|
computer parts posted:Most religious denominations are explicitly anti-authoritarian. Like, that's the whole gimmick behind Protestantism. There's nothing intrinsically anti-authoritarian in Protestantism, its just that they generally rejects Catholicism as too deviant from the true authority of the bible. Consider that Protestantism only survived by wedging itself into already elite circles and allowing them to further consolidate their power by removing the Catholic church from the equation, further said elites decided what their subject's religion was going to be without much input from the people.
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Was the Khmer rouge really that bad? Sure I heard they killed people for wearing glasses, depopulated cities in an effort to create a brutal agrarian society and started a suicidal war with Vietnam but that's probably all  Western Propaganda!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, if your actual problem is homophobia and your critique is intended to advocate reform of the teachings of some Islamic sects and the legal systems of some Islamic countries that's not a problem, but some people use that criticism as an excuse for bigotry. Homosexuality is not 100% legal in Indonesia, depending on where you live you can be subject to religious influenced laws that victimize it. quote:Two, gay rights weren't won in the west by attacking anyone's religion or saying Christianity is incompatible with modernity or anything like that. The gay rights movement didn't come out swinging against Christianity telling people their religion was the problem, because attacking people's religion isn't the way to get them to listen to you. LGBT people treated Christians as individual people with independent minds and appealed to them with out common humanity, that gay people are people too, that they're your neighbors, relatives, and friends and that homophobia was doing very real harm to ordinary people just like them. And that worked, a lot of Christians reevaluated what they'd been taught and reconciled their faith with their new realization that gay people aren't demonic perverts waiting in the shadows. Lumping them all together and saying "well your religion is wrong and you need to change it" probably wouldn't have been as effective and would have given ammunition to the conservatives who claim gay people are just out to fight Christianity. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's still legal in a lot of places though so even if you're right it doesn't change the fact that lumping all Muslims together into a monolithic Islam isn't valid. I'm not saying that all Muslims should be lumped together on the issue, but its a pretty low standard to set that Homosexual activity simply be legal. But even there, by and large Muslim majority countries don't meet that hurdle by a large margin. Some of the ones that do, like Turkey or Albania, have a history of state enforced secularism, often violently suppressing politicized religion. I would have to say that there does seem to be a problem with LGBT issues in the Muslim world in general, even if you compare it to christian countries most of the countries that can apply capital punishment to homosexuals are majority Muslim and have a heavily religiously influenced political and legal system. Is that Islamophobic? quote:I didn't say that Christians could never be homophobic, I said that the gay rights movement focused on convincing people of our own dignity and letting them reconcile that with their faith rather than as a mass anti-Christian campaign. The Gay rights movement, and other such movements also made sure that secular state structures remained intact and benefited from religion becoming a less important part of people's day to day lives. They didn't go out of their way to victimize Christians or anything but they welcomed and abetted religion being a thing that was kept in peoples homes and churches and out of the courthouses and capitals. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, I mean large parts of the West has had it for an amazing 13 years! True, the retreat of political religion in the west has been pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The retreat, such as European nations only wanting to take in Christian refugees from Syria. Nice segue, but if you really think things are worse these days maybe we could travel back to 1950 and see if anywhere in Europe wouldn't have sooner wiped out any Muslim refugees than let them in? Besides Poland and Slovakia don't speak for the whole continent, Germany expects to receive a million people this year and Sweden almost 200,000 without much regard for their religion, if the Christian nature of those countries were still so important none would get in. Considering that most people moaning about refugees do so because they fear it will remove the Christian elements of the continent it doesn't really undermine my point anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
What do you mean exactly when you say religious terrorist group?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:crazyman Einstein with his toxic belief in God, so it was no surprise that the 1943 atomic attacks on New York, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Boston knocked the US industrial machine out of the war and led to a quick capitulation. Einstein wasn't really religious in the way some people like to think he was. Besides Nazi Anti-semitism seemed to be more obsessed with the Racial aspects rather than the religious ones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I mean that they were a Catholic terrorist group fighting against a Protestant state. By this interpretation we'll have to reexamine what people were saying about the Tamil Tigers earlier, perhaps we should look at them first and foremost as Hindu terrorists fighting a Buddhist state? I don't feel that defining either of these conflicts are well explained religiously, the IRA were quite secular (leftist even) and the Troubles are more an ethnic conflict than a religious, its just that religion became the most important single signifier between the two groups in Northern Ireland.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure, if you use that categorization. So what? You called the IRA a religious terrorist group, and comparable to Islamic terrorists, but its a loving retarded comparison to something like ISIS since the religious elements are so secondary. First and foremost the IRA is an Irish nationalist group that (supposedly) fights for the defense the Nationalist community of Northern Ireland with the Ultimate goal to unify the North with the South. It is not fighting some kind of sectarian war against all Protestants in the world, but ISIS is with Shiites! The IRA doesn't fight to extend the power of the Papacy but ISIS claims to be setting up the ultimate claimant of authority in the entire Muslim world.There have been attacks that are explicitly about perceived disrespect towards religious practices. The IRA doesn't fight on anything like the same grounds as al-Qaeda or what have you, religion is much more incidental for them by comparison. Its a useless comparison. VitalSigns posted:
I'm just saying that Einstein wasn't really religious at all, especially by the standards of his time, he rejected the idea of a personal god and otherwise seemed to generally Agnostic or of the belief that any creator had little meaning at this point in time, he often compared the wonder he felt at the Universe to that of a religious experience but it didn't make him actually religious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why are you convinced they're not secondary for ISIS? Because they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort rooting out out heretical elements, to the point of attempting to genocide the Yazidi and wrecking UNESCO world heritage sites because of idolatry, have set up a state grounded in explicitly religious language and custom to the extent that they call themselves the 'Islamic State' and have attracted thousands of fighters from all over the world by advertising themselves as the truest representatives of Islam. We can be cynical about their true intentions but from what I can tell about the life of people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi he seems to have been pretty serious about his religion and I would presume a lot of the rank and file really do think they're fighting for Islam. quote:Just a total loving coincidence they're all Catholics and fight protestants, they certainly never used such terminology when fighting each other, obviously. I'm not denying all religious elements, I'm saying the religious elements in the Troubles and the IRA aren't in the same ballpark as a lot of islamist groups like ISIS, with their stated aim of establishing a worldwide revived Caliphate, get rid of the heretics and create an Islamist utopia, it is a less religiously informed conflict, maybe that makes them a bit less willing to blow themselves up? I've already recognized that religion plays an important role, the most important role in defining identity in Ireland, I live here for fucks sake, but as I said religion is primarily a crude indicator of the more important question of whether or not they're Irish or British. Perceptions of Irish nationalism as entirely sectarian is extremely narrow anyway, even the most hardcore Catholic nationalists tend to recognize the contributions of Protestants to the country and the nationalist movements, some of the most important figures among the IRA pantheon include people like Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Charles Stewart Parnell and Edward FitzGerald. Have a song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmPbC1rYYOA
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Second, assuming it does, so what? Most people don't know much about their religions, but that doesn't mean they aren't sincere about their belief. That they are uninformed is a nice idea that they are straying away from some platonic ideal, but do we if that really makes a bit of difference in the end? Al Baghdadi seems well informed given his background and education, while the authorities in countries ranging from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Sudan are also, I presume, well informed about Islam but it doesn't stop them from regularly performing gross human rights violations in its name. quote:Again, wasn't the point of the conversation. And you claimed that the IRA proved that wrong by not launching suicide terrorist attacks, to which I pointed out that it is way less truly religious in nature compared to groups that do, like ISIS. Ddraig posted:Meanwhile many actual people who are knowledgeable about Islam and have legitimate criticism of it are often ignored because they're part of some Monolithic Islamic Whole that can't be trusted to know how it really operates - they're in too deep. The interesting thing to me was that I saw a lot of criticism directed at her from my other leftist (mostly christian) friends, because she was perceived to be concentrating too much on Islam and being excessively harsh and uncompromising in her rhetoric. The thing is the language she seemed to use didn't seem like it would get any eyes batted at her if she was talking about Christianity or Judaism, and I would have thought that since she was speaking from a background of experience it made sense that she would talk mostly about Islamism. Incidents like that make me wonder when legitimate criticism, even from people of Muslim backgrounds, can be voiced because I get this overriding impression that well-intentioned leftists are the ones too willing to throw critics of Islam from Muslim backgrounds under the bus compared to somebody like Bill Maher and talking to people from Secular or Ex-Muslim backgrounds they sometimes say that as well. E; Here's the video, she had on her blog, excuse the dumb title and dear god don't read the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ZiZdz5nao khwarezm fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Bill Maher and Dick Dorkins are both representative of the New Atheist movement, and are both extremely Islamophobic and sexist. Clearly New Atheism is a toxic ideology that must be expunged from society. New atheism has little reach, influence or respect while also being extremely poorly defined so fixating on it is pointless. Despite that it seems to cast a strange spell on religious people that results in vastly more literature been made attacking its small number of texts compared to the amount of stuff any of the New Atheists ever wrote so I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I forget the quote but it goes something like: For Fascists the enemy must be both strong and weak. Legion yet scattered. Ineffective yet fear inducing. Thats how you get yourself elected, by painting a schizophrenic view of your enemy in order to get people upset and worked up about it. Umberto Eco.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 21:25
|
|