|
Kyrie eleison posted:Mockery is going to cause World War 3. But it's ok, because it's all a joke. And that's a problem why...?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure there's enough to be able to declare "no true Christian!" Which is always what happens. Though you have surely defeated me with your no-true-scotsman pre-emptive defense, I have to wonder why you feel Brevik is sufficient counterpoint and indicative that Christians are a mean Islamic cartoon of Jesus away from going on comparable sprees. Or what, exactly, are you hoping to say?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
People like Brevik are in a mutually reinforcing relationship with Islamic extremists, since the actions of one give succour to the ideology of the other and spawn more recruits. It definitely has something to with religion, but not everything. You need some sort of mytho-poetic justification for murder and religion certainly is the most available form of this. I think to say that the violence in Western country is to do with Christianity would be extremely flawed, though. It probably has much more to do with cold war and colonial legacies, with capitalism, etc. I don't think it's been strongly influential in recent western foreign policy violence (whole different story internally - e.g. KKK, IRA (although the IRA is just as much a nationalist movement as a sectarian one). Islamic terror is also obviously strongly correlated with cold war and colonial legacies etc. except that a version of Islam is the dominant ideology in Islamic terror, whereas a lot of western violence is not necessarily driven primarily by religion or any version of it, even though Western countries are predominantly Christian (although mostly much less religious than the US). Disinterested fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I think most Christians have largely gotten over the idea they can destroy competing religions with violence. There's always going to be rednecks and people hyped up enough to be jerks, but you aren't really seeing much in the way of groups committed to killing the opposition. When was the last time even the KKK was caught doing anything comparable to the Charlie Hebdo attack? So uh, Africa?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:People like Brevik are in a mutually reinforcing relationship with Islamic extremists, since the actions of one give succour to the ideology of the other and spawn more recruits. Zealots breed zealots among their own and the enemy and if anything is irredeemably evil it's zealotry. I believe precious little good accomplished in the wake of a zealot wasn't achieved in spite of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So uh, Africa? I am badly fatigued, admittedly. If we're asking why Christians in African nations would be less likely to go on a purging spree of Muslims over perceived insult, I'd place my money on the value placed on forgiveness and turning the other cheek rather than 'avenging' Jesus. Brevik, in that case, would seem even less relevant. The Snark fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Brevik, in that case, would seem even less relevant. You asked for an example of a Christian attack on the scale as the attack on Charlie, and I gave you one.  Well, I guess Brevik was much larger in scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You asked for an example of a Christian attack on the scale as the attack on Charlie, and I gave you one. More dead, yes. Quite a bit crazier really that Brevik, was even less selective about who he murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
The Snark posted:When was the last time even the KKK was caught doing anything comparable to the Charlie Hebdo attack? Asylum seekers and immigrants were burned in their beds in Germany not more than 2 decades ago. These I would think are also more similar to the random riot-context murders in Niger. I think at the very least, we need to differentiate 3 forms of Islam-associated violence: - youth riots by (coincidentally) low-SES muslim minorities - random murders in the context of 3rd-world (muslim) anti-western riots - targeted terror attacks by trained terrorists with military weaponry I do think Islam is somehow important for all 3 of these, but to very different degrees, and in different forms. Note also there is only very limited overlap in the timing, participants or victims of all these. The Snark posted:I am badly fatigued, admittedly. If we're asking why Christians in African nations would be less likely to go on a purging spree of Muslims over perceived insult, I'd place my money on the value placed on forgiveness and turning the other cheek rather than 'avenging' Jesus. Like Disinterested, I personally would guess post-colonial legacy is a more important factor. French Christians drawing Jesus simply won't insult you religiously, because it's clearly not the former colonial power rubbing your desolate situation all in your face again by doing this. Nor would muslims drawing Jesus, as they're not the former colonial power. The Snark posted:More dead, yes. Quite a bit crazier really that Brevik, was even less selective about who he murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Like Disinterested, I personally would guess post-colonial legacy is a more important factor. French Christians drawing Jesus simply won't insult you religiously, because it's clearly not the former colonial power rubbing your desolate situation all in your face again by doing this. Nor would muslims drawing Jesus, as they're not the former colonial power. How does an irrerevent, low-circulation leftist/anarchist publication which spends far more column space on mocking French political figures than on religious matters contribute to rubbing anyone's "desolate situation" in their faces? In fact, how did they even know about it? CH is probably not circulated in Africa to any significant extent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
