing it back"...might not be as good an idea as one thinks. Their own homegrown scientists were routinely labeled heretics even during their "golden age".