|
Talmonis posted:We can't really get a handle on one without talking about the other, as they're linked. People coming from a war torn region rife with extremism (where there currently is a group that claims to want to harm westerners at home, and has done so) are being eyed with susupicion as possible terrorists. No, this is not the main thing that is happening. The islamaphobia is not solely or even mainly directed against the Syrian immigrants. It is a broad smear. Maybe this explains why you think the two are inextricably linked; you're overlooking the underlying Islamaphobia, and thinking it's just a factor of the moment.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm not talking about the refugees, but Middle Eastern immigrants in general. Islamophobia waxes and wanes in America with how recent a publicized terrorist attack in the west occurred. Again, no, it's not just about immigrants. It's also about born-and-bred Muslims.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:By association, yes. That's why it's stupid. Muslims are painted as monolithic by the media any time the Middle East says "boo". I know exactly zero Middle Eastern Muslims, but know plenty of African American and Southeast Asian Muslims who are judged by association. I even have family get poo poo for being Arabic (Lebanese specifically) and living here for decades. It sucks rear end, but it's linked. No, it's not just by association. Islamaphobia at the root of it is not based on the terrorism stuff, it's based on racism and it being a non-Christian religion. The media plays its part, but it's just a part of the white-christian-supremacist shittiness that pervades our society. Also, your family isn't Arabic, you mean they're Arabs or Arabian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
INH5 posted:I think that a better analogy is anti-Japanese sentiment. From what I hear, strong negative feelings against Muslims/Middle-Easterners wasn't really a thing among the US public before the Iranian hostage crisis, and obviously it got a lot more widespread after 9/11. That seems like a pretty similar pattern to how the US reacted to Japan's increasing militarism, and then Pearl Harbor. The US had very strong anti-Japanese sentiment before WWII. The Alien Land Law, the Asiatic Exclusion League, the immigration act of 1924--these were not based on Japanese imperialism, just good ol' fashioned racism. Likewise, casual racism against Muslims/Middle Easterners was completely a thing before 9/11. Generally Arabs you saw on TV were either cackling polygamous oil barons or terrorists or goatherds.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Evolution also "says" that if you're in a group with altruists you should abuse the hell out of their generosity and take 'em for all they're worth. Not very instructive, imo. There's some animals that only have response altruism; they wait until they see the other individual acting altruistically before they act altruistically towards them. It's pretty good at keeping cheaters at bay actually, though in some groups the cheaters form mutual altruism alliances where they're altruistic towards each other but not towards the 'suckers' and it's mostly fake altruism towards each other anyway. To conclude, Islam is just another religion like all other religions and can be radicalized or liberalized or ignored. Religions is just another part of culture, treating it as though it's some supernatural thing is silly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You seem to be missing the point: evolution does not tell anyone to do anything. No theory does. Yes, it's flawed inasmuch as the conclusions some people drew from it were awful. When theories are flawed, we change them and fix them. That flaw does not make evolution bad or wrong, no more than Islam's own flaws make Islam itself bad or wrong. Islam doesn't have any flaws, because there is no such thing as "islam". ANy flaw you can point to will be present in some forms of Islam but not others. quote:You still haven't answered: why is it so important to you that Islam be absolutely flawless? That's a standard that literally nothing, ever, can satisfy because everything is flawed in some way. Nothing is perfect. Why should anyone feel bad because any specific thing is not perfect? Nobody is saying Islam is flawless, I don't get how you can come to this idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Of course! It should go without saying that I'm only criticizing the flaws if and when they are actually present. This doesn't make any sense, then, to talk about "Islam" having flaws or not, because Islam doesn't exist like that. That's what people keep telling you. You're never just criticizing 'islam' or pointing out a flaw in "Islam". quote:
So you're saying absolutely nothing about Islam, then, right? It's not just Christianity or Judaism, it's a ton of other cultures too without any religious impetus. quote:EDIT: And again, I'm not saying that means that Islam is bad. Just that it has some very flawed elements, born largely of the sociopolitical context of 1500 years ago. I don't know why people are working so diligently to twist this into some kind of Islamophobia on my part. Because you keep really weirdly admitting Islam isn't a monolithic whole and then saying stuff like "Islam has some very flawed elements". Islam doesn't have flawed elements except to the extent absolutely everything does so it's an absurd observation to make or to think is important. There is no reason or value in criticizing "Islam". You can't do it. Tei posted:I have a problem with the entire religious thing. Plenty of societies are wildly homophobic and misogynistic without a religious impetus for it. It's almost like religion isn't a real supernatural force, but just another part of culture, no different from the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Tei posted:I don't like many cultures, either. You don't have to say 'either'. Religion isn't different. shrike82 posted:I think FGM is a pretty clear indictment of Islam as it is practice today. It's a pretty clear indictment of your bizarreness, given that there's huge areas of Islam where FGM is not practiced, and areas where Islam isn't where it is. It's not something that stems from Islam, it predates it, demonstrably. Always one of the more ignorant and odd attacks on Islam to see, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Seriously, are you defending FGM? Nope. Nothing i said is in any way a defense of FGM, as is super obvious by me not saying a single thing defending FGM. I forget, are you a gimmick poster who pretends to be real dumb or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Is it common in non-islamic cultures? Yes. Or, depending on how you define common, it's not common in Islamic cultures.