If you want Christian militias going ape-poo poo on Muslims, you have the anti-balaka, some events in India, and if you go for older stuff there were the conflicts in former Yugoslavia or the civil war in Lebanon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure there's enough to be able to declare "no true Christian!" Which is always what happens. I haven't heard anyone calling it a Christian terror attack. I mean, was he yelling "Christ is the greatest!" as he shot those people? What you've claimed that Christians are saying (that the attack(s) were not true Christians) is exactly what Muslim apologists have been saying hundreds (thousands?) of times over these past several years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:How does an irrerevent, low-circulation leftist/anarchist publication which spends far more column space on mocking French political figures than on religious matters contribute to rubbing anyone's "desolate situation" in their faces? In fact, how did they even know about it? CH is probably not circulated in Africa to any significant extent. Cat Mattress posted:If you want Christian militias going ape-poo poo on Muslims, you have the anti-balaka, some events in India, and if you go for older stuff there were the conflicts in former Yugoslavia or the civil war in Lebanon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What you've claimed that Christians are saying (that the attack(s) were not true Christians) is exactly what Muslim apologists have been saying hundreds (thousands?) of times over these past several years. (It's both wrong to say this was the Christian equivalent to islamist attacks, as it'd be to say this had nothing to do with Christianity.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:37
|
|
Cingulate posted:A clear difference is that Breivik was motivated partially by Christianity, but not by his own Christianity. He did not believe he'd go to paradise. Surely there are commonalities, but also differences. Brevik does share a motive with Islamic murderers of moderate Muslims - he believed he was fighting people who were permissive of the fall of his civilization - collaborators, to put it one way.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Actually, the first CH attacks were firebombing, and we actually have that poo poo all the loving time. *can you guess in which church the three children of Marine Le Pen were baptized? Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Brevik does share a motive with Islamic murderers of moderate Muslims - he believed he was fighting people who were permissive of the fall of his civilization - collaborators, to put it one way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:47
|
|
Cingulate posted:To be pendantic, considering he thought he was coming upon a training camp for future Cultural Marxist elites, is "permissive" not too weak a term? Go with the second one I used if you like! Permissive was more to catch the Islamic terror side of the equation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A clear difference is that Breivik was motivated partially by Christianity, but not by his own Christianity. Is a cultural Christian the same as an actual Christian though? I was raised in an atheist household, but I could consider myself a "cultural Christian".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
It seems like assorted Hindus and Buddhists would have at least as much of grievances against the imperialist West as Muslims but they're rarely involved in terrorist attacks against western targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Eustachy posted:It seems like assorted Hindus and Buddhists would have at least as much of grievances against the imperialist West as Muslims but they're rarely involved in terrorist attacks against western targets. Hindu extremists tend to focus on reminders of the Mughal empire because Pakistan is closer; actual Buddhist states include Japan, Thailand and Burma, all three imperialist states, two of which are trying to keep control over majority muslim ethnic minorities on their borders. It's a lot more complicated than a linear history of imperialism, and islamism is mostly a modern reaction movement that has more to do with secular arab nationalism than most things in the west. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Eustachy posted:It seems like assorted Hindus and Buddhists would have at least as much of grievances against the imperialist West as Muslims but they're rarely involved in terrorist attacks against western targets. And I am surely not saying Hinduism supports violence as well as Islam does; it probably doesn't. But this is far from the only, and probably not even the dominant, factor. * ... well, you get what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It's a lot more complicated than a linear history of imperialism, and islamism is mostly a modern reaction movement that has more to do with secular arab nationalism than most things in the west. I am sure if we started loving with India, they'd rather quickly develop their own form of terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
