|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Er, the First Amendment only protects against interference with the free exercise of religion. It doesn't guarantee you won't be discriminated against for belonging to a particular religion. Discrimination and free exercise are not really compatible.
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
If we're putting forth suggestions for "religions better than Islam" I'd like to nominate Sikhs. They're a pretty chill bunch of dudes, with an excellent history of equality for women, do not view science as anathema (their creation myth is pretty much the Big Bang) and as a plus for bigots look enough like Muslims that you can kick the poo poo out of them if you have a hard time spotting Muslims.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Islam is the light, Islam is the way I once stubbed my toe in a mosque because it was quite dark so I don't think this is quite true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
I'm wondering what it is about Islamic culture that makes it particularly potent and effective at destroying the native culture of a place where an insignificant amount of Muslims live that other cultures don't have. Jewish, Italian, Catholic culture didn't destroy the western world. Quite the opposite actually. Maybe if your culture can be destroyed from the inside out by a small cabal of people that have no real power then your culture isn't worth a poo poo to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What would it take to start an Islamic Enlightening? The Peace of Westphalia and the horror of religious wars, as well as the state taking power from the church started the European one, could similar circumstances exist in the Middle-East after ISIS? Honest answer? Heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia, in lieu of a full scale military intervention. If we can't do that, then at the very least stop sucking their cock constantly seeing as how they're the single biggest funder and exporter of "Radical Islam" in the entire world.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
I feel the issue of suspicion of people who are fleeing their homes, for their lives, is largely thanks to rhetoric that emphasises that they're potential terrorists when the reality is that they are probably the people least likely to be terrorists, giving that they are refugees, which has a very, very specific political and social meaning. If they were people who wished to kill the infidel and engage in terror attacks they would probably be best served in joining up with ISIS as opposed to running for their lives away from them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Islam is far from perfect. Even Muslims recognize this. The kind of mealy-mouthed "Well Islam is bad because of x" claims are frankly ridiculous since they lack even the most cursory knowledge of any single aspect of Islam and don't really posit any sort of interesting or meaningful criticism because they're usually so vague as to be almost completely worthless. Kind of like how people constantly demand that "Muslim leaders" constantly defend their faith, which is pretty ignorant of Islam as a whole since Islam, strictly speaking, does not have a hierarchy of power - there is no universally recognized leader of the faith. There is no real scholar of Islam that is more recognized as "knowledgeable" as any else, and individual Muslims, when looking for guidance, are usually told that it's a very specific interpretation and that others may interpret it differently. There's no Islamic Pope with complete infallible that can make pronouncements on aspects of the faith from on high and universally condemn/praise a practice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think FGM is a pretty clear indictment of Islam as it is practice today. FGM isn't an Islamic thing, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Jesus, a quick google seems to show that it's most prevalent in muslim MENA. Not exactly a good look for Islam. Yes, it looks very bad for Islam if you selectively fail to take into account the vast Islamic diaspora all over the world that doesn't practice it and views it as abhorrent. Good point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:We've seen a handful of moderate clerics issue fatwas against stuff like FGM and terrorism but it's pretty clear that the wider religious body isn't listening considering how both is so prevalent in the Middle East. If you want someone to denounce terrorism and have terrorists listen it will have to be a Wahhabist that does so. Asking anyone else to do it would be like asking a Quaker to take the canonical pronouncements of the Pope as gospel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
The Caliphate is contentious even among Muslims, there's no "majority consensus" There is an alternate Caliphate that exists in Iran in the Shi'ite tradition, and even the Ottoman Caliphate was considered by some to be illegitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
There is a Christian legal system that allows for violent physical attacks on homosexuals. Do you not know that Uganda exists? In a concession they made the actual state mandated death penalty into life imprisonment but it does give extra-judicial carte-blanche to treat homosexuals however they wish, which has led to a tenfold increase in violence and many murders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