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Jesus, a quick google seems to show that it's most prevalent in muslim MENA. Not exactly a good look for Islam. A quick check of my knowledge of how to think about poo poo shows that prevalence isn't actually a good measure of much, though. If Islam is what produces FGM, why are there Muslim societies with almost no or almost no FGM? Why are there Christian areas that perform it? Wow it's almost like it's a cultural practice that existed before Islam and exists outside it too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:This is pretty frightening stuff. Yeah, those Egyptian Coptic Christians sure are bad for doing FGM, aren't they? I'm glad the overwhelmingly Muslim country of Niger barely has any incidences of it, though, that's cool. Maybe the Christians in Egypt can follow those Muslims' example.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It is pretty troubling to see Daesh as being an arbiter of mainstream islam though. Good thing nobody did that, you shitposting star, you. I'm figuring maybe you're trying to make anti-Muslims look like total morons, in which case, well done my good person.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Nonsense. The House of Saud's expansive support for its domestic religious establishment includes spending billions on proselytizing. Sending out Saudi-trained imams is part on attempt to create a religious rationale for their rule, just as the support of groups like the mutaween are. What did that have to do with what I said? PT6A posted:Yes, and just like Muslims, they would be wrong to do so. A Christian is someone who professes the Nicene Creed. A Muslim is someone who recites and believes in the Shahada. Sometimes, when you're a sane member of these religions, unfortunately your co-religionists do very insane, bad things in the name of that religion, that may or may not be justified by their interpretation of that religion and its scriptures. Too bad, so sad; deal with it. You don't get to decide that they are No True Christian/Muslim any more than they get to tell you that you are No True Christian/Muslim for following more liberal practices. Which is why it's moronic to talk about "Flaws in Islam" or "Flaws in Christianity".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Religion and history are so deeply tied together I think it's pretty much pointless to discuss what would have happened without it, no one really has any idea. Religion is also just a part of culture and no different from any other part.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Tei posted:Probably not all intelligence's are build the same way. So maybe we will find some spacefaring civilization where religion was never invented or was never important. No, religion is a lot more than just afterlife. Religion isn't different from other cultural aspects. Stop making it into magic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Tei posted:Yes, its also other things... Culture is also bad science. There is nothing special about religion in that regard. And they had experimentation in the olden days, you mean the scientific method in full, which is more than just empiricism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm not saying if you get rid of religion everything will be sunshine and rainbows. I'm saying that it will go a long way towards mitigating hate crimes. Sociopaths are going to exist no matter what, its part of the human condition, but getting rid of the easiest way to justify being a shitheel does help lower the instances of being a shitheel. Stop treating religion like it's magic. It's just another part of culture. You can find every lovely thing done in the name of religion done in the name of just plain culture too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Nori_Takeshi posted:Not that there isn't a cultural aspect to religion, but last I checked people didn't become suicide bombers in the name of 'their culture.' Of course they have. Are you really that ignorant? The first goddamn suicide bomber ever, Yegor Sazonov, didn't do it for religious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Ooh look at your edgy caps! What does 'toxic' mean, and how religion more toxic than other elements of culture?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think its been touched on more than a few times. It gives rise to bad ideas that are inherently harmful and untrue in the guise of morality. So do other parts of culture. quote:It also makes honest discussion of issues, particularly of science and behavior, extremely difficult because of the taboo's and prohibitions monotheistic religious beliefs inherently have. You're loving kidding, you think there aren't non-religious taboos?