India also has a much less dysfunctional and more consensual system of government.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:India also has a much less dysfunctional and more consensual system of government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Any amount of good the USA is responsible for is overshadowed by the much larger amount of good it deliberately interfered with becoming possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
Majorly? Uncertain if I'd go that far. That it could have a significant positive influence? Of course. If nothing else it has a solid biblical founding thus allowing Christians to be More Christian than Other Christians by forgiving more. Even in this obnoxious variety the net result is a positive. So you have less 'kill the blasphemers' and more smug tut-tutting and vows of prayer for their sake, ideally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Majorly? Uncertain if I'd go that far. That it could have a significant positive influence? Of course. What about the biblical passages of extreme revenge? I'm not saying "all religions are equally bad" or whatever. I think it's clear the new testament has a strongly pacifist message, and the islamic texts much more easily lend themselves to a war-supportive reading. I just don't really see forgiveness as being especially important in mainstream Western culture, or African christians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Historically there has been plenty of "we must kill the unbelievers" from Christians, so I don't know how you could claim the religion is inherently peaceful. The relative peacefulness of it in western societies probably stems more from more recent philosophical ideas and the relative prosperity of those nations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Historically there has been plenty of "we must kill the unbelievers" from Christians, so I don't know how you could claim the religion is inherently peaceful. The relative peacefulness of it in western societies probably stems more from more recent philosophical ideas and the relative prosperity of those nations. I think you got that backward. The relative prosperity of Western societies is a result of them neutering religion of its political power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Historically there has been plenty of "we must kill the unbelievers" from Christians, so I don't know how you could claim the religion is inherently peaceful. The relative peacefulness of it in western societies probably stems more from more recent philosophical ideas and the relative prosperity of those nations. Look at a truly fundamentalist Christian culture, as in, people who most closely adhere to a naive, unsophisticated literal reading, as far as such a thing is possible - the Amish. ISIS isn't necessarily the preferential legit reading of the Quran, but they're actually probably closer to the Quran than Western society is to the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It would be sufficient to just point to the Iraq war. But when you have groups that define themselves as "Christian militia" and who slaughter hundreds of people because these people are Muslim, then yes, it's fair to say religion is the prime factor. Cingulate posted:Yes, probably a very important point - though then it opens the question of, why? India has tremendous diversity. Why is it comparatively more homogenous Pakistan that has the much larger share of violence? Pakistan looks to the naive western eye (mine) quite like its adjacent muslim states, although its history, ethnic make-up, economy and so on are very different. Diversity breeds compromise, and democracy is the best form of compromise. Pakistan does not need democracy since everybody is a Muslim, meaning that everybody should automatically agree with what the religious leaders say. Whenever there's some problem in the country, you can rally everyone behind the religious banner. Take note that the biggest anti-Charlie demonstration in the entire world happened in Chechnya. Remind me again of the history of French colonialism in Chechnya?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Do you know the many passages of the Quran speaking of mercy, forgiveness, peacefulness, pacifism, and the hadith talking about Muhammad acting accordingly? Your point that both texts have peaceful and violent sections, is accurate. Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. However, the difference is that one emphasizes the forgiveness part, and the other hangs onto the violent bits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism 28% of Muslims worldwide think violence against civilians could be justified. Kind of a sobering number, and to be fair it is much lower in Western countries. So don't freak out. and think 1 out of 4 Muslims in Alabama are planning Jihad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Even the supposedly-peaceful Buddhists oppress the muslim Rohingya minority in Burma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:27