If you want to get down to the theology of it, Christians, to be Christians, must fundamentally believe that Jesus Christ created a new covenant. This supersedes the covenant previously attested to in the Old Testament, which includes the levitical law.. This is why Christians can eat pork, shellfish, wear different kinds of fibers in their clothes and don't have to put gay people to death. So the Westboro Baptist Church, by following levitical law, are not actually Christians, since they deny the Covenant created by Christ. HTH.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17. In the larger context this means that Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant of perfect obedience on fear of "curse" 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”' Which is keeping with the blood sacrifice belief inherent in Christianity - that Jesus gave his life to break the old covenant and usher in a new one. I guess the important thing is that there are multiple interpretations of scripture and they don't all necessarily agree, and it's thanks to this that many positions that are seemingly contradictory to faith can be reconciled. This is true of all Abrahamic religions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:So you have no grounds to condemn Westboro Baptist as not Christian and it all remains garbage. Thanks for clearing that up. If the Westboro Baptist is entirely Baptist, then they believe in sola scriptura, which makes the case that the old covenant being overthrown by the new even stronger seeing as how they reject the reams of canonical law that try to prove the opposite. A hell of a lot of Christians would regard the WBC as not Christian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Given that almost the entirety of Western culture and art has been predicated and built on the back of religion I think we probably wouldn't be better off without it. The Renaissance wouldn't have happened, for one thing. I'm not even religious but I couldn't live in a world without William Blake, so thank God for religion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
I'm curious, what do you consider the best aspect of humanity right now?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
What's controversial is the idea that religious people are engaged in suicide bombings in order to attain eternal bliss in the afterlife when all the major abrahamic religions, and indeed most eastern religions, view suicide as the ultimate in transgressions. Assuming someone was devoted enough to their faith to be willing to die for it they might want to check out the "Don't kill yourself you loving idiot" clause which is pretty prominent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I mean that they were a Catholic terrorist group fighting against a Protestant state. They weren't, actually. They couched their violence in religious terms, but it's widely accepted that the actual conflict was secular in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
I don't think ISIS are actually religious. They're born out of the remnants of the de-Ba'athification schemes put in in Iraq. Many of their top leaders are allegedly former Ba'ath (which was a secular movement) There's probably a good chance that the rank and file members are potentially true believers but I doubt the convictions of the actual leaders. They're using the religion as a tool for political ends, not as the end itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
I don't think taking ISIS at their word is probably the best course of action. Next thing you'll believe the Pope when he says he cares about the plight of the world's poor while sitting on a throne worth more than a devout catholic will make in their lifetime.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
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. What really sticks in my craw, particularly with criticism of Islam, is that it usually comes from an incredible position of ignorance. There are many, many legitimate criticisms made of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church that are actually specific, direct, and display a level of knowledge about how it operates. A lot of actually good athiests, and many Catholics themselves, make these criticisms. The idea that they are beyond reproach, are sitting on a huge portion of the entire wealth of the world, in both economic and cultural terms (the amount of artwork they have, often stolen, is insane - way worse than even the greatest excesses of the British Empire) etc. When it comes to Islam however, it's usually "Well they're a religion, so I guess they're bad". Even worse is when they make claims that are not actually substantiated by Islamic doctrine and are actually practices that pre-date Islam and are found in populations that would never likely have had any contact with even the proto-Islamic forebearers (i.e. FGM). It's the rhetorical and intellectual equivalent of that stoned guy in the party who totally has a profound insight into how War Is Bad, Man. Wow, real deep - I'm pretty sure with insight like that you'll be a huge contributor to the concerted effort for world peace - when can I be invited to the Nobel Peace Prize party coming your way? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
It's not as if there's been a concerted effort, in the Western world, to ostracise and turn away their single greatest allies in the fight against extremist Islam - people who are actively running away from it because they fundamentally disagree with it and would otherwise be killed. There have been countless examples in human history of people who are fundamentally opposed or victims to "toxic" belief/political systems being instrumental tools in helping to stop them. Much of the support for blockading South Africa during Apartheid only came when people who lived in that regime were able to share their experiences and their knowledge of it. The Nazi's outright rejection of "Jewish Science" led to their complete and total destruction by the former Jews who fled etc. Jastiger posted:Let me ask a quick question on this, Ddraig. Do you think that the same criticisms applied to Christianity could apply to Islam? In a broad or analogous sense? In a broad sense? Absolutely, much in the same way that a dog is, in a broad sense, the same as a cat, which in an even broader sense is the same as a human and an even broader sense the same as an amoeba. I once again refer to the "War is bad, man" element. Well, no poo poo, Sherlock. Once you reach such a broad level it's completely loving meaningless. At the level of thought such a statement is operating on you can roughly say that the American Civil War and World War 1 were both exactly the same because a lot of people died, and that's bad. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'd say the existence of the modern Republican party disagrees with that notion, but thats not the focus of this thread If this were actually the case they would not be able to put their shoes on, let alone be able to hold any form of office. I think you've got the idea that, for the vast majority of people, their beliefs shape who they are, rather than them choosing their beliefs to justify who they are. A hardcore gay-bashing Christian does not become a hardcore gay-bashing Christian because that is what the doctrine requires of him, he is a hardcore gay-bashing Christian because he's managed to find a belief system that complements and justifies why he is the way he is. People, in the vast majority of cases, mold the culture to fit themselves - the culture in the abstract just provides the material to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Of course being a gay-bashing Christian isn't the default state. I never said it was. What I said was that people with homophobic views can easily justify those views using the material they have available. A homophobic person can find justification in the Christian doctrines, as he could in virtually anything. People tend to use what is available to justify whatever beliefs they have, regardless of the source. It is in within living memory that a great deal of rational, smart, educated people earnestly believed that eugenics was a valid tool for the betterment of mankind, based on a flawed interpretation. Should we, given that this belief was a source of great evil, tear down the entire scientific establishment? If we want to be consistent, that is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Even the proud Anglo-Saxon tradition potentially had the same level of shame associated with being the "bottom" Being called a rassragr (i.e. one who is penetrated as a woman would be) was an insult so insulting that if you didn't meet it with violence it would be taken as true.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes they have, you idiot. How on earth can you believe this? How about the belief in male superiority? gently caress that, how about the entirety of the legal system? Unless you subscribe to the view of natural law (which in the west was largely pushed by Christians) it's just as much of a dogmatic, made up system as any religion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Tei posted:Because men have superior strength than womens. If might makes right, why do we have a legal system? Also holy jesus  lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Isn't it the American myth that the pilgrims and the Indians were just fine and dandy and they all sat around the table peaceful-like eating turkey when all of a sudden out of nowhere the Indians just all died and there was no explanation? I guess you might find people who know about the Long Walk of the Navajo or the Trail of Tears or something but I'm imagining for most Americans the Natives came, gave food to the Pilgrim fathers then retreated to their casinos, where they can still be found to this day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
What very little testing that has been done on it (very little has been done, for obvious reasons) suggests it could possibly be part of an asteroid, which is indeed very cool. A group of Inuits in Greenland used a pre-historic asteroid to craft metal tools, which was cool as gently caress until in typical fashion the white man turned up, stole the rock and subjugated them all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Jastiger is this you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LHU-tMSJEo
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Islam is pretty drat schismatic down many, many lines. Even down to the founding of the faith, and after the death of Muahammad there were many, many different teachers who professed that their understanding of Islam was more in line with the truth than others. This goes down to the levels of individual mosques, many of whom will have different interpretations. This is actually pretty hugely encouraged in the faith itself because of the way its structured. Ironically, if there's any formal power structure in Islam at all, it's probably closer to the academic framework than it is the hierarchical systems present in other religions. Fatwas are the "papers", if you will, that are written by the various scholars using their own research into the Sunnah and the Quran and put forth, and every other scholar uses their own research and insight to determine if it is supported by the evidence or not, as the case may be. So if we take, say, a very controversial Fatwa (calling for the Death of Salman Rushdie, for example), this isn't actually the work of the religion as a whole, not even any particular school, it's purely the work of a small group, possibly an individual, and there were many, many people who challenged it, and rightly so. Comparing it to Christianity is pretty ignorant in some of the basic facts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Near where I live there's a Unitarian Church right next to a Salvation Army church which I imagine makes for fun weekend trips.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Does Santa Claus need to punch some more motherfuckers? He shits in the stockings of every Unitarian at Christmas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Allahu akbar, big kids will pay for saying Santa isn't real. Santa was real. He also punched Arius at the Council of Nicea because he was poo poo-talking the Trinity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Tei posted:Part of fighting terrorist is to ignore them. Terrorist are like "internet trolls" and do it for the mass media attention. Finally something I actually agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Except the correct response was literally nothing, because it was a 12 year old child with a backpack that had an integrated cellphone charger. It's not a matter of ignoring terrorists (though your point is correct in general), it's a matter of acting like you have some semblance of a functioning brain. They put this kid in juvenile detention for 3 days. I don't see how you could have made a less rational response to the situation than that. The kid had a heart condition so it's lucky they didn't tazer him. What the gently caress is wrong with the police?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 02:31
|
|