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Tei posted:Generally non-religious activist try to cause terror attacks without dying. While religious terrorist may think that dying don't matter much because they will acquire the reward after dying. The reason is because many religious persons believe in a after-life. How the gently caress did you come to this conclusion? What study did you do, what did you look at? Did you just have a good reckon, or did you do any amount of research whatsoever? I'd note one of the most famous religious terrorist groups, the IRA, had an explicit strategy of causing terror attacks without dying, but don't let that bother you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do you mean exactly when you say religious terrorist group? I mean that they were a Catholic terrorist group fighting against a Protestant state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:They weren't, actually. They couched their violence in religious terms, but it's widely accepted that the actual conflict was secular in nature. They were, actually, by the same definitions that apply to Islamic terrorists. They were a group entirely composed of one religion, fighting against a group composed of those of a religion they considered hostile and against those of their own religion who made common cause with that other group. Of course there were 'secular' aspects to it, because religion is just another part of culture. Daesh also had secular goals and aims. So does Al Queda. If you are going to argue the IRA wasn't a Catholic terrorist group: what percentage of them--the PIRA--were not Catholic?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
khwarezm posted: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? Sure, if you use that categorization. So what? quote: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. Hey, maybe that's because religion is just another part of culture
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
khwarezm posted: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. Why are you convinced they're not secondary for ISIS? quote:
Just a total loving coincidence they're all Catholics and fight protestants, they certainly never used such terminology when fighting each other, obviously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m01_ro0rHc When they disarmed, the fact that the witnesses they chose were a Catholic priest and Protestant minister--just a coincidence! Not because religion was a huge part of the sectarian divide, no no. Anyway, this all doesn't matter because the rear end-stupid theory was that religious people were fine with dying in their cause because the afterlife. You may deny all you want the religious component of the Troubles, but you're not, I assumee, denying most members of the IRA were observant catholics who believed in the afterlife, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Hasn't ISIS overtly stated that they want to start a new state based on religious terms and texts vs the IRA that wants their culture to unify the entirety of Ireland? I think there are a lot of similarities here, but if you're going to measure how much religion plays a role, ISIS absolutely has the greater religiosity going on. Sure,. Actually figuring out which was more religious would require actual effort and work and not simply taking statements at face value, but obviously one will have more stuff going on in the area of culture we semi-arbitrarily call 'religion'. quote:I would posit, as I had before, that if not for religious zealotry there would be far less grounds for either group to rise. Especially since in both cases its been religious sectarian divides that were the basis for their political formation. You missed the whole point of that conversation though, you goofball. As an atheist I sincerely wish you would shut the gently caress up forever about religion, by the way. Saying that religious and political divides are seperable is foolish. They're intertwined, because religion is just another part of culture. It is not actually supernatural.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:You keep arguing against something I've never said. I never said they were two separate things, I'm saying that the fact that they are intertwined is bad. I'm arguing that we ought not intertwine them and that the intertwining is what has led to these bad political, social, and yes even economic situations. No you unbelievably thick person who thinks he's smart, I mean they're inseparable. There is no dividing line. All sorts of things you call 'cultural' are if you take a look at them based on the same poo poo as religion. There is no difference between them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm pretty sure I went to great lengths to say that faith based thinking is bad and is a part of religion and religious thinking and we should do away with respecting said religious thinking, faith, and yes, "religion". You're getting so mad because I'm not writing a huge disclaimer about the intertwining of religion into policy and into culture when I think everyone pretty much understands that it is a part of culture. I'm merely saying its a lovely part of culture we're better off with and would have been better off with a long time ago. No, again, read this very slowly: It is not separable. It is not intertwined in that way. It is blended. It is not seperable. you yourself probably believe all kinds of poo poo that, if you actually looked it, would qualify as religious. khwarezm posted: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. Have you read the interviews with their fighters where they know gently caress-all about Islam? quote: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. Again, wasn't the point of the conversation. quote: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. Again, wasn't even the point of the conversation. Do you get the point of the conversation was a claim that religious people made suicide attacks, while non-religious people didn't, because religious people believe in the afterlife?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm saying its totally separable. I know you are. you're wrong, easily and demonstrably wrong. quote:If American Atheists became the ruling political party of the US, they wouldn't be "blending" in religious overtures. Its entirely possible to separate faith based rationalization from actual secular policy. Historically its been intertwined, but it doesn't have to be. Especially in the US, there were huge arguments about even including Why are you suddenly talking about policy and not culture? And I'm sure that you, with your level of thinking, have a ton of faith-based ideas yourself, they're just not 'religion' so you don't question them. quote:It doesn't matter if they know a lot about Islam or not, they're on the team calling themselves the Islamic State. They'd fighting for some modicum of faith, which is bad. Doens't matter if they're not actually religious, because otherwise you'd have to think about that and that would be hard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I don't consider myself an atheist, not by the definition of most self-declared atheists, at least. I don't care about God and don't really give a passing thought to his existence in either direction at all in my day to day life. A good post. What really gets me is that by treating Islam (or any religion) like that it buys into the view of religion as this super-important powerful force with supernatural powers to make people irrational. The irrationality that leads to religion is part of human nature and is almost assuredly functional, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Are you saying that its impossible to have a culture that doesn't have religion intertwined into its laws, mores, and norms? And I don't mean just cultural references, but having a position of authority?D NO, you person who amazes me with his inability to grasp a simple concept: you cannot distinguish between an element that is 'cultural' and one that is 'religious'. There is no meaningful distinction. At all. If you think there is, give me one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Religion is an aspect of culture. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we shouldnt derive values, law, or norms from it. We should separate it out as a bad part of culture with little relevence. A nice myth to use as allegory and nothing more. Again, no, you can't separate it out. It is not worse than other parts of culture to derive values, laws, and norms from. There are plenty of parts of culture that act exactly like religion and yet have gently caress-all to do with the supernatural. Why can't you grasp this? This doesn't challenge an average freshman.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:Everything is the same as everything else; everything has already happened. Nothing can be distinguished from the next. hosed up if true. But not, so phew. computer parts posted:No, plenty of actual scientists believed in eugenics too. It requires an axiomatic belief to exist (i.e., some races are fundamentally inferior than others), but that's not a high bar to clear, especially if you're not a scientist in the field of biology. A very good example of a cultural belief that isn't religious but shares all its flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:You seem to have a thing for telling Muslims(among others) what they really believe. Despite the fact that most major schools of Islamic jurisprudence regard FGM as either a religious obligation or something sanctioned by Islam. The proof of this statement lies where? quote:Despite the fact that tens of millions of women and girls in countries where FGM is prevalent regard it as a religious obligation. And your explanation for FGM among Christians in Egypt, the almost total lack of FGM in the almost-totally Muslim Niger, and the fact that FGM predates Islam, is what, exactly? quote:Weren't you trying to lecture the thread about how "there is no Islam", and therefore there are absolutely no flaws in Islam? Not that I'm disappointed to see an abandonment of such an incoherent position, but "there is One True Islam and I am the arbiter of what is and is not Islamic" doesn't seem an improvement? That is the same position I just took in that post, too. There's no one true Islam. What are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:You aren't forgiven! Religion is not the only faith-based system, not all of religion even depends on faith, culture is full of faith based systems, stop treating religion like it's special.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also, what defines a religion is completely arbitrary. You won't be able to craft a definition that doesn't either exclude many belief systems we've acknowledged as religions, or include many belief systems that we haven't acknowledged as religions. He hasn't been able to grasp this for like two days, I'm starting to think he never will.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I have grasped that a while ago, I don't know why you're so hung up on it. I feel like you're so mad about some tiny detail that you're ignoring the larger argument being made. Religion is "special" in that other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Christians are A-OK mocking Scientologists, but Islam or Mormonism (though less so) is somehow moral and noble. Religion is unique because it gets special status. It's not a tiny detail, it is something which completely undermines your point of view, and you don't actually understand it. quote:Religion is "special" in that other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Yes they have, you idiot. How on earth can you believe this? How about the belief in male superiority?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Nice complete change of argument, self-parodying man. Again, your claim: quote:other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Answer, no, you're wrong, because male superiority is a cultural aspect that's been around for 2000 years and gets tacit and vocal support as moral and good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I wasn't aware that male superiority was considered moral and good, though? Oh, so it happens to be a dominant idea but people think it's immoral and wrong. How does that work in your brain?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 15:48
|
|