|
|
Senso posted:Even the supposedly-peaceful Buddhists oppress the muslim Rohingya minority in Burma. And anyone who's read Zen at War can tell you how hosed up Japanese wartime Buddhism got in the 20th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Diversity breeds compromise, and democracy is the best form of compromise. Pakistan does not need democracy since everybody is a Muslim, meaning that everybody should automatically agree with what the religious leaders say. Whenever there's some problem in the country, you can rally everyone behind the religious banner. And I'm not sure how literal you mean that statement about muslims having to agree with what religious leaders say. It has become a cliche to say this, but Islam does not have a pope. It is a very informal and non-authoritarian religion, textually at least. Cat Mattress posted:Take note that the biggest anti-Charlie demonstration in the entire woarld happened in Chechnya. Remind me again of the history of French colonialism in Chechnya? Cat Mattress posted:No, that's pithy but inaccurate. It's a country that happens to have a Christian majority invading another that happens to have a Muslim majority, but the motivation isn't a Christian holy war against Islam. Despite Bush Jr's alleged ravings about Gog and Magog, if there was a faith that motivated this war, it was not Christianity, it was the cult of Mammon. I doubt anyone forgot that Dick Cheney as Vice President was still getting a regular paycheck (as "deferred payment") from Halliburton, a giant corporation who was in the perfect sectors to get several highly lucrative no-bid contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Dahn posted:However, the difference is that one emphasizes the forgiveness part, and the other hangs onto the violent bits. And my point was that the New Testament (less os the Bible) is an overwhelmingly pacifist text. The Quran is much more ambivalent, and pragmatic. Dahn posted:28% of Muslims worldwide think violence against civilians could be justified. I'm not saying there aren't major cultural differences, but what precisely do you mean here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I will instead remind you of Chechnya being, like Nigeria, a muslim country that has been brutally occupied by a European, Christian nation. Shall I remind you of Turkey and Egypt, christian countries, brutally occupied by a Middle Eastern, Muslim nation...  What is the point of this stupid discussion? But please continue with this inane intellectual masturbation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Pakistan famously suffers from sectarian violence (with ~10% Shi'a), recently suffered a massive Taliban strike killing over 100 muslim children, and has more Christians and Hindus (each) than the UK has Muslims. Pakistan was created to be a Muslim country; it was separated from India specifically for that. The poor suckers who happen not to be Muslims (or, worse, not to be Muslim in the right way) don't get to have a say. Cingulate posted:And I'm not sure how literal you mean that statement about muslims having to agree with what religious leaders say. It has become a cliche to say this, but Islam does not have a pope. It is a very informal and non-authoritarian religion, textually at least. You don't need to have a pope to have a religious leader. You just need to have some prominent imams/mullahs/ayatollahs/whatever title, backed by their own personal police, with authority to make an example out of the heretics and blasphemers in the country. You'll find out that people are plenty eager to follow what the religious leaders say when the alternative is losing body parts; even if the religious leaders don't claim any title higher than "student of theology". Cingulate posted:I will instead remind you of Chechnya being, like Nigeria, a muslim country that has been brutally occupied by a European, Christian nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:It has become a cliche to say this, but Islam does not have a pope. It is a very informal and non-authoritarian religion, textually at least. Islam is the cool place to hang out. You can find most of the cool people there. In Islam you can just chill and do whatever and totally relax. "Take it easy" is the Islamic motto, for example, that's how laid back it is there. Senso posted:Even the supposedly-peaceful Buddhists oppress the muslim Rohingya minority in Burma. The Burmese junta oppress the Rohingya for reasons that are more about national and ethnic chauvinism than religious bigotry. They're perceived as being historically recent immigrants to Burma that were brought in by the British during colonial rule. Eustachy posted:It seems like assorted Hindus and Buddhists would have at least as much of grievances against the imperialist West as Muslims but they're rarely involved in terrorist attacks against western targets. The best argument I've heard along these lines is that if there's anyone with a good reason to hold a grudge against the West in general and the United States in particular, it's Latin Americans. But we don't see Chileans flying planes into skyscrapers or Nicaraguans bombing buses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:28